Fact - Strictly does not employ controversy and enjoys the highest viewing figures every Saturday night.
Fact - X Factor has increased its controversy levels over the years and continues to see its viewing figures drop.
Conclusion - Sofabet are WRONG to suggest that controversy increases viewing figures regardless of the comparison I have made between 2 shows that people seem very keen to say, are in no way comparable. If the statement were true then either X Factor viewing figures would have risen or SCD would have employed such tactics to increase their own figures.
Yeah. But the shows aren't comparable. :rolleyes:
The only way you can judge this is to compare like with like, in other words X-Factor with controversy against X-Factor without controversy.
There are many possible reasons why SCD is getting higher ratings. Controversy or its lack is only one of them.
There are so many differences between SCD and XF that a direct comparison is impossible.
A better comparison might be The Voice, which X-Factor beats, but even that is not a fair guide. It's a different kind of show.
Fact - X Factor has increased its controversy levels over the years and continues to see its viewing figures drop.
Conclusion - Sofabet are WRONG to suggest that controversy increases viewing figures regardless of the comparison I have made between 2 shows that people seem very keen to say, are in no way comparable. If the statement were true then either X Factor viewing figures would have risen or SCD would have employed such tactics to increase their own figures.
It may have done in the past though ie. the first few years of XF. Perhaps the producers are finding out now that controversies and scandals and fights between the judges are all going nowhere and that ratings are still on the slide (I think the main reason for this is that viewers can actually see through the fakery these days, and without the fakery the show doesn't have a hell of a lot to fall back on).
Okay folks, it seems that you all think my primary concern is to make direct comparisons between XF and SCD. This is NOT the case.
Any comparison I am using is merely to highlight MY INTENDED subject that controversy has IN NO WAY increased X Factor viewing figures. They have tried and failed.
Okay folks, it seems that you all think my primary concern is to make direct comparisons between XF and SCD. This is NOT the case.
Any comparison I am using is merely to highlight MY INTENDED subject that controversy has IN NO WAY increased X Factor viewing figures. They have tried and failed.
Perhaps it did in the early days though? Ratings for the show actually grew year on year from it's inception. The ratings are in decline now, but that may be because viewers can now see through the manipulation (and also because they're growing tired of the format).
Okay folks, it seems that you all think my primary concern is to make direct comparisons between XF and SCD. This is NOT the case.
Any comparison I am using is merely to highlight MY INTENDED subject that controversy has IN NO WAY increased X Factor viewing figures. They have tried and failed.
But what you can't prove is whether the figures would have decreased less or more, or indeed risen, if the controversy had not been increased!
Okay folks, it seems that you all think my primary concern is to make direct comparisons between XF and SCD. This is NOT the case.
Any comparison I am using is merely to highlight MY INTENDED subject that controversy has IN NO WAY increased X Factor viewing figures. They have tried and failed.
What if without the controversy, TXF's ratings would fall faster? That could very well be the assertion of Sofabet.
Controversy levels up, year after year. Viewing figures down, year after year.
There is no proof but as these things both keep happening in line with each other, its a pretty safe conclusion.
Ratings grew for the first five years or so though and there were controversies and fights between the judges back then.
I'm guessing myself that viewers can now see through the manipulation and fakery ie. the supposed controversies and scandals are no longer working (or are less effective).
Yes, there is a big difference between a contrived controversy (ie. 95% of what goes on on XF) and a genuine one.
its a "cry wolf" effect
when something happens now instead of people being genuinely interested and reaching for the popcorn to see what happens next they just do a :rolleyes:
Controversy levels up, year after year. Viewing figures down, year after year.
There is no proof but as these things both keep happening in line with each other, its a pretty safe conclusion.
Also I don't thimk controversy has gone up.
Maria Lawson being eliminated instead of The Conway Sisters and then The Conways going and Chico staying back in seties two - has anything apart from Katie Waussel sitting down and saying Sod It during her singoff and still being saved come close?
Which parts are clear and which parts are crackpot?
I noticed many of these tactics. Noticed all of the ones used on Saturday that were listed here. The comments about her being in the competition next week as if it was a forgone conclusion then the debut of the John Lewis advert followed by two big heavy hitters like Sam B and Nicholas was an over kill to say the least.
when something happens now instead of people being genuinely interested and reaching for the popcorn to see what happens next they just do a :rolleyes:
Indeed, all of the stuff that made the show a ratings winner is now working against the programme. If people can see through the manipulation and fakery, there's not much of a show underneath to keep them hooked.
I noticed many of these tactics. Noticed all of the ones used on Saturday that were listed here. The comments about her being in the competition next week as if it was a forgone conclusion then the debut of the John Lewis advert followed by two big heavy hitters like Sam B and Nicholas was an over kill to say the least.
The key aim of all this is to get viewers not to vote for the act.
I noticed many of these tactics. Noticed all of the ones used on Saturday that were listed here. The comments about her being in the competition next week as if it was a forgone conclusion then the debut of the John Lewis advert followed by two big heavy hitters like Sam B and Nicholas was an over kill to say the least.
being devil's advocate here to a degree
assuming it was deliberate to place abi immediately before the ad break with the new john lewis advert don't you think the fact it highlighted just how weak abi is vocally compared to someone in the "real world" doing a similar style of song actually justifies the criticism abi was getting and she deserved to go ?
just because it might have been a setup, and I highlight the use of the word might, doesn't mean the end result wasn't the right one
Producers aren’t interested only in getting the most commercially viable act to the final. They also have to care about putting on good enough show to attract viewers. Advertising revenue is the show’s primary source of income – by our calculations, far outweighing revenue from phone votes – and how much advertisers are willing to pay depends on how good the ratings are.
That’s why most series contain some controversial acts – think Jedward, Wagner, Katie Waissel, Rylan Clark. Their purpose is twofold: to entertain through outlandish big productions, and to outrage when they outlast better singers. The show thrives on the kind of controversy that is generated when judges are shocked – SHOCKED – to find their competent but boring singers being outvoted by the novelty acts.
Producers generally do their best to help these kinds of act avoid singoffs, because it can be slightly uncomfortable when they have to save them – Simon Cowell’s and the show’s credibility among the more innocent segments of the viewing public took a bit of a knock with the singoff saves of Jedward over Lucie Jones and Rylan over Carolynne Poole, respectively.
When we get to the later stages of the show, there becomes more of a tension between the imperative to keep the entertaining acts around for ratings and to pack the final with acts who have a chance of post-show commercial success. Wagner’s trajectory – given every help for seven weeks, and ruthlessly cut down in week 8 – remains the textbook example."
The above is from the article itself and in no way suggests that controversy is employed to prevent a fall in ratings but, on the contrary, to increase ratings so as to attract advertisers.
I still stand by my theory that controversy has only served to see further declines in viewing figures. Viewing figures have gone steadily down over the last few years and there is nothing to suggest that this will stop any time soon.
assuming it was deliberate to place abi immediately before the ad break with the new john lewis advert don't you think the fact it highlighted just how weak abi is vocally compared to someone in the "real world" doing a similar style of song actually justifies the criticism abi was getting and she deserved to go ?
just because it might have been a setup, and I highlight the use of the word might, doesn't mean the end result wasn't the right one
On the basis of the live shows you make a good point. The question I would ask is was she given a fair go during those live performances? Dif she get the opportunity to show herself at her best?
I still stand by my theory that controversy has only served to see further declines in viewing figures. Viewing figures have gone steadily down over the last few years and there is nothing to suggest that this will stop any time soon.
Whether controversy boosts or diminishes ratings is moot. The essence of that point, albeit perhaps badly expressed, is that the show deliberately trirs to create controversy.
On the basis of the live shows you make a good point. The question I would ask is was she given a fair go during those live performances? Dif she get the opportunity to show herself at her best?
I would say she got as good an opportunity as she was likely to get on the x factor given the type of show it is
and if that sounds like a cop out answer then so be it
she cant have been that naïve to not know what to expect and must have thought she could cope with it
I would say she got as good an opportunity as she was likely to get on the x factor given the type of show it is
and if that sounds like a cop out answer then so be it
she cant have been that naïve to not know what to expect and must have thought she could cope with it
She would certainly know that she was selling out musically by appearing on the show. They could make her sing Agadoo or Nellie The Elephant on the live shows and there wouldn't be much she could do about it,
Whether controversy boosts or diminishes ratings is moot. The essence of that point, albeit perhaps badly expressed, is that the show deliberately trirs to create controversy.
I think you would agree with that.
I agree in full that the show deliberately creates controversy but I cannot accept that this has prevented the ratings from falling further.
Maria Lawson being eliminated instead of The Conway Sisters and then The Conways going and Chico staying back in seties two - has anything apart from Katie Waussel sitting down and saying Sod It during her singoff and still being saved come close?
For me, the real controversy happens at much deeper levels instead of the usual, "Act A got voted out in favour of Act B. OMG, what the hell is going on here", scenario.
I remember a few years back when the focus of the whole show was practically taken away from the contestants and put on the judges. Namely Cowell and Walsh.
It was one of Cowells last series and for the first few weeks or so, he refused to actually afford any of the finalists an appraisal of their performance, instead choosing to take all opportunities to snipe at Walsh and his acts. Walsh, of course, had to snipe back. This for me was the most controversial stuff of all and had it continued, could well have irreparably damaged the show. Fortunately someone saw the light and waved Cowell off as he ventured Stateside. The best decision he ever made was to leave X factor UK.
One more thing I have never liked is that there is little or nothing accounting for the votes or the spread of the votes once they have been cast. The show has a responsibility to declare how many votes it receives (albeit, not to the public) but it has no responsibility whatsoever to account for the spread of the votes. All we get is a percentage. Now, I have never been a guy to shout, "fix, fix.....", but with some of the ludicrous results we have seen over the years, how can we be sure we are being told everything ? Many people believe that at best, producers are influencing the outcome of votes in order to progress the acts that they want regardless of who the public wants. I would like to see full accountability.
Finally, I know that illness can strike at any time, but I think that if an act is unable sing on any given week, they must leave. It is grossly unfair on other acts who have to put themselves on the line in order to progress. What would have happened if Wagner had pulled a sickie on week 8 of his series ? He'd have practically landed himself in the final, is what would have happened. Illness can be used to manipulate results and once again, this is a very controversial area of the show we see pretty much every year.
Comments
Yeah. But the shows aren't comparable. :rolleyes:
The only way you can judge this is to compare like with like, in other words X-Factor with controversy against X-Factor without controversy.
There are many possible reasons why SCD is getting higher ratings. Controversy or its lack is only one of them.
There are so many differences between SCD and XF that a direct comparison is impossible.
A better comparison might be The Voice, which X-Factor beats, but even that is not a fair guide. It's a different kind of show.
Yep. You may as well compare football to cricket.
It may have done in the past though ie. the first few years of XF. Perhaps the producers are finding out now that controversies and scandals and fights between the judges are all going nowhere and that ratings are still on the slide (I think the main reason for this is that viewers can actually see through the fakery these days, and without the fakery the show doesn't have a hell of a lot to fall back on).
Any comparison I am using is merely to highlight MY INTENDED subject that controversy has IN NO WAY increased X Factor viewing figures. They have tried and failed.
Perhaps it did in the early days though? Ratings for the show actually grew year on year from it's inception. The ratings are in decline now, but that may be because viewers can now see through the manipulation (and also because they're growing tired of the format).
But what you can't prove is whether the figures would have decreased less or more, or indeed risen, if the controversy had not been increased!
Controversy levels up, year after year. Viewing figures down, year after year.
There is no proof but as these things both keep happening in line with each other, its a pretty safe conclusion.
What if without the controversy, TXF's ratings would fall faster? That could very well be the assertion of Sofabet.
the problem is we haven't really had any genuine controversy , just contrived stuff that most people see through and are tired of
The article says it is one of five assumptions, not assertions.
Ratings grew for the first five years or so though and there were controversies and fights between the judges back then.
I'm guessing myself that viewers can now see through the manipulation and fakery ie. the supposed controversies and scandals are no longer working (or are less effective).
Yes, there is a big difference between a contrived controversy (ie. 95% of what goes on on XF) and a genuine one.
its a "cry wolf" effect
when something happens now instead of people being genuinely interested and reaching for the popcorn to see what happens next they just do a :rolleyes:
Also I don't thimk controversy has gone up.
Maria Lawson being eliminated instead of The Conway Sisters and then The Conways going and Chico staying back in seties two - has anything apart from Katie Waussel sitting down and saying Sod It during her singoff and still being saved come close?
I noticed many of these tactics. Noticed all of the ones used on Saturday that were listed here. The comments about her being in the competition next week as if it was a forgone conclusion then the debut of the John Lewis advert followed by two big heavy hitters like Sam B and Nicholas was an over kill to say the least.
Indeed, all of the stuff that made the show a ratings winner is now working against the programme. If people can see through the manipulation and fakery, there's not much of a show underneath to keep them hooked.
The key aim of all this is to get viewers not to vote for the act.
being devil's advocate here to a degree
assuming it was deliberate to place abi immediately before the ad break with the new john lewis advert don't you think the fact it highlighted just how weak abi is vocally compared to someone in the "real world" doing a similar style of song actually justifies the criticism abi was getting and she deserved to go ?
just because it might have been a setup, and I highlight the use of the word might, doesn't mean the end result wasn't the right one
"4. Controversy = publicity = ratings = advertising revenue
Producers aren’t interested only in getting the most commercially viable act to the final. They also have to care about putting on good enough show to attract viewers. Advertising revenue is the show’s primary source of income – by our calculations, far outweighing revenue from phone votes – and how much advertisers are willing to pay depends on how good the ratings are.
That’s why most series contain some controversial acts – think Jedward, Wagner, Katie Waissel, Rylan Clark. Their purpose is twofold: to entertain through outlandish big productions, and to outrage when they outlast better singers. The show thrives on the kind of controversy that is generated when judges are shocked – SHOCKED – to find their competent but boring singers being outvoted by the novelty acts.
Producers generally do their best to help these kinds of act avoid singoffs, because it can be slightly uncomfortable when they have to save them – Simon Cowell’s and the show’s credibility among the more innocent segments of the viewing public took a bit of a knock with the singoff saves of Jedward over Lucie Jones and Rylan over Carolynne Poole, respectively.
When we get to the later stages of the show, there becomes more of a tension between the imperative to keep the entertaining acts around for ratings and to pack the final with acts who have a chance of post-show commercial success. Wagner’s trajectory – given every help for seven weeks, and ruthlessly cut down in week 8 – remains the textbook example."
The above is from the article itself and in no way suggests that controversy is employed to prevent a fall in ratings but, on the contrary, to increase ratings so as to attract advertisers.
I still stand by my theory that controversy has only served to see further declines in viewing figures. Viewing figures have gone steadily down over the last few years and there is nothing to suggest that this will stop any time soon.
On the basis of the live shows you make a good point. The question I would ask is was she given a fair go during those live performances? Dif she get the opportunity to show herself at her best?
Whether controversy boosts or diminishes ratings is moot. The essence of that point, albeit perhaps badly expressed, is that the show deliberately trirs to create controversy.
I think you would agree with that.
I would say she got as good an opportunity as she was likely to get on the x factor given the type of show it is
and if that sounds like a cop out answer then so be it
she cant have been that naïve to not know what to expect and must have thought she could cope with it
She would certainly know that she was selling out musically by appearing on the show. They could make her sing Agadoo or Nellie The Elephant on the live shows and there wouldn't be much she could do about it,
I agree in full that the show deliberately creates controversy but I cannot accept that this has prevented the ratings from falling further.
For me, the real controversy happens at much deeper levels instead of the usual, "Act A got voted out in favour of Act B. OMG, what the hell is going on here", scenario.
I remember a few years back when the focus of the whole show was practically taken away from the contestants and put on the judges. Namely Cowell and Walsh.
It was one of Cowells last series and for the first few weeks or so, he refused to actually afford any of the finalists an appraisal of their performance, instead choosing to take all opportunities to snipe at Walsh and his acts. Walsh, of course, had to snipe back. This for me was the most controversial stuff of all and had it continued, could well have irreparably damaged the show. Fortunately someone saw the light and waved Cowell off as he ventured Stateside. The best decision he ever made was to leave X factor UK.
One more thing I have never liked is that there is little or nothing accounting for the votes or the spread of the votes once they have been cast. The show has a responsibility to declare how many votes it receives (albeit, not to the public) but it has no responsibility whatsoever to account for the spread of the votes. All we get is a percentage. Now, I have never been a guy to shout, "fix, fix.....", but with some of the ludicrous results we have seen over the years, how can we be sure we are being told everything ? Many people believe that at best, producers are influencing the outcome of votes in order to progress the acts that they want regardless of who the public wants. I would like to see full accountability.
Finally, I know that illness can strike at any time, but I think that if an act is unable sing on any given week, they must leave. It is grossly unfair on other acts who have to put themselves on the line in order to progress. What would have happened if Wagner had pulled a sickie on week 8 of his series ? He'd have practically landed himself in the final, is what would have happened. Illness can be used to manipulate results and once again, this is a very controversial area of the show we see pretty much every year.