1. SCD is over long - too many couples;

2. SCD is the sort of thing you watch precisely because X Factor doesn't clash with it... so if it does you're going to pick the stronger programme;

3. SCD got rid of a viable judge and replaced with an ornament. Cowell did this with Cheryl and he somehow pulled it off - but this show hasn't the strength to do similar. They have clearly looked at XF and thought how successful he was picking a former contestant in this kind of show to judge - but the SCD choice was a bad one. She is not likeable;

4. Too formulaic - every year has the Fat Contestant, Washed Up Sportsman Contestant; The Slightly Manly Female Athlete Contestant; the minor soap actor from the soap no-one watches Contestant; The ex Eastenders actor who has just had a contract come to an end as SCD was picking up contracts contestant.... etc. They need to shake it up.

I think Alesha should have been a 5th judge to give a "people's verdict".

I think Anton is due to be Brucie's replacment but of course this looks unlikely now.

I do think they need more popular celebrities

I think that maybe SCD will be an X-mas Special only in next 2-3 years

Strictly is a bit stoggy. You never see tails on DWTS. The pros overall are superior on DWTS. The band is bigger aand far superior. The costuming is far better on DWTS.
Brian was chided many times for not wearing tails. Te result show is on the next night wit much bigger stars. Tonight the just had a Michael Jackson tribute. His family was there and the pros were amazing.Strictly needs a kick in the bum. The best thing they ever did was bring on Brian & Kristina. Most people in the UK were initially against it.
It shows you the mindset of the BBC - STOGGY

The voting for him is what damaged the show. All the changes to the judges panel since were designed to try and control the anti-judge vote and the casting seems to have been done to avoid getting the problem back. The show inevitably lost fans last year as good people went and the hopeless stayed and it became more incredible as probably the 4th best dancer won. People won't invest in backing the best dancers or the best journey stories if the people they have found a real reason to back are thrown out for no good reason. At the same time people who liked the controversy last year have only had the Arlene and Anton isues this year and neither has actually increased interest in the competition. Brendan walking off is a poor substitute for people who liked last year's controversy.

You could then add that the show is too long with too many celebs to get to know well. The problem isn't too little back story - its too litle and too little that wasn't invented by some editor as story of the week. The problem is that without spares, the anti-judge vote might take out all the contenders and the BBc wouldn't fill its autumn schedule.

Casting follows. They can't have potentially popular disposable people to go early when the public will keep them in as soon as they do worst. The result is that you need blander people and reasonably good people to go early.

They also seem to be running out of people who are well known and good. Thats also partly due to the way the votes fall and who emerges looking popular or not. Good people may now not apply as the effort isn't rewarded with votes. Nor is doing well on the show as career enhancing as doing well on some others - notably Dancing On Ice. Being seen as unpopular is a decided negative. Even if they find them they have a problem with the best people being seen as favourites . The result is that this year they are in danger of repeating the worst series of DOI with Ray replaced by Ricky G as the obvious winner .Unfortunately, like Ray, Ricky hasn't yet produced a great routine or endeared himself to many viewers. It may work out that the challenger will emerge with a journey story and escape the teachers pet tag by emerging later, but it may be there is no competition or worse that obviously the best dancer is beaten by the default bloke's bloke winner.
At the moment its not a good race to watch and any but one horse may not make the finishing line if you back her.

Apart from being nicer , blander, too long, fishing in a depleted pool of celebrities and having a weak competition so far, Brucie's old audience is getting older and dying off , I suspect his catch phrases are unfamilar to many and I suspect many of his puns go straight over the heads of people brought up on recent (non)comedy shows. The problem is that half the audience do turn in for him and the alternatives mentioned would just turn more people off - Barrowman would even make watching Eoghan sing seem preferable.

DWTS drives me nuts (and I'm American). SCD was always about learning to dance properly. DWTS is about learning to show dance - They are two entirely different types of competitons. Len and Bruno gush over antics on DWTS they would slam on SCD. I much prefer to see the celebs try to learn the technique rather than the flash.

SCD needs to cut the couples back to 12. There are too many and it makes for a hodge podge in the beginning when you have to grab the audience.

Second show for X factor works in that it is a real second show. It is not pre-recorded on Saturday night. Young teenagers don't care about miming. They just want to see their idols. I miming and can't think of a single instance when it should be allowed. But I grew up in a generation where we expected to hear people sing and when they didn't we got annoyed but often understood that the technology wasn't available for a good transmission from the studio. That was 50 years ago. No excuses now.

I've only just come from posting in the X-Factor forum version of this thread - I'm afraid I wasn't quite as restrained as you

For me SCD is an entertainment show first and foremost. It is not meant to be a serious show like the original, 'Come Dancing'. Any celebs and pro dancers taking part should realise it.

For me, last years show was one of the best, especially with John Seargent. It was great to see him defy the judges and get through each week. He made the show (along with Tom Chambers). He was the peoples' favourite. I think this years show misses a 'John Seargent' character. Furthermore, the 'celebs' are not as well known as in previous years, apart from Natalie Cassidy and Linda Bellingham. Maybe that needs addressing.

In contrast to other posters, I prefer the results on the same night as the main show. It really annoyed me that we had to wait until Sunday last year. I am glad that that has been addressed this year. Maybe, as a result, the show is a little long now, I am not sure. Maybe they need to cut back on the 'Tess interviews', the training and the number of couples in future years.

I would also like to see some bigger / current musical acts in the 'interval' bit. Forget Katherine Jenkins and Andy Williams, they need to get Kylie, Madonna, Take That, Girls Aloud, Saturdays etc.

'Strictly' mustn't take itself too seriously, otherwise it will falter. It is a light entertainment show aimed at the masses, or it should be.

The pros on DWTS on the whole are fairly awful as 'ballroom' dancers compared to ours. Just compare the pro dances in the result segments between the two shows and you will see a major difference in quality on the whole. There dancers on the whole are alot more about being flashy than botering about being technically good. When there's multiple couples dancing dwts pros are never anywhere near in sync. Now the flashy element isn't a bad thing from a viewing pov but the technic should be there first (Brendan on ours I think makes a good stab at getting a mix). I would say the 3 who have locked the title for the last few seasons (Mark, Derek and Julianne) are the 3 who stand out as being technically good dancers (but guess what they all largely came through the British system). Other than that I would only say kym and make really come upto par as ballroom dancers (the likes of Lacey are great dancers but only passable ballroom dancers)

I have only watched X factor as I have no interest in dancing, any way I think it is probably because the X Factor can make a worldwide star from a nobody whereas Strictly cant make a worldwide star even starting off with someone who is slightly well known, so X Factor has far more of the surprise factor I guess ( and the same with Britain's got talent ) which is why far more people watch it.

Some people find the dancing itself entertaining and just enjoy watching the stars progress over the weeks...

Perhaps those people, some of whom have watched it from the start, might not want it turned into some sort of banal CBBC show like pretty much everything else on our TVs.

I get seriously hacked off with everything being constantly tailored to suit the lowest common denominator. People with more than one brain cell occasionally want to switch on their TVs and be entertained too.

I think that is unlikely, simply because the BBC needs a big entertainment hit and there simply is nothing else established in the same way. The last show got 7.8 million over two hours plus. There is no other show on the BBC that could do that.
What may be a possibility if next years show continues to deflate, is that the main SCD show moves to Friday night with a live results show on Saturday. That might leave room for the BBC to promote a new reality format-although if they ever did, it would have to be out of house as the in house attempts over the past five years have largely been dire.

The people give their own verdict by voting.

Does there have to be any interesting reason why X Factor is getting more viewers?

Perhaps it's just that more people happen to be interested in a singing competition than in a ballroom dancing competition. :yawn:

I have to chuckle at the continued attempts to make a big deal out of SCD being an "entertainment" show. Does anyone say X Factor is an entertainment show and therefore the quality of the singing is irrelevant? Of course not!

That's because there is a recording contract at the end for the winner. The stars of Strictly just go back to their day jobs.

Also, the no-hopers are weeded out by the judges on X-Factor. On Strictly, everyone is part of the competition - regardless of starting ability.

So I'd say X-Factor is a more serious competition, whereas Strictly is a light entertainment show with a competition element that revolves around dancing.

You took the words right out of my mouth there, Sid.

Great minds an' all that Zan

And ... ?

How's that supposed to mean SCD is (supposedly) an "entertainment" show to the point where dancing is virtually irrelevant while no one makes the analogous point about XF?

The clue is in the title, Strictly Come Dancing. It's not a show for people to so random "entertainment", which is why the celebs generally try to dance rather than going out to do a standup routine or sing.

SCD is meant to be an entertaining dance competition just as X Factor is meant to be an entertaining singing contest. This point is so obvious that it is very odd that anyone questions it.


When are these "no-hopers" weeded out? Do you mean in the phases before the main show (that features voting) starts? If so, it's irrelevant. SCD doesn't have those phases for comparison.


You're making it sound like a variety show (Saturday Night Takeaway?) with an insignificant dance segment somewhere in the middle.

You're also confusing how "serious" the competition is with how central it is to the show. Dancing has virtually the same role in SCD that singing does in XF.

I could pick apart your post Veri, but it's been a long day so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!

Feel free to treat Strictly as a serious dance contest if you wish, but many viewers will see the show as nothing more than light entertainment and that's their call.

The stars of Strictly just go back to their day jobs.

..... unlike the stars of BGT/x-Factor then???

... and the idea that the crap are weeded out early on X-factor unlike Strictly.....

anyone seen XFactor this weekend??

There are maybe 2 or 3 good ones on the entire show, and even THEY arent THAT good!

Well, I have to agree that this year they've failed spectacularly to weed out the crap (and I think 2 or 3 is generous!), but in general the idea is that the contestants are vying to win a record contract and therefore, if they're lucky, change their lives. The competition itself is fiercer. The winner of Strictly doesn't win a career as a professional dancer - although they will get a higher profile, it's not significantly higher than any of the more popular contestants who don't win.

The competitions in the X Factor and Strictly seem completely different to me, and I think they have different aims, personally.

Well I have been surprised by the number of people that watch X.facter and say SCD - oh no thanks etc.

Most of these are older people as well.

Only SCD ones I have met are all the hairdressers where I go but they still watch X.facter as well.

I never watch it but watched it Sunday and found it OK so may just watch the Sunday show could not be bothered with two shows.

Try to find me saying Strictly is a "serious dance contest", whatever that means.

But I doubt many viewers see it as "nothing more than light entertainment" as if there's no competition, no vote, and the contestants might be singing or doing standup or getting their dog to do tricks rather than ballroom / latin dancing.

Losing Arlene and gaining Alesha has ruined Strictly for me. I now save the programme and watch it later mainly because I can then fast forward through Alesha's comments. Because of this I no longer vote. I am usually too late to do so.

A Question. If a programme is saved on Sky is this counted in the audience figures in the same way as when we watch it live?

Not unless you're one of the few thousand households with the equipment.

Viewing figures aren't actually taken from everyone in the country, just a small sample which is then extrapolated.

However, it may be worth pointing out that (for those on the panel) recording and watching later does count, if it's within a week.

However, that delays the numbers by week, and the so the press usually reports the so-called "overnight" numbers instead, since they're available the next day. They don't count watched recordings.