• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Strictly Come Dancing
Viewing Figures Better without Brucie?
PurpleRiley
17-11-2009
According to the sun today, the viewing figures for Sat nights Strictly were better than they have been all year, implying that Bruce's absence was why people tuned in!?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...stay-home.html

I personally don't mind Bruce, but on the odd occasion when I am not home to watch the live show (will watch when I get home via Sky+) I do fast forward alot of his jokes etc..

I thought Tess did a good job front of house and liked Claudia at the back, as the conteatants are already relaxed with her from being on the couch on ITT though the week.
bargepower
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by PurpleRiley:
“According to the sun today, the viewing figures for Sat nights Strictly were better than they have been all year, implying that Bruce's absence was why people tuned in!?”

Well, it was the only reason I watched SCD, the first time for 2 years. Bruce completely puts me off anything he's in these days, I'm sorry to say.
quisling
17-11-2009
I watched the first two shows live, then have relied on the iPlayer since then.
I watched on Saturday though, because I'd read about Forsyth's absence and I absolutely loved it!
PurpleRiley
17-11-2009
I did cringe alot watching his 'singing' in Blackpool!
arddunol
17-11-2009
I don't have a problem with Bruce Forster; I thought Saturday's show was the worse for him being absent , and for the presence of Ronnie Corbett .

The problem is with the overuse of scripted jokes etc , he would be far better left to adlib.

However , Claudia was fab back stage .

Strictly is not going to attract large numbers of the teen age group, it aims to attract family viewing , whilst X factor sets out to appeal more to that younger age group .
Replacing Bruce with a trendy front man , so to speak , won't attract more viewers.

I alos think a far proportion of SCD viewers are recording Xactor ; I'm not too sure the opposite is true . Viewing figures include those recording the show don't they ?
mossy2103
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by PurpleRiley:
“According to the sun today, the viewing figures for Sat nights Strictly were better than they have been all year, implying that Bruce's absence was why people tuned in!?”

It would be incorrect to draw that conclusion based upon one set of figures (especially as no proper survey was undertaken to find out the reasons why people chose to watch). There are of course many reasons why people watch, and why viewing figures increase. This is just an opportunistic and liberal interpretation based upon one single week.

Hardly conclusive.
Gill P
17-11-2009
Quote:
“Bruce Forster”



Who he?
Doghouse Riley
17-11-2009
Isn't it a natural progression that the interest in the programme increases as the series goes on?
Last week was likely to be a "crunch week" regarding eliminations.
Electrat
17-11-2009
Is it not more likely that the viewing publics' interest was slightly peaked by the change in helmers. I was certainly wondering how it was going to turn out with Tess taking Bruces spot. Personally I find her quite annoying with a complete inability to adlib. Claudia on the other hand is glorious.
cosmic dancer
17-11-2009
I never liked Bruce's presenting much, and was even more annoyed when I read he earns more to do SCD than ALL THE PRO DANCERS TOGETHER. That's outrageous, THEY make the show .
So I'd find it funny if the title of this thread were true.
arddunol
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by arddunol:
“I don't have a problem with Bruce Forster; I thought Saturday's show was the worse for him being absent , and for the presence of Ronnie Corbett .

The problem is with the overuse of scripted jokes etc , he would be far better left to adlib.

However , Claudia was fab back stage .

Strictly is not going to attract large numbers of the teen age group, it aims to attract family viewing , whilst X factor sets out to appeal more to that younger age group .
Replacing Bruce with a trendy front man , so to speak , won't attract more viewers.

I alos think a far proportion of SCD viewers are recording Xactor ; I'm not too sure the opposite is true . Viewing figures include those recording the show don't they ?”

Hmm , I wrote Forsyth My Pc changed that !!!
Tidlee
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by cosmic dancer:
“I never liked Bruce's presenting much, and was even more annoyed when I read he earns more to do SCD than ALL THE PRO DANCERS TOGETHER. That's outrageous, THEY make the show .”

If that's true, I agree its an OUTRAGE!
fraggle_bean
17-11-2009
Actually it could partly be a number of switchovers from X Factor - I know a lot of people who said they were boycotting it after the Deadlock debacle and were going to try Strictly instead - maybe that was a fairly nationwide opinion?
CASPER1066
17-11-2009
Bruce earns about 350.000 a year the pros earn 17.000 its a shame. The judges earn about 32,000 or more.

THE SHOW WOULD NOT EXSIST IF THE PROS WERE NOT THERE....EVERYONE ELSE - QUESTIONABLE.
tonydancer
17-11-2009
17 grand isn't much, is it? But if the public like you, you can probably earn five times that in private lesson fees, enrolments at your dance school(s), appearances and endorsements.

Once you're accepted into the Strictly family, all you really need is a good agent.
DavidJames
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by CASPER1066:
“Bruce earns about 350.000 a year the pros earn 17.000 its a shame.”

It's also, technically, wrong.

The professional dancers earn about 30K. We don't know how much Bruce earns.

Originally Posted by CASPER1066:
“THE SHOW WOULD NOT EXSIST IF THE PROS WERE NOT THERE....EVERYONE ELSE - QUESTIONABLE.”

There are hundreds of gorgeous and talented professional dancers out there who could take the place of any pro at the drop of a hat.

Supply, meet Demand.

Clear?
sweetiepie31
17-11-2009
[quote=arddunol;36726426]
The problem is with the overuse of scripted jokes etc , he would be far better left to adlib.
[quote]

i totally agree. remember karen and mark's microphone tangle? He handled that really well, giving the lady who came to sort them out a quick twirl. that's what he does, not an autocue automaton like Tess. Although, I have to conceded Tess wasn't too bad front of house!
ForerroRocher
17-11-2009
Is 10.9 million one of the highest peaks so far this series? I've seen lots of viewing figures with 8-9 mill, but don't recall seeing any with 10 mill (I don't check them weekly though, so I wouldn't know for sure anyway).

If so, I think that's brill. At one point, I heard something about peaking at 8 mill (again, it may not be certain) and I thought we were quite lucky with that, considering the fact the show didn't really get of to the best start and a lot of viewers threatening to switch off etc. So if we managed a peak of 10 mill, I doubt anyone would complain.
gig-ge-dy
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by tonydancer:
“17 grand isn't much, is it? But if the public like you, you can probably earn five times that in private lesson fees, enrolments at your dance school(s), appearances and endorsements.

Once you're accepted into the Strictly family, all you really need is a good agent.”

Originally Posted by DavidJames:
“It's also, technically, wrong.

The professional dancers earn about 30K. We don't know how much Bruce earns.


There are hundreds of gorgeous and talented professional dancers out there who could take the place of any pro at the drop of a hat.

Supply, meet Demand.

Clear?”

Hit. Nail. Head.

Getting a slot on Strictly is only where the pros earnings start. And I'm sure they all can smell the breath of no end of others who'd jump in to their shoes.

You can leave the show to go and set up dance schools, start a 'media' career ... only AFTER you've been on it.

If the BBC are still after cutting the wages bills, am sure they'd have no trouble finding talented replacements willing to do it for half the money. Same ought to be the case for radio DJs.
Fatima502
17-11-2009
Originally Posted by Gill P:
“

Who he?”

They mean Brendan Foster
sey77
17-11-2009
I can believe that. I can't stand bruce. His tired old jokes, stumbling over the autocue, poor attempts at singing and general presenting have all been a turn off for a long time.

The majority of my friends record the show, or watch it on
a time delay so they can forward through his wittering.
quisling
17-11-2009
I doubt if all the pros get paid the same, anymore than the celebs do.
I expect their agents all haggle for the best deal they can get and the most popular ones are bound to get more than, say, a new, unfamiliar pro.

However, Brucie gets an astonishing amount of money for misreading an autocue.
Probably more then 10 times the wage of even the most well paid pro -

Quote:
“ Forsyth, 81, said on the corporation’s programme Newsnight that he thought that entertainers “get paid far too much”. He is thought to have taken a 25 per cent pay cut, taking his salary for the series to £500,000, from £660,000.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6831679.ece
PurpleRiley
18-11-2009
I do think that paying an 81 yr old man £500k for 4 months work a year is a bit extreme!!
I hink that the dancers DO deserve more as they put much more time and effort into the show than Brucie does, he does the rehersals on Friday and the show on Sat.
But, the dancers work everyday, we've seen VT's on ITT showing that the pros spend Sunday coreographing the next week dance, and then spend all week training with the celeb, the BBC is certainly getting value for money from those guys!!
Although, you have to remember that this is not the only thing that the dancers do, I am going to see the Anton and Erin show 'Steppin Out' in January and the tickets for that are £34.50 each, I am sure they are getting a healthy chunk of that!
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map