I'm a Celeb % announced today.XF will do too next week.Why wont BBC SCD do this too?

2 of 2

nancy1975

10-12-2009

Originally Posted by grunson:
“About the only thing I can think of that they might want to hide would be an embarrassingly small number of votes compared to the estimated viewing figures.

I am not really sure where the 'commercially sensitive' argument the BBC uses really comes in. I suspect what they really mean is that the higher ups involved with the show will somehow lose face if the figures are revealed.

I don't know about a 'right', but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to be told the results of a vote. Perhaps JS would like to take the lead with this argument, as I seem to recall he equated SCD voting to a General Election.”

I'm sure we haven't been told the number of votes in the final by Bruce since CIN was ditched. I have a feeling the number of votes has gone down since that coupled with the effect of the DO. You did feel more justified putting in multiple votes because you could say it was for charidee. Also, then you could vote all week. Sadly that 'fun' element has gone.

Bhoy1888

10-12-2009

Originally Posted by nancy1975:
“I'm sure we haven't been told the number of votes in the final by Bruce since CIN was ditched. I have a feeling the number of votes has gone down since that coupled with the effect of the DO. You did feel more justified putting in multiple votes because you could say it was for charidee. Also, then you could vote all week. Sadly that 'fun' element has gone.”

Whats CIN

SheShe

10-12-2009

Originally Posted by Bhoy1888:
“Whats CIN”

Children In Need?

nancy1975

11-12-2009

Originally Posted by SheShe:
“Children In Need?”

Yes that's right.

Cornchips

11-12-2009

Originally Posted by zankoku87:
“The BBC say that the FOI Act doesn't apply to the Strictly results as it's "commercially sensitive" - and that's why even after people have put FOI requests in that they haven't had to reveal anything. Therefore, I'd wager starting a campaign with your MP will do absolutely nothing - even if they care enough to take it up.

Personally, I couldn't care less - what would we learn of any interest?”

"commecially sensitive"? Is that the exemption they use? Absolute twaddle imho. How is it commercially sensitive? As a public company don't they have to publish accounts?

How will it affect their competitiveness if its known that on 4 November 350000 people voted for Ola and Chris for example? Twaddle.

thenetworkbabe

11-12-2009

Originally Posted by Kyle123:
“I think the X Factors judge save is alright though, because the contestants are the two least popular. With Strictly, its possible for those who are right up the top with the public to be in the bottom two and go home. The judges vote takes precidence in Strictly, but in XF, the public decides who they like, and the judges pick off the stragglers.”

Only because Simon has excluded the opposition from the top 12, stuck the ones he doesn't want on early, given some people dire songs, given other people massive productions and supporting vocals ,voted some people off as soon as he can, spun against some people, given other people great VTs and only goes to the public vote when it gives the right result. He also has the ultimate fallback position that he just gets rid of the winner asap if he didn't want them and takes on whoever he did want anyway.

thenetworkbabe

11-12-2009

Originally Posted by Cornchips:
“"commecially sensitive"? Is that the exemption they use? Absolute twaddle imho. How is it commercially sensitive? As a public company don't they have to publish accounts?

How will it affect their competitiveness if its known that on 4 November 350000 people voted for Ola and Chris for example? Twaddle.”

It affects Chris's marketablity though if only ten people voted for him and if hiding that is in his contract you can't change it. As soon as you have a good chance of being revealed as someone that no one voted for the numbers of people who would do the show must go down.

Ceroc-ker

11-12-2009

There is one big difference between the X Factor and Strictly. The objective of the XF is to get a Christmas No 1 and line Simon Cowell's pockets even more. Strictly is not itself going to generate cash for the winner (and definitely not for the judges) - but it relaunched a certain Ms Dixon of course.

Therefore Simon Cowell wants and values the public's opinion because they are the mugs who buy/dowload the songs. He couldn't give a monkey's who is best, as long as the one the people want wins - they are doing the buying.

thenetworkbabe

11-12-2009

Originally Posted by gig-ge-dy:
“Think most of you already sussed the reason. It would cause a lot of complaints. They let the public vote take precedence when you get down to 3 couples, but in earlier weeks the nature of the show means there will be lots of times where the person who survives the DO was way behind the person who goes out on the public vote. Even though most people are aware that the DO is added to the show to raise some dancing credibility for the later stages, if you actually gave them the numbers and show how often someone more popular with the public on any given week went out, it would be reminding them of something they tacitly accept (the judges are given more than 50% of the power in earlier weeks) and they might not accept it so tacitly any more.”

Or the other way around - if you had the votes it might be apparent that the voting had nothing to do with the dancing and any attempt to claim it was a close competition was misleading. Both DOI and IAC 2009 had runaway winners, the Sun's X Factor opinion poll today suggests the winner there will also win by 4O% over his nearest opponent. Both SCD 08 and DOI 09 had 40+ % votes going to their worst dancers. IAC's votes avoided any female under 60 and anyone black and the same thing happened to any female under 40 on DOI. DOI had its best females getting under 3% of the vote.

ITV can live with that because it doesn't have a charter that requires it to have reality shows that have something to do with talent . It also seems to be able to get awaywith the biases that are undeniable in the voting. The BBC though is in real trouble as soon as it reveals that Ricky has had great difficulty getting votes when he has topped the leaderboard more often than not or if it turns out that the next three best dancers had no votes either because they were the wrong sort of female for the voters.

Its a can of vipers each way - which is why they will keep the lid on it if they have any sense.

Bhoy1888

12-12-2009

You know even just telling us the % but not the actual amount of votes would be a start

2 of 2