It's likely that Chris will win because of his popularity rather than his dancing skills. So next year, let's have analysis of the celebrity’s popularity as well as their dancing. Alesha could give tips on how to be a likeable celebrity (well she was in 2007). Max Clifford could come on ITT to advise on PR strategy.

But that's just it, you can't manipulate people to like you.

An engaging personality and partnership with your pro is something you either have or you don't.

People see through PR.

The Strictly PR team sit down to discuss series 7 before it starts. So then guys who do you think will be a PR mans dream......a 38 year old 5 foot nothing breakfast TV sports presenter or a 6ft hunky soap star with a great body I dont think they would have got that one right.

Wish some people on here would realise that viewers who give a stuff enough to vote won't expend money (and times ARE hard) to vote for people who don't excite them, move them, or make them smile........

There are times when I think the voters need a damn good judging.

Because they hold an opinion different to yours?

Chris Hollins is very likeable, has a wonderful partnership with Ola and is a complete sweetie. That is why I am going to vote for him. It is my money that will pay for the phone call and, at the end of the day, it is my decision. I WILL NOT vote for Ricky Whittle, brilliant dancer that he is, because he does not do it for me. Obviously he will do it for other people. I also like Ali and her partnership with Brian. But Chris makes me laugh - he may not make other viewers laugh - but I think he is adorable and he works very hard. Okay, he may not be the most talented - but I would rather give my vote for someone who tries hard - than to someone who is naturally gifted and finds easier to master the dance.

Viewers are not stupid and no amount of manipulation by a PR guru or the powers-that-be from The Good Ship Strictly will convince the viewers to vote for somebody they don't like, who is not popular even if they display tremendous dancing skills. Strictly is not just a dancing competition - if it were - it would not be on television. Strictly works because the people have a vote. No amount of window dressing will alter that fact.

Who can account for the most popular contestant ever, a small,rotund, unfit, bald man of 65.

Sorry, I just had an image in my head of Craig saying "Your popularity was flawless" and holding up a 10 padle!

I think perhaps you underestimate the power of a really well executed PR campaign.
It's just like the difference between an average salesman and a good one, the average one, you can spot all the sales techniques no matter how well executed. With a good salesman, you don't realise just how good the salesman was until you get home with something you never intended to buy!

All we know of Chris and Ola is what the BBC editors have chosen to show us, it may be totally genuine but unless we know them personally we really can't judge based on what we are shown on TV.

Today's media are so well tuned to how the public will react to certain things that they can stay one step ahead of us and manipulate us constantly, we may not realise it when it's happening, but our whole culture is affected. Psychological studies have shown the effects frequently.
It seems most unlikely that a TV entertainment show is so very different from the rest of our world.

No...it's because it doesn't take very long in a forum like this to see how shaky - even fallacious - the reasoning is behind some of the opinions voters hold...including opinions that, coincidentally, I happen to share.

Just one topical example is the whole issue of 'improvement'...lots of very questionable claims being made with, seemingly, absolute certainty.

But the thing is that with good PR you won't dislike the person. You'll think they're a complete adorable, hard-working sweetie.

You're absolutely right and of course the more times that reasoning is repeated the more embeded it becomes in the brain until certainty is established.

That's true, it's what makes the PR good.
But of course different people respond to different types of PR, hence our different opinions and the fact that Ali and Ricky do get some of the votes, in this case the Chris and Ola story has been very well done and has been pitched successfully to capture a positive response from more of the voting public. In the context of potentially winning the show, that's why it is so good.

Exactly. The way the celebs are presented is going to have a profound effect on whether and how people vote. For instance, Zoe's 'story' (struggled to learn the steps, lacked confidence in her ability) clearly didn't connect with enough of the public and she ended up in the dance off at a surprisingly early stage given her scores.

I don't think that I have been sucked in with the PR for Chris. I liked him from the very first week. I didn't really know him as I am not into sport to any great degree.

I enjoyed his first dance and have been following him, along with others who have gone by the wayside. Now we are nearing the end he is the only one left of my favourites so that it why I would like him to win.

I also didn't know either Ricky or Ali - dont watch Hollyoaks or The Bill but they did nothing for me at the beginning and still don't. If Jade had still been in the competition, then I think I would be rooting for her but, unfortunately she is not so I will stick with Chris.

They did? Surely they've made it up on the fly - that's how it's appeared anyway.

Not in this household!

Hmm - maybe that's where a PR campaign would need a bit of tinkering. It's my belief that people simply don't believe the "I'm finding this really hard to master and I don't actually think I'm any good" scenario when the person in question then comes out and does several pretty good dances and ends up towards the top of the leaderboard.

What's needed there is for them to deliberately underperform for a couple of weeks, go through a deliberate onscreen ITT meltdown (I'll NEVER get this. My scores are just getting worse. <sob sob>), then for them to suddenly "see the light", come out one Saturday and perform to their potential and everyone will think, aw bless - she/he has eradicated their demons and looks so much happier; what an improvement! (Rush to vote.) Bit of a gamble maybe though.

How about a few toe/foot/ankle injuries just for good measure

Yep, that can help too. But you have to make sure you play that one cleverly. Only do it the once, make sure it significantly affects your dance for one week only and don't even think of asking for a bye.

Biggins, Pasquale and Swalsh (?) winning IAC would suggest that not only hunky alpha males can get support - panto dames and weak looking males who some people find funny also get votes. Gino winning IAC 2009 whilst anyone female and under 60, gay or black left, suggests the other usual biases are still out there. Donal on the last DOI would suggest that a likeable male can prove more attractive to a female vote despite being well behind a couple of very attractive white females on ability. Indeed, DOI 2009 showed that you could get 40% of the vote for falling over and 2% for the second and third best performances on the night. Tom on SCD 6 showed you can win with no journey story and dancing worse than the competition - if the competition is two middleclass sounding models. It may be a case of satisficing, but if there's no hunk on a journey to discover their feminine side, the boyish male having fun may well get more votes than the successors of Rachel or Emma or Zoe or Colin, Spooney or Ray.

The only things you can do about that would be to take out anyone who ticks all the boxes for a female audience (which they may have tried this series by having hunky males who were not going anywhere on their journeys) You would then have to moderate the VTs to avoid creating the impression that some people were a bundle of fun whilst others were depressive. Showing people who fall over falling over and those who are doing well, boringly doing well, just creates the wrong impression.

You would also have to change the performance levels of the show. If someone is going to do something crowd pleasing thats not much to do with the dancing, if you can't stop them, you have to let everyone do it. Lets have more Charlestons, Jitterbugs, scenes from Chicago and Grease and lets see how the weaker dancers cope if everyone hams it up with some actually adding the steps and difficult tricks.

Alternatively change the voting so that people can save the one they find most popular for whatever reason from the three worst dancers each week. That would leave the judges to keep the better dancers up to the end for the other competition and allow the voters to keep their candidate as long as they wanted to.

And why do you find Chris so likeable ? Why doesn't Ricky to it for you ? You don't say, but that is exactly the element I would like to see analysed. Clearly it's much more important to you (and others) than their dancing. I'm not proposing PR manipulation, what I do want is for someone to pinpoint why someone is likeable. It would be fascinating.

And we could have two sets of scores like in skating. One for dance ability and the other for "like" ability.

That must be by companies, and celebs and politicians spend millions on PR and grooming. Cos it makes absolutely no difference. Even though we can see though statistics that advertising, exposure and PR projects works to boast sales and popularity it is obviously a figment of our imagination.

Nobody would ever use t-shirts, gimmicks or catchy phrases to gain popularity as that would never work... Clearly the sophisticated audience would see through it just as they see though advertising and refuse to spend on throwaway rubbish at Xmas...

I think they would bearing in mind the demographics of the audience. If it were a pop idol competition, or popular dance competition then Ricky would probably be the more popular one but for a ballroom competion then Chris is more accessable and relates better to the audience.

Again there is nothing wrong with him relating to a more conservative, older audience but obviously it is a factor in his popularity. PR is about relating to core audiences and different audiences appreciate different things. Ricky might appeal to young women and tweeters but how many of those watch SCD? If Chris appeals to the middle aged women and oldies then he is lucky as that is SCD core audience.