What I'm asking for are the signs and patterns that are presented to us in the early stages of each series that point us to whoever will win the show.

I've been reading around and both Leona and Alexandra have that unconfident, unthreatening persona. Joe had that too, as well as Leon.

Airtime is obviously a huge factor. It doesn't really need to be said that an 8 minute audition will build up a fanbase more than a 1 minute audition will.

How about an act's specific style? We've never had an act win who has their own niche that inevitably divides viewers.

Producers' intentions also count no doubt. But do they always succeed when trying to pimp an act? The likes of Diana, Cher, One Direction and Danyl suggest not. But were they ever seen as the real "chosen ones" or were they just there to generate publicity and votes from their dedicated fanbases.

Are there any other factors that I've missed?

And who will win this year based on all of these?

-Shy demeanor (real or put on)
-"Doesn't realize how good they are" edit
-Minimum of decent-level singing skills
-Ability to work the stage
-Generally cooperative to the production team
-No instances of crazy or bipolar behavior

they need a standout performance... like sometime last week

I wouldn't say Matt Cardle or Steve Brookstein ticked the first two boxes. Maybe they only matter for female contestants? Also, none of the male winners have really worked the stage so far. The other points are definitely valid though.


Good point. Do you think they require one in the early weeks too?

Alexandra had the 'Candyman' performance which started to make her a real contender. Leona also had 'Summertime' in week 3. Matt had 'First Time Ever I Saw Your Face' and Joe had 'Don't Stop Believing'. But none of them (bar Leona's since we don't know the voting percentages for her year) really did much for the winners in terms of votes...

If you look at this thread:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...888&highlight=

According to this Gary would win.

Well those who are really hyped up during the auditions, or enter the live shows as favourites don't tend to go on to win.

Even Leona and Alexandra picked up momentum rather than being 'stand out auditions'. Leona's was a short audition, they held her back until about half way through the live shows, then gave her a 'series defining' performance.


Winners tend to fit a mold, as others have pointed out.

The most important one is that they never know just how good they are, lack in some kind of confidence or identity. They always grow in confidence (scripted or real, its always there); and gain an identity during the show, this is the whole story ideal the show has to have and viewers lap up.

This is also why acts such as Misha, Amelia, Kitty this year and acts like Danyl in previous years don't do so well. They come in as "great acts", they have their confidence etc. so they don't build a progressive story, they are good from the get go and are consistently good.


I think there is a simple reason why these people don't pick up momentum, I think its because by the time we reach live shows, the audience have seen what they are capable of and through the live shows they pretty much flat line at a certain level.

Ultimately, the novelty wears off and the viewers loose interest, the viewers know what they are getting and the act has nowhere to go.

It is the "peaked too soon" problem.


Likeability is also very important in a show like this; while I to an extent disagree with it, it is a popularity contest as much as it is a singing competition. But that aside I can understand why likeability helps, because I think it affects most people, if someone is dis-likeable then its difficult to will them on; that's just human nature rather than people being 'stupid'.


I'd say the main traits of a winner are:

1. Progression, they start as outsiders, are not over hyped (so the audience don't get bored of them, or so they don't peak too soon).

2. They tend to have mild mannered personalities, generally down to earth, accepting of criticism and are accessible.

3. Judges comments tend to be very balanced and constructive, never in the extreme.

4. Their defining moment will come somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way through the competition.

5. And of course the above



I think its interesting what others have pointed out about male winners not necessarily ticking these boxes.

I think that's due to the voting audience being primarily young and female. It's easier for guys to do well than it is for girls.

The rules simply apply more to females than they do males, because males have the luxury of having a female voting audience who will get behind them because they 'fancy them', a luxury the females don't have.

Matt absolutely ticked the first two boxes. Nice little painter bloke who just wants to sing. Early edits in live shows about "you have to be confident. don't you realize how good you are???" Granted, most of this was an edit and as far from reality as you can get, but it helped him build a fanbase.

When I say work the stage, I don't necessarily mean a la Rihanna or Gaga or something, but they have to have stage presence. I thought Joe did and despite my disdain for him, Matt to an extent. If you are invisible on the stage (I'm looking at you, Janet!), then it will be a challenge for the producers to care about you and the audience will grow bored. Stage presence is one of the defining characteristics of someone having "The X-Factor".

Im talking more closer to the final.. people tend for forget about the first 5 or so weeks... Alexandra's was Listen, a couple weeks before the final which gained her a ton of new voters. No-one last week had a stand out performance, LM were mediocre compared to previous week, so was Marcus. Misha had a good week but noone seems to be liking her. Amelias stand out could've been the China song but we don't know the percentages so I could be wrong.

They're never the favourite to win at the start of the series (I think all of the winners, even Matt and Leona who dominated the series, weren't bookies favourites as the live shows began)

Great post!

So it's definitely out of Little Mix and Marcus then?

The tricky thing is that it is very difficult to determine who the producers find expendable and who they see as a dark horse of the competition. Both Marcus and Little Mix are clearly the dark horses (with Amelia, Misha, Craig and Janet being the hyped ones) but they could have easily been seen (and were seen) as cannon fodder at the start of the lives - less so in Marcus' case who had a decent amount of coverage prior to the live shows.

In a word... Marcus?

Unfortunately

Who was last year?

I'm sure it was Matt...

It was Matt since the bootcamp performance. He broke the golden rule that favourites at the beginning never win. He also had a few standout performances which helped keep the momentum going - Hit Me Baby, First Time, Nights in White Satin.

I only watched last year but a definite favourite trope I noticed was shyness, lack of confidence- a journey. They used it with Matt to an extent (the way he closed his eyes when singing) and they really plugged it with Rebecca (every VT had her saying 'I think Im getting a bit more confident now'). I suppose it must work.

1) They come across as nice
2) (With the exception of Leon) they sing consistently well. The winner will not produce a stand-out performance every week but generally speaking, in each show, s/he will sing in tune and will not forget the words.

I'm surprised Craig won't win this series then.

Although he probably would have if the producers wanted him to.

You can see a journey.

You can't see that with Misha [can sing - but so consistent, bar her flipping persona, that she's very boring to watch]. Nor with Amelia [though that's not really her fault now, and it's not like she sat on her ass all those weeks out either].

Blandness

I hope to bump this thread once the next series starts to see who will fit this criteria.

Bookmark it

The thing is, when the series starts its very difficult to pick out the 'winner' using this criteria, because its all stuff that becomes apparent as the show progresses. You can get a good idea from about the half way mark, who might be earmarked for the win.


At the start, the winner tends to blend in with the crowed a bit. You can however tell who is likely not to win from the start, i.e. all the ones with auditions that go along the lines of "you're the most amazing thing ever" and start the live shows with the same comments.


The only time I've thought a bottom two contender could actually win it, was when Ruth pulled out that bottom two performance with Purple Rain, due to the amount of attention it brought; it was like her stand out performance had came through an unusual circumstance.


I've gotten Leon's year wrong.

I got Joe's year wrong.

I got Matt's year wrong.

I got Leona right and Alexandra right (although she wasn't my favourite from the start I had a hunch she would take it).

I got Shane's year right, though I don't count it as I was unsure and had a few suspicions of who could win, I mainly predicted Shane or Andy.


In hindsight all the winners are kind of obvious (exception of Leon, never understood why he won and think that may have been the one year things didn't quite go to plan).


I also got this year wrong, with three contestants lol.

In his VT in either the first or second week of the lives, Matt stated that he 'deserved' to win the competition.

So I would have to agree with you.

Improvement and rise in popularity, two important key ingredients that Little Mix have battled for, head on and rewarded.

It's all well and good to wow at the auditions and so on, but consistency tends to catch up with the early favorites and they do catch them out, such as Craig and Janet who were early favorites but were not able to remain consistent.

I always knew Janet and Craig would fizzle out and decline in popularity each week, it happens EVERY single year (Laura/Diana/Eoghan, Lucie/Danyl/Jamie, Cher/Katie/Aiden and now Janet/Craig). I said about 50 times they would never reach the final because they peaked too early and I had abuse from Janet fans saying she was different because she works harder and has tons of support.

The winners always build themselves up or are extremely consistant. (Leon coming from nowhere, Alexandra being completely overshadowed yet the most consistant performer, same with Joe and Matt and now Marcus/Little Mix have built up huge fanbases after being virtual nobodies on the first live show).

Will do.

Well in my OP I asked for the signs of a winner earlier on i.e. auditions/judges houses but I see where you are coming from. I think the best time (bar obviously the final two weeks) to get a clear idea of who will win is in the first two weeks. You can really see who is being overhyped (those contestants won't win), who is being sabotaged (those contestants won't win) and who is not getting great slots but are getting really positive judges comments (they'll most
probably win).

I think when we're trying to identify the winner early on, it is best to use the process of elimination. Take out the clear cannon fodder (next to zero screen-time before live shows - Sophie/James), the overhyped (Janet), the novelty acts (Johnny), the tabloid fodder (Kitty, Frankie) and the niche acts (Janet and Misha). Then exclude who the producers would least like to win (Craig) and then see who is left.

Is this true we do not know the voting figures for the year Leona won, why is that due you think?? I had no idea that was the case, but checked and cannot find them anywhere.

To the OP I agree with what another poster has posted about seeing what happens in the first few rounds, and you get some idea, you can take out as he/she says the joke acts, the fill the show acts, the one pimped too much etc.

However I do not think Matt was the intended winner last year but he ran away with it from week one and they could do nothing about it, as is shown by the voting figures.