And yet I can't help getting involved in the shows. I'm so weak.

If anything The X Factor showed it's the live shows, not the auditions, that need cutting - TXF2011 was up on 2010 during the auditions.

I think 8 hour long shows for auditions is acceptable (they've previously had seven but the first and last are usually 90 minutes) - and then making more of the cull from 200+ to the 40+ live show acts, as that's always been somewhat of an afterthought with acts prominent in the auditions disappearing without a trace while others who sometimes don't get any screen time until the live show making the top 40. They've got to make the episodes count too with potential finalists rather than laughable losers the focus.


Of course if ITV haven't got the episodes to stretch it out that long they could just air one episode on March 24th in advance of the main series beginning in mid-April, similar to what Got to Dance do with an episode before Christmas.

you know me and my high moral code.

Your getting worse than GeorgeS and Andy23.

There are no set times for Saturday night TV. The BBC dont own 6-8pm and ITV1 have 8pm onwards. If there is to be a clash then so be it. How you can make out this is all the BBC's fault is beyond me. It sounds like your still upset about the Beeb scheduling SCD 10 minutes into the X Factor owned 8pm slot.

Getting worse?! I'm insulted - I can be much worse.

I'm really anti the BBC in terms of The Voice. They shouldn't be attempting to be overly commercial in one sector while making cut backs in other sectors where there's little content on terrestrial opposition either. For me, the BBC should be supplying choice; not outrageously copying the commercial sector in a desperate bid for ratings.

As for the Strictly/X Factor clash - they're both to blame. I don't think they needed to clash; they just needed to be mature about it.

Fat chance.

I'm bored of all the BGT talk already. When it comes to Cowell shows most people have their own well established opinions so it's just basically a repeat of the same posts made when TXF was on air!

It's probably because I'm getting older but I remember when Comic Relief night every 2 years was really exciting and something to look forward to, much less 'corporate BBC' than Children in Need night which was always a bit too worthy and dull in comparison.

Now we've got Comic/Sport Relief every year which is practically the same as Children in Need. Do we really need '[random comedians/characters from a TV show] does Strictly/Dragons Den' lame sketches etc mixed in with performances by JLS & One Direction, introduced by Davina, Fearne, Tess etc twice a year every year?!

I agree that the 'Celebrities doing a challenge' thing seems to have taken over thesedays, but I suppose it ticks both boxes in 2012. People being too lazy to do stuff themselves combined with the public's obession with celebrities.

So, we did get to 90 pages in the end then, but it was tiresome BGT and Voice scheduling talk that got us there.

Looks like ITV really are intent on slaughtering the golden goose this year with the extra contestants and 2 hours a night shows, complete overkill, as well as the potential Voice clash potentially denting the audition shows ever so slightly.

Not that I'm troubled by Cowell's 2012 getting off to a worse start than 2011...

I couldn't agree more. You can tell that CR is now a celebfest by the quantity of big name comedy legend talent that gives CR a competely wide berth now.

Emmerdale in crisis didn't have the same hook. though it did struggle last night in comparison to Coronation Street and EastEnders. Emmerdale 8pm tends to be closer to Coronation Street 8.30pm than that.

Spending many millions of licence fee payers money to buy a format very similar to one already being done many times over on commercial TV with one of the key aims to be to dent said commercial programme does seem a bit off really, especially when they are making cuts to areas not provided very well by the commercial sector such as Local Radio.

I find it odd that many are excitedly wishing that The Voice severely dents BGT. From a quality tv & choice perspective, there's no good that can come from that situation.

I hadnt realised...


Singing competitons have been around since the start of time. Its not like ITV or the "commerical sector" created them 10 years ago.

You say the BBC shouldnt be "overly commercial" but what does that mean exactly? Do you mean making shows that a lot of people want to watch? What other sectors are they neglecting?

You also mention the BBC should be "supplying choice". Singing competitions and talent shows in general are very popular so the Beeb making another one is surely satisfying demand.

I never knew you cared so much about "quality tv and choice". Im seeing you in a whole new light now......

I'm good at not making it obvious.


True - but it's prevalent in the commercial sector now. How are the BBC benefiting the viewing public by buying the rights to The Voice? What are they supplying that the commercial sector isn't?


Sport (I don't want to start the Formula One argument but...)? Local radio, as suggested above, which has been cut to smitereens?

And yes I know they're different budgets but the entertainment budget could have been reduced by £20m and the sport (or whatever) budget increased by £20m.

By overly commercial I mean as I said above - trying to ape the commercial sector to the point of spending millions on a product based on a genre which is already covered purely for ratings.


Because there isn't enough of them about at the moment.

Basically commercial TV takes the easy route every time, the BBC should be doing the tough stuff.

That does not mean PSB cannot be popular, but easy ratings from exploitative so-called "singing" competitions does not look like something the BBC should be doing.

What would be tough of a saturday evening would be an actual musical, with singing and dancing of the highest standard. It could be done in a studio, no need for such a thing to be more expensive than "The Voice"

With The Voice the BBC are attempting to buy ratings, and it's not even cheap.

My preference was always to change the format this year - do 8 auditions (2 per weekend), 2 "cut" episodes, 3x120' live shows (one of them a "YouTube" show) and then get 3 hours out of the final (2 hour Saturday show, 1 hour Sunday results). They'd end up with the same number of hours as last year and higher ratings. They'd use the early May holiday weekend for the 3x120' shows and finish on the 12th & 13th. The next two weekends are Eurovision and Champions League so it benefits BGT to be out of the way by the time those come around.

The fact that there are 45 finalists makes this highly unlikely! I definitely wanted to see them reduce the number, maybe down to around 30 at most. And make up the hours on other stages of the show. Plus, I don't think the stripping of the live shows is proving to be at all effective anymore. Not helped by the Corrie mess.

However, that might largel be because the past two years haven't exactly been vintage years (especially last year). BGT remains quite a short run compared to many international versions. NBC get almost twice as much out of the show. The Australian version also has more auditions and more live shows. And we know that ITV and Syco discussed adopting a longer non-stripped format as a possible substitute for X Factor if it had moved to January so as Cowell could continue judging.

PS: Seeing as the BBC is a publicly funded organisation, shouldn't they get the same grief as government departments for how they spend their money? In times of austerity, we're meant to be "buying British". Yet here we have BBC1 blowing millions on a Dutch format to try and damage homegrown formats. Where's the outrage?!

But when the show is strong the schedule offers momentum. The first series took off because of Paul Potts' audition being talked about and it climbed throughout the run. While they've ditched the nightly auditions, the live shows have the same impact. They create debate and immediacy which weekly shows fail to do to such an extent.

I'd like them to think about stripping The X Factor auditions next year - run the audition stage to bootcamp to judges houses in the first week of October before going straight into the live shows. See if that gives a kickstart to a series which is really going to need it.


I'm trying, but I can't do it on my own.

I wouldnt even say its that prevalent. There is X Factor and what else?

The whole argument about what the BBC should be making is a very tricky one. You could argue that there isnt any point in the BBC showing sport, news, soaps, drama, comedy, factual as they are all covered by ITV, C4, Sky etc. But if there was no BBC, TV quality/variety in this country would collapse.



Its important to understand that the BBC didnt buy the rights to The Voice which in turn meant they had to give up half of F1 or cut local radio services. The cuts were made by the BBC bigwigs in advance and the budgets for each department were then spent accordingly. It should be noted that DQF cuts also state "a reduction in peak-time entertainment programmes". I still belive that The Voice will only dent the amount of Dont Scare The Hare, Hole In The Wall, Epic Win type entertainment shows at teamtime, which isnt a great loss IMO.


I think its quote obvious the Beeb bought The Voice to get big ratings and be more competitive against ITV on Saturday nights but I cant really blame them for that. They are expected to act like a public service, non-commerical broadcaster but still get higher ratings and shares than its nearest competitive, commerical rival. I dont see how thats achievable whilst pussy footing around everyone else and not making shows designed for a mass audience.

True, possibly prevalent was the wrong word. But if you want to watch a singing contest we already have one. Does a public service broadcaster really have to produce another?


I agree; the BBC must survive for the sake of quality. But there's a difference between top homegrown drama (which the BBC produce at a much higher level in terms of quantity compared to any other broadcaster), quality news and indepth factual to the standard of Earthflight and throwing money away at an easy option which has no basis in quality and total focus on ratings.


The bigwigs focused too much on light entertainment IMO and not enough on other genres. Especially if the BBC can throw £20m at The Voice.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't BBC One constantly beaten by ITV until the latter had a commercial breakdown started by the franchise auction? Back then most people were more concerned about the BBC producing quality programming than wall to wall ratings.

I know we're in a different world now but the BBC shouldn't be looking to win every slot and bury every single piece of commercial opposition into the dust. As the TV world would be worse off without the BBC; it wouldn't be much better without consistent commercial opposition - an opposition which has already been fragmented.

I doubt BBC would be happy with 5 million ratings. They have paid a fortune for the rights to this show and for the coaches and presenters- they will expect 8 million at least

Although that is in no small part due to the fact that the way in which terrestrial TV is carved up and the overpowering presence of publicly owned channels which has seriously limited the potential for a credible commercial rival to ITV.

We've got ourselves in this crazy situation where Channel 4 is expected to fund itself while being occasionally alternative and niche but BBC1 is guaranteed funding to produce mainstream projects and get ratings.

The "no risk" nature of the BBC means that ITV finds itself in the rather unfortunate position of dealing with a rival that behaves irrationally. Sure, ITV might like to rip off a BBC show. But to them, it would be irrational to schedule their rip off at the same time on the same night as a similar BBC show. I think we'd all have been quite amazed if ITV had announced that after a successful first series, DOI was moving to October to air at 7.15pm. Then got pi*sy when the BBC didn't move Strictly out of the way.

If Channel 4 had bought it (and they didn't because it was too derivative!) then they'd have aired it in January or summer. Because commercially, that's what makes sense. I'm not sure anything can be done about it now. But it's an odd situation and a difficult one for ITV to be in.

I think there's definately room for another. X Factor is only on from late-August to mid-December so there is a huge 8 month window, plus The Voice isn't an exact copy of The X Factor by all accounts.


But if The Voice is getting 8m+ each week and is loved by those who watch it, in the same way many people feel about the X Factor, then I cant see how it cant have any quality.


The BBC has to balance its worthy, PSB programming with chasing ratings. The media will attack the Beeb if they are chasing ratings too much but will also attack them if ITV are constantly beating them in the ratings. Its a very tough position.



The main problem with C4 is it has no identity, no purpose and no direction. It could be such a great channel but is pulled all over the place and I cant imagine who their average viewer would be.

Again, I dont believe the BBC, as soon as they won the rights, thought lets air this directly opposite BGT for its whole run. I would have though the plan would be to start it at the end of February at the latest but getting all the talent involved to film the auditions, battle rounds and weekly live shows meant they had to start it in late March.

We'll see - I guess America has Idol and The Sing Off alongside The X Factor and The Voice but they all appear to be, to an extent, hurting one another.


It's not exactly challenging entertainment. I'm not so much arguing The Voice shouldn't be on TV; just it shouldn't be on the BBC.


The BBC has been holding up more than adequately without The Voice. Indeed, in terms of share it's been the number one channel for quite a while.


As C14E said, the problem with Channel 4 is it's supposed to offer an alternative without the financial structure to support this approach; hence the haphazard commissioning which is now plaguing the broadcaster.


As soon as the BBC won the rights it was seen as opposition to the Syco shows. It would've been the same if any other broadcaster had bought it (except ITV). If ITV had won the rights it would've been seen as a potential X Factor replacement.

Person of Interest seems to be picking up steam in the US, it wouldn't if a UK broadcaster picks it up fairly soon. I think it will go to either Channel 5 or Sky1.

An example from today's Daily Express of how C5 spins its audience figures:

''A total of 9.1 million tuned in to watch Manchester United's clash with Athletic Bilbao. The audience peaked at 5.3 million and averaged 4.3 million''

But surely the average includes the peak ?