Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Sofabet Article- How to Watch The-X Factor


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-11-2013, 04:52
earldbest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,762

http://sofabet.com/2013/11/12/how-to...-the-x-factor/

I wonder how many of these points DS posters miss out on.
earldbest is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-11-2013, 10:53
scratchy23
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,749
Sofabet is fascinating and gets it spot on a lot of the time. It can be really tenuous sometimes though with it's theories. Complete bullshit sometimes.
scratchy23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 11:20
rbdcay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,200
Sofabet is fascinating and gets it spot on a lot of the time. It can be really tenuous sometimes though with it's theories. Complete bullshit sometimes.
BIB as with a lot of the conspiracy theorising on this board.
rbdcay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 12:07
Jessica_Hamby
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,543
Interesting comments from Charlotte Church about the how the judges have no creative input to the show.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s103/...-eyes-out.html
Jessica_Hamby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 12:42
earldbest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,762
Interesting comments from Charlotte Church about the how the judges have no creative input to the show.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s103/...-eyes-out.html
If that were 100% true, what kind of magic potion do they have Gary Barlow on?
earldbest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 13:00
Jessica_Hamby
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,543
If that were 100% true, what kind of magic potion do they have Gary Barlow on?
Gary's career has hardly been stellar recently. I'm sure he's glad for the money and the publicity.

He's latest record is another piece of middle-of-the-road tat that makes Status Quo look edgy.
Jessica_Hamby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 13:02
twingle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 15,721
I remember reading them Matt, Rebecca and 1D year and they looked spot on
twingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 13:14
Eve Elle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,157
Even though sofabet might seem to get lost in their own theories sometimes (they get to a point where even the most inconsequential things are given great meaning), overall, they make very compelling cases mostly. It's fascinating really, so long as you approach it with an open mind but don't lose your own objectiveness. With the financial risks involved in something like the X-Factor, very few things are simply "left to chance".
Eve Elle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 13:29
David_Morgan
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
Nice article - but I was hoping for more. It seems to me entirely reasonable to state that the show is managed; you don't really need to defend that assertion. However, that management results in a tension. The tension comes from the fact that ITV want viewers and SyCo want a commercial act. Give the public what we want and you gain an audience, but, potentially, lose the future star. Bias too heavily toward a commercial launch and you lose viewers. Of course, you need viewers to form a decent launch pad and you need successful, post-XF, careers to attract future contestants of calibre. It's a multi-axis balancing act designed to maximize revenue - viewer enjoyment is just a by-product.

I've never watched the Voice - I assume it is badly made like everything else from Auntie - but it does sound like the better show as the SyCo element is removed from the equation.
David_Morgan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 15:08
twingle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 15,721
Nice article - but I was hoping for more. It seems to me entirely reasonable to state that the show is managed; you don't really need to defend that assertion. However, that management results in a tension. The tension comes from the fact that ITV want viewers and SyCo want a commercial act. Give the public what we want and you gain an audience, but, potentially, lose the future star. Bias too heavily toward a commercial launch and you lose viewers. Of course, you need viewers to form a decent launch pad and you need successful, post-XF, careers to attract future contestants of calibre. It's a multi-axis balancing act designed to maximize revenue - viewer enjoyment is just a by-product.

I've never watched the Voice - I assume it is badly made like everything else from Auntie - but it does sound like the better show as the SyCo element is removed from the equation.
The voice is no different from X factor just they disguise manipulation better although saying that last year was pretty transparent
twingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 17:38
Patti-Ann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,969
It will be interesting to see their comments on Abi.

I'm rather confused myself about it. She was allowed to shine on week 1. Week 2 she did the unsuitable Kylie song (and odd staging - what were the umbrellas about )

Week 3 was Moon River and Sharon's comment about people putting the kettle on, no doubt prompting a sympathy vote.

Week 4 she was allowed to do a disco song as a ballad (so actually side stepping the theme) and gets praise for it.

Week 5 she's on first, and up second is Sam B's show stopping performance. This will make Abi's performance fade from the viewers mind.

So some weeks they seemed to want her to do well, and others they seemed to stitch her up

Does Sofabet do a piece every week p
Patti-Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 19:19
Jessica_Hamby
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,543
It will be interesting to see their comments on Abi.

I'm rather confused myself about it. She was allowed to shine on week 1. Week 2 she did the unsuitable Kylie song (and odd staging - what were the umbrellas about )

Week 3 was Moon River and Sharon's comment about people putting the kettle on, no doubt prompting a sympathy vote.

Week 4 she was allowed to do a disco song as a ballad (so actually side stepping the theme) and gets praise for it.

Week 5 she's on first, and up second is Sam B's show stopping performance. This will make Abi's performance fade from the viewers mind.

So some weeks they seemed to want her to do well, and others they seemed to stitch her up

Does Sofabet do a piece every week p
Week 1 was Livin' On A Prayer. I thought that was a very poor choice for her and left a quite bad impression. I felt the first two weeks were designed to portray her badly and pretty much blow any chances she might have had.

Week 5, not only was she on first but she was followed by the John Lewis ad and then Sam Bailey's VT in which she meets Michael Bolton as well as her performance. Then came Nicholas, who is another of the favourites.

To be honest, bu the time Nicholas started most viewers would have forgotten that Abi had performed.
Jessica_Hamby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 20:22
noelw1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 895
4. Controversy = publicity = ratings = advertising revenue

Sofabet have obviously not kept up on recent series. This show has increased its controversy levels and has seen its ratings drop week by week for the last few years.

On top of that, the ratings continue to fall into 2nd place behind a relatively "tedious" ballroom dancing show with no ads, an old and even more tedious presenter and a format that hasn't changed since forever.
noelw1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 22:31
David_Morgan
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
4. Controversy = publicity = ratings = advertising revenue

Sofabet have obviously not kept up on recent series. This show has increased its controversy levels and has seen its ratings drop week by week for the last few years.

On top of that, the ratings continue to fall into 2nd place behind a relatively "tedious" ballroom dancing show with no ads, an old and even more tedious presenter and a format that hasn't changed since forever.
You say this as if it is a bad thing. How can not having ad breaks possibly be a bad thing. We record everything and play it back later, skimming the ads.
David_Morgan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2013, 22:42
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 42,140
Week 1 was Livin' On A Prayer. I thought that was a very poor choice for her and left a quite bad impression. I felt the first two weeks were designed to portray her badly and pretty much blow any chances she might have had.

Week 5, not only was she on first but she was followed by the John Lewis ad and then Sam Bailey's VT in which she meets Michael Bolton as well as her performance. Then came Nicholas, who is another of the favourites.

To be honest, bu the time Nicholas started most viewers would have forgotten that Abi had performed.
Abi said this week that the Kylie song in Week 2 was all wrong for her and entirely unsuitable : proof positive that songs are forced on some acts by the producers and it's far from a level playing field.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 02:54
earldbest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,762
It will be interesting to see their comments on Abi.

I'm rather confused myself about it. She was allowed to shine on week 1. Week 2 she did the unsuitable Kylie song (and odd staging - what were the umbrellas about )

Week 3 was Moon River and Sharon's comment about people putting the kettle on, no doubt prompting a sympathy vote.

Week 4 she was allowed to do a disco song as a ballad (so actually side stepping the theme) and gets praise for it.

Week 5 she's on first, and up second is Sam B's show stopping performance. This will make Abi's performance fade from the viewers mind.

So some weeks they seemed to want her to do well, and others they seemed to stitch her up

Does Sofabet do a piece every week p
Think of it this way: Weeks 2 and 3 prevent her from gaining significant support from floating voters, Week 4 cuts off the sympathy vote, leading to Week 5's perfect takedown.
earldbest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 07:03
Patti-Ann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,969
Think of it this way: Weeks 2 and 3 prevent her from gaining significant support from floating voters, Week 4 cuts off the sympathy vote, leading to Week 5's perfect takedown.
That sounds plausible.

I wonder who is next on their hit list

What's bad about it is that the contestant doesn't realise how they are being set up
Patti-Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 09:55
noelw1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 895
You say this as if it is a bad thing. How can not having ad breaks possibly be a bad thing. We record everything and play it back later, skimming the ads.
Not saying its a bad thing at all, I'm just making some comparison between the shows. I've always found it funny that ballroom dancing can draw more viewers than singing. Sofabets point that controversy = higher ratings is just plain wrong.
noelw1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 10:49
Jessica_Hamby
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,543
Not saying its a bad thing at all, I'm just making some comparison between the shows. I've always found it funny that ballroom dancing can draw more viewers than singing. Sofabets point that controversy = higher ratings is just plain wrong.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The point they're making is that x factor has higher ratings with a bit of cobtroversy than x factor would have without it.

Otherwise I could say x factor has higher ratings than Songs Of Praise so obviously controversy works.
Jessica_Hamby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 10:58
David_Morgan
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
Not saying its a bad thing at all, I'm just making some comparison between the shows. I've always found it funny that ballroom dancing can draw more viewers than singing.
I don't get it either - though more important to me is that XF contestants believe they are good singers, whereas SCD contestants are, largely, ungainly and poor dancers. Why would anybody want to watch bad dancing? If it was a proper dancing competition I might have watched it, but, as it is, it's just a freak show.
David_Morgan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 11:35
earldbest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,762

http://sofabet.com/2013/11/14/abis-j...-manipulation/

Which parts are clear and which parts are crackpot?
earldbest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 14:34
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 42,140
Much of it is probably correct. They were certainly able to screw her over with song choices : there's not a hope in hell she would want to sing Kylie Minogue or 'That's Life' on the show.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 15:32
noelw1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 895
You're comparing apples with oranges. The point they're making is that x factor has higher ratings with a bit of cobtroversy than x factor would have without it.

Otherwise I could say x factor has higher ratings than Songs Of Praise so obviously controversy works.
I'm not comparing apples with oranges at all.

Please read what I put in bold lettering at the top of my original post again. Sofabet claims that the controversy side of things increases ratings. It doesn't and the examples I use to prove this are -

1 - the talent show on the other side at the same time which does not court controversy in the slightest, parades a theoretically less popular pastime and still comes out on top in the ratings war by a distance.

2 - The fact that X Factor ratings continue to drop, week to week and year to year regardless of how controversial they try to make it.

I personally think my point is as clear as day. If X Factor had not messed around with the show so much and got down to basics instead, it would have higher ratings. To re-iterate, Sofabet are wrong.
noelw1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 15:56
Rangermick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 721
I'm not comparing apples with oranges at all.

Please read what I put in bold lettering at the top of my original post again. Sofabet claims that the controversy side of things increases ratings. It doesn't and the examples I use to prove this are -

1 - the talent show on the other side at the same time which does not court controversy in the slightest, parades a theoretically less popular pastime and still comes out on top in the ratings war by a distance.

2 - The fact that X Factor ratings continue to drop, week to week and year to year regardless of how controversial they try to make it.

I personally think my point is as clear as day. If X Factor had not messed around with the show so much and got down to basics instead, it would have higher ratings. To re-iterate, Sofabet are wrong.
Never watched the dance show, hated that sort of thing since "come dancing" in the 70s, but isn't the key here that it's celebrities making an arse of themselves rather than (what were) unknown members of the public?
Rangermick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2013, 16:09
David_Morgan
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
I'm not comparing apples with oranges at all.

Please read what I put in bold lettering at the top of my original post again. Sofabet claims that the controversy side of things increases ratings. It doesn't and the examples I use to prove this are -

1 - the talent show on the other side at the same time which does not court controversy in the slightest, parades a theoretically less popular pastime and still comes out on top in the ratings war by a distance.

2 - The fact that X Factor ratings continue to drop, week to week and year to year regardless of how controversial they try to make it.

I personally think my point is as clear as day. If X Factor had not messed around with the show so much and got down to basics instead, it would have higher ratings. To re-iterate, Sofabet are wrong.
I think I have to side with the Ginger Vampire on this. The simple fact is, you cannot compare SCD and XF - at the very least they are on different channels with wildly different viewer profiles. Controversy may adversley affect SCD's audience, we just don't know. It's apples and oranges because even though they have many comparable properties - size, shape etc - what makes an apple good doesn't necessarily make an orange good; who would want a crunchy orange.
David_Morgan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:12.