Become? He's been a joke judge since series 2 when he sent Maria Lawson home over The Conway Sisters (looking back it was obvious he was told to do so but back then it was more widely believed that the judges acted of their own accord). He accepts being the clown for the pay check and who can blame him?

As I said before, a 'joke' judge is needed to bring some light-heartedness to the panel and all of the big reality shows have them - David Walliams, Bruno Tonioli, will.i.am. So if they do drop Louis they'd need another joker to join the pack for the show not to become too stale. They'd also need that joker to have someone to bounce off; Louis lost his way slightly in the Barlow years because Gary didn't get his humour and approach like Simon and, to a lesser extent, Sharon do.

But other than maybe make it the main event on another night, away from the glare of Strictly, I'm not sure what else they can do. As others have said some formats cannot stand the test of time and The X Factor is one of them. It was built on controversy and shows such as that tend to burn brightly but burn quickly.

Weeks 5-7 all peaked in the 9.0-9.2m range, so last night's peak (most likely 8.2m inc +1) is about a million below that. It does back up your point that the week 7 eliminations have cost them. It's not the first time the show has seen such a trend (series 2, 6 and 9 stand out) but obviously the figures were higher in the past. I thought the show was very good last night (much better than last week) but obviously viewers wouldn't know that unless they tuned in.


Sadly that does seem the most likely scenario. Next year does pose a challenge in the form of the Rugby World Cup hogging Saturdays for several weeks although it's mainly the prerecorded shows that are affected so I presume they'll just run Sunday shows from 7-9pm. If anything they should take the new scheduling as an opportunity to shake up the format a bit. Ditch judges houses (where momentum has been lost 2 years in a row) and have some kind of new round. Or alternatively only have 4 chairs rather than 6 chairs at the challenge and go straight to the lives. Although some kind of public vote to pick some of the finalists could work. If any results shows are needed during that time I assume they'll use Mondays although I suspect they'd rather not. It might mean the live shows running a week or two later than usual though (possibly meaning cutting them down a bit in favour of more pre-recorded shows, which ratings-wise wouldn't be a bad thing) as the first Saturday they'll be able to run on is 24th October and that weekend this year was live week 3.

In terms of the show itself I think this series has been pretty good on the whole. The problem is once you've lost a load of viewers you don't generally get them back. We've seen that with various shows time and time again. I don't think tinkering with the panel again is the way forward, if anything I think they could benefit with some form of consistency and continuity. The panel they have is good anyway, that isn't the problem. The problem is that the live shows especially are just a bit stale. For all the criticism the 6 Chair Challenge gets at least it's something different and fresh (particularly as it has made bootcamp of all things good). The audition stages worked fine this year but the live shows have felt a bit old hat. They don't need new judges but what they do need is a new set, new graphics, better themes and particularly themes and songs that aren't used year after year as that has been an issue this year. Halloween week worked because they really went for it. Same goes for big band week (even if some of the performances were ropey that week the show was fun as they embraced the theme). Christmas worked last night too. But another year of movies week and 80s week isn't what people want and makes the whole thing feel tired. It needs a bit of new energy. They are not going to get back the viewers they've lost but they've got a shot at keeping hold of the ones they've got if they just give the production a bit of a kick up the arse.

Oh and one more thing whilst everyone is axing it: X Factor has declined less this year than Coronation Street, EastEnders or Emmerdale. Just saying.

Friday 28th November 2014 - Consolidated Ratings
I'm a Celebrity - 9.43m / 9.91m
Gogglebox - 3.21m / 4.06m

Saturday 29th November 2014 - Consolidated Ratings
Strictly Come Dancing - 10.75m
I'm a Celebrity - 9.73m / 10.07m
The X Factor - 8.38m / 8.53m
Atlantis - 4.65m

And an update on series averages:

I'm a Celebrity: 9.94m / 10.47m
The Great British Bake Off: 10.04m
Strictly Come Dancing: 10.00m
Britain's Got Talent: 9.25m / 9.82m
The X Factor: 8.64m / 9.04m

Sure, but it's chasing two rabbits and catching neither. It should be concentrating on one.

It's been a while since I've read The Billion Dollar Game (highly recommended), so don't remember the various ins-and-outs and controversies, but Survivor pre-dated Big Brother. Everyone in the UK turned it down. They tried it in Sweden, where it's known as Expedition Robinson, and that was the first show to pioneer returning cast/weekly eliminations. Launched in 1997.

Changed everything.

Does anybody have last years averages for comparision?

D.M.N. - Do you have the overnight figure for Could I Get Ebola? (Mon 1st Dec BBC One 19.30) please?

He has every reason to be smug, it's a show that was devised to be cheap daytime filler, and yet it's getting close to a multi-million pound operation like X-Factor.

Mainly because it has no opposition and a lead out show which peaks with over 10m viewers. Not it's fault and BBC One should be commended for very good scheduling but I don't think it's high figures are purely down to the show's merits. Partly, maybe, but put The Chase in the same slot against the news and You've Been Framed! and it'd probably pull in a similar number of viewers.

Wait a second. Didn't Osman make a similar comment last year, in which he said you could make 8(?) shows for the price of one X Factor?

I think his maths is as dodgy as his ratings analysis.

Let's assume, generously, that one ep of XFactor costs 1.1m. That means one ep of Pointless Celebs costs just 45K. Hmm....

pot kettle!

i make it 137K

K

24 x 45K = 1.1m

Then why quote 8 episodes of PC for the price of 1 XF

K

Complimentary scheduling is surely something that should be commended around here. The Chase has been on at weekends with some big shows around it, never gets anywhere near the figures. Pointless also does reasonably well on a Saturday without SCD. People like it, and they like the timeslot. Gentle saturday night fun.


Sorry that maths makes no sense.

Yet TBH, wouldn't surprise me at all if it costs about 45k, there's little overheads and they film in batches.

Huh?! Osman is saying it's 24 episodes.

I think 8 episodes is closer to the truth.

because clashing with EastEnders wouldn't harm its ratings at all?

but you said that RO said it was 8 episodes, better dig out RO's original tweet!

K

I did say BBC One should be commended on the scheduling.

The issue with The Chase is it may be leading into a big show but it's competition pulls in over 9m viewers. Pointless' opposition pulls in less than 3m. Yes, it does 'reasonably well' without Strictly but only around 1m up on it's daytime episodes (usually around 4.5m).

I'm not criticising the show at all, or the scheduling. And if ITV don't want to try outside the big shows that's up to them.


Any more so than clashing with Strictly for fifteen minutes to half an hour, considering Strictly pulls in a bigger, reality television audience? Plus The X Factor might have more of a chance, at the live stages, over EastEnders as the latter is pre-recorded. And they'd be able to either start The X Factor alongside EastEnders or give The X Factor a 15 minute headstart, rather than now where Strictly has a jump.

It could be an interesting between the two - a race to the bottom.

SCD eviction SPOILER.
DO NOT CLICK if you don't want to know who leaves in tonight's results show (recorded late Saturday night)

Here is a thought, would X Factor be performing worse if Doctor Who was on in tandem with Strictly Come Dancing?

It's more difficult for ITV with all the competition, hence shows running a lot longer than they would have done in the eighties. Also a well publicised list of flop new shows in 2011 and 2012 has made them cautious.

are the above ratings tape -checked as SCD was about 5 minutes late starting last night. X factor was poor rating but faces strong competition it also has the 15 minute clash with SCD,

my post contains SCD spoiler.

Apols for the confusion. Here's Richard's tweet:

https://twitter.com/richardosman/sta...27944964096000

"And for those who think the BBC waste money, you can make 24 episodes of Pointless Celebrities for the same price of ONE episode of X Factor".

You can probably make 24 regular eps of Pointless for that money, but not the Celeb one.

Also, where does that argument end? You could show a kitten pawing at a ball, which costs £1, and it would still get an audience of 1m on BBC One, but what's the point?