Assuming 2 more celebs than weeks; and a launch show 3 weeks before what do you think the ideal length is? (Yes, I love this sort of trivia )

Personally, I could watch Strictly every weekend in the winter months: September right round to March.

Perhaps they could try a 6-month series one year? But yeah, this series has taught me that you can't have too much SCD. It's just a nice thing to watch that you'll never tire of

DWTS do two series a year which I love. It's great because you've got a 4 month wait between seasons and there is normally a tour on. The seasons are a lot shorter on DWTS though.

This season was good but rather long. There were not many true surprises. Helen and Anita went out a week early perhaps. I felt it stretched by a week or two and a bit processional. The older personalities were nice but they made for a largely predictable departure order.

Not by much though - the spring series this year was ten weeks long; the autumn (fall) series was eleven weeks in length. Strictly aired across 13 weeks excluding the pre-recorded launch.

Admittedly Dancing with the Stars does not have a results show; indeed the way they announce the results is very odd indeed.

I don't love it myself. The show sometimes feels like it's running low on celebs to participate as it is. Trying to do a second series would just drain the celebrity tank further.

12 weeks.

I would love 2 series a year. 1st from March to June and then 2nd from September to December.

I'm happy with one series a year exactly as it is.
It would seem less of an event if they did more than one a year and I think they'd struggle to get a good range of celebs. We'd probably get loads of Z listers and people famous for being famous without any actual job.






What do they do?

In Week One, everyone dances but no one is voted off. The public vote is open once everyone dances.
In Week Two, everyone dances before they send home the lowest couple based on week one's result (judges vote plus public vote).
In Week Three, everyone dances before they send home the lowest couple based on week two's result (judges vote plus public vote).
etc.

I think the final is live, though.

Sounds like they should call it "Dead Men Dancing"

I actually think 13 weeks is best because you can't really have more than 15 celebs without having to split the celebs' dancing into Weeks 1 and 2.

I like it as it is but would like to see 16 couples 14 weeks like series 6 and 7 but using the format of today regarding how they dance and eliminations

The longer the series, the less likely it'll be for the BBC to recruit some "high profile" competitors.

I think they are struggling in this respect, at its present length.

I 100% agree with you hence why more and more names from BBC have landed in there because they are struggling to find anyone else to take part. good point to make

I wouldn't mind one more week just so all the finalists will have done all of the dances instead of getting to skip one. It'll also even out the male to female and pro to celeb ratios.

The BBC like having "their people" in the show. They aren't really bothered if they win, just having two of "theirs" in the final, as they did, would be considered a "good result."
The benefits are the "cross-over" publicity they get through the length of the series.

For example Katie Derham would not have been that familiar to the core BBC 1 audience. But as she's demonstrated that she's "such a nice person," any future TV or radio programme in which she appears, may get improved ratings.