I'm curious why there'd be a demand for the voting figures. Are people really treating this like some unpopular celeb who danced like Chris Hollins won? Do they really think there was some conspiracy?

I don't get it.

I agree as I said in my other post above. I was just explaining what the bbc claim they mean by saying it could affect participants. I think it's a load of rubbish.😁 Just wondering if SPOTY is different as it's an awards show to celebrate previous achievement so the sports people don't have to be involved whereas SCD has to convince celebrities it's worth their while to participate.
Part of me would love to see the figures to see how close the voting was but then it doesn't change anything and could result in a few egos being shattered

Also they can both say they were runners up on their CVs, which I am sure is something the celebrities want.

I get the feeling that it's easier to attract people to I'm a Celeb. They pay more (to my limited knowledge) and it's for a fixed period so easier to plan around other work. By contrast someone could be in Strictly for 4 weeks or 14 weeks.

And although I'm a Celeb isn't nice conditions, Strictly can be physically hard which might put many off.

That's true I'm a celeb is tough for max 3 weeks. If you make it to the end especially, SCD is a massive commitment and hard work.

Oh yes I know, I agree with you, a load of rubbish!

I'm not sure, but I think if you are nominated you cannot pull yourself out, so your votes would still be revealed, even if you want no involvement.
Sponsors look so much to who is popular and pay them according to it.

I do think they should reveal bit as they are asking people to spend money. They show the judges scores and how that correlates into points on the leaderboard, but then nothing more is known about voting figures and scoring.

Sure it could affect participants, just like the judges' comments can -- if someone like Craig spews out some venomous criticism at least it can provide food for thought and correction, and similarly poor public response if revealed gives an indicator as to whether a contestant needs to look to improving their media response.

What would it be like if the judges didn't comment or reveal their votes?

That's probably why they continue to reveal the SPOTY results then if the sports people don't get any say on involvement. 😕
Maybe rather than showing the actual percentage of voting, they could reveal who was in what position in the voting i.e. 1st, 2nd etc. we already can kind of guess in some instances because of the dance off and it wouldn't be revealing anything too embarrassing such as celebrity x only received 0.2% of the public vote. 🙀

This^^^^

Strictly needs to attract good celebrities to get good viewing figures.

If it's known they didn't get many votes it could affect their future prospects, so not as many would do it - Strictly's viewing figures would go down - just what some tabloids want.

The dance-off is partly designed for the same reason - so it's less clear who got the least votes.

X-Factor isn't the same at all - the contesants aren't well known and have nothing to lose.

I'm a Celebrity isn't the same either. Some popular Celebrities do it for fun or for a change, but most are either trying to re-boot their careers or are B Listers - or even Z Listers. Again they haven't much to lose.

Sports Personality - it's an honour to be chosen, and you don't have to work hard for weeks to stay on the List.

Why would the BBC care who wins? - it does nothing at all with the Winner and the BBC has really very little to do with the Tour.

All this fake fuss over a fix - mostly in the 'highly respected' tabloid press - rolls eyes.

Having two runners up has annoyed me for the last few series. If I came second or third in a competition, I'd like to know.

No other competitions I can think of have two runners up.

Great and well written post.

If they gave out the figures it could put some off from participating in the next SCD. Afterall who would sign up for a programme that could make you look unpopular unless they were desperate for the money?

For me I don't care about the actual voting figures I'd just like to know who came 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc each week - I don't think that's too much to ask; nor would it have to affect public perceptions of a celeb; it's just interesting to know

They never reveal the voting figures because it is considered commercially sensitive information for BT who provide the service.

On top of that, the show's production team have generally said they feel that revealing that any particular celebrity doesn't get public support throughout a series would not be encouraging for them attracting people to take part, which makes perfect sense when it's a show based on someone's popularity with the public learning a new skill.


Nope, it's been tried and refused as I said because of commercial interests as it would give BT's competitors financial information based on the voting figures - i.e. people would know how much money they were getting from providing the voting service to the BBC.


SPOTY is a one night only voting event in which sports people have been nominated by an independent panel of experts to be voted on by the public, which is why the figures are released. SCD takes part over a three month period and is considered by OFCOM who regulates this type of thing, to be covered under commercial sensitivity.

As has been said above, the BBC will never reveal the public voting figures because they need to massage the egos of those taking part. If a "celebrity" failed to get public support and this fact was published, they really would have to scrape the barrel to get people to take part.

And because OFCOM, the independent body which oversees the communications industry, won't let them because it's considered commercially sensitive information.

Except they weren't. The final is a pure public vote, and one of them got more votes than the other, so to say they're tied is untrue.

2nd/3rd place were always clear up until they went to the 4-couple final (series 10). Then they couldn't make the 2nd/3rd distinction work with the format change, so they just lumped them together.

I have no interest in voting figures being released, but the 2nd/3rd thing really annoys me.

I'm a celebrity casts people with nothing much to lose - most at career deadends, or in retirement.

X factor it doesn't matter about the voting because every one in the profession knows the voting is silly, and produces winners who can't sell most years. The industry has got quite good at picking up the people who can sing and act anyway - they often come outside the top 3.

It doesn't tell you anything. Many people will vote for who they think has the chance of winning - If it looks likely to be Jay, and you prefer either of the others, the rational vote is to vote for who you think is ahead of those two. The vote is also likely to be influenced by when you danced, as well as how well you did.

It also depends on fanbases that may not be transferable - most winners of most shows just don't acquire loyal fans - their support melts away quickly. On the other hand, looking unpopular may be a problem for your agent. . Its better for all concerned just not to say.

Its all very strange

People here have suggested possible interpretations, correct or otherwise, of the '[could] also have an impact on the participants' part of the statement, but what possible justification/explanation could there be for the 'Releasing voting figures could affect the way that people vote', when the voting is over?

It doesn't. It has nothing to do with influencing peoples' votes when the show is over but in whether or not it would discourage celebrities to take part if their career is based on being seen to be "popular" and they appear on something like SCD where the public then very clearly doesn't like them and doesn't vote for them.

A poster commenting on a Daily Mail article today about Aliona, is saying Jay got 64 % of the public votes. How on earth would they know that - amazing if it's true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...d-husband.html

Must Mean Kellie came third. Plus they might be in stars contracts not release it.

Yes, they must have decided several years ago not to ever release the results totals because in the future they could tell it might hurt Kellie Bright's feelings to come 3rd instead of 2nd.

As for the idea that a Daily Mail comments sectioner knows the public vote, Jesus Christ...