I've noticed on a few threads that some people think it strange that votes were not carried forward from the early part of the final show to Bolero. However, the early vote was for who you wanted to see perform Bolero whilst the second vote was for who you wanted to win. This is different from other competitions (Big Brother) for example, where all votes on the final night are to determine who will win the competition. Some people may have voted to see Clare or Kyran perform Bolero even though they did not want that person to win overall. It would not have been fair to have carried those votes over to count for the winner.

ITV was clear about the way the votes were counted last night. The presenters said several times that the count would be reset between the two votes and so no-one could claim that they thought their votes in the first part would have counted towards the final tally after Bolero.

i thought it was clear the reasons for the vote count being reset

The reasons were clear to me but, after so long and so many votes it sems wrong that the winner is decided on a 20 minute phone vote.

I was happy with the actual result but cannot understand why the votes caould not be carried forward - it's all a money making exercise which I refuse to fall for.

Because the two votes were for different things!

still though people who voted fro Clare to do Bolero might have gone out and not voted for her to win in the final vote or vice versa, and they may have thought their vote was for her to win. if not just the fact that you have to be willing to vote at least TWICE on the night for your fave is a bit unfair.

1) The presenters said clearly and frequently that the first vote was for the skaters to do Bolero and that the vote count would be reset. There is no reason why anyone should have thought that a vote in the first section would be counted twice.

2) You didn't have to vote at all.

ITV aren't particularly interested in concepts such as being fair to the skaters - they wanted to make money from the phone calls.

TBH it seemed to make no difference. With Kyran getting around 60-65% of the support in most polls it would have been very surprising had the result been different.

Rubbish! Voting to see Bolero, which is the final of the final, is *exactly* the same as voting for your potential winner. No fan wanting, say Clare, to win is going to vote to see Duncans Bolero - it would be complete madness to do so.

The rules were clear it's just I don't think the rules were fair to the competitors. I have no problem with a reset if the winner is then given time in which to collect votes but just 20 minutes after three months of work??????
Last edited by Kez100 : 18-03-2007 at 22:01

Well, at least some people got to vote!

I had the discontinued tone for Duncan's phone line right from when Philip said the lines were open until the lines closed the first time round.

When I tried to vote the second time the lines were open, in the Bolero section, all I got was the engaged signal.

And if I get charged for those times I tried to get through, I am so going to the CAB to see if something can be done about it.

It's not the same. You could easily have wanted to see Duncan do the Bolero but wanted Clare to win and so voted for both in the first part but only Clare in the second. Alternatively, having seen the Boleros you might have decided that you actually wanted Kyran to win and so voted for for Kyran in part 2.

Good points Helena.

A voter would really mot understand voting if they gave one vote for Duncan and Clare if they want Clare to win. If you know Kyran is the favourite it would be a silly thing to do. Duncan and Claire are in competition - if you vote for both you might as well save your money and vote for no one as you negated your own vote. If you want Clare there more you have to give her more votes even if you do give Duncan one to try and get him past Kyran.

In any case the first vote is about winning. You want Clare there to win and you wanting Duncan there means you don't want Kyran to win - its a zero sum game - wanting someone there means you don't want the people you don't want there to win. . Thats the point of proportional voting - it identifies who people want a lot, a bit amd not at all.

The voting was silly. You have 90 plus minutes to vote for who gets through to the last stage and far less time to vote for who wins - the winner by definition is the person who gets most votes through in a short period from those people prepared to vote again. The short time available advantages whoever goes on first. The result is that the person who wins may not even be the person who got most votes overall for the three performances on the night or in the worst case the voters may be left dialing an engaged tone for the second performer as they all try and vote in a few minutes.. You could argue by that stage people will not wait until Bolero finishes to vote but that just makes the point why the votes from the first show should count - if people are voting on what they saw in the first show in the second show, the logic is to count the first show's votes in the final total.

I can't think of any other show that ignores its first count on finals night even though many eliminate one finalist and have a second round. There are good reasons for that being the case.
Last edited by thenetworkbabe : 19-03-2007 at 03:21

Service providers such as "Siren", collect data about voting behaviour for "participation TV" shows so they advise production campanies on what types of voting formats will stimulate the maxium number of votes.

The producers "Dancing On Ice" must be have been advised, or came to the conclusion, that the particular voting format they used in the final, with votes being reset, having a head to head final, and giving voters a shorter time to vote, would maximise voting and increase revenue.

"Chris Pressley, CEO of digital engagement agency, Siren TV which handles services for ITV, Channel 5 and BskyB, says "Audience participation via telephony services is now a vital part of the programming mix. It delivers revenue at the same time as deepening a viewers' relationship with the programme they are watching and provides much needed behavioural data so that programme producers can understand their audiences better."

http://newsweaver.co.uk/noc/e_articl...KvD,b6l3mfF4,w

"The finale [of Cirque de Celebrité] saw a huge increase in voting over preceding weeks - the normal trend for a voting show when it leads to a head-to-head final...The potential vote numbers for a finale, even on a lower profile show, lead to interesting conclusions for the development of voting formats..."

http://www.siren.tv/Cirque.html
Last edited by farfromheaven : 19-03-2007 at 05:24

Having Kyran perform Bolero first gave him the advantage in the voting anyway, as people had longer to vote for him. It would have been fairer IMO to open the lines AFTER they had both performed Bolero and maybe had the professionals doing a routine while giving people time to vote. That would have given each of them a level playing field instead of giving the advantage to Kyran.

I have to say I did think it was a little unfair that as soon as Kyran performed they gave his voting number and didn't give Clare's until after she prerformed, which didn't actually give anyone who hadn't noted her number down earlier much time to vote. I tried to vote for Clare a few times and it said the line was busy. I did get through in the end but only just in time.

As already explained, anyone who understands voting would realise that facing the scenario we were (Kyran most likely favourite - almost beyond doubt) to want Clare to win and vote C and D for Bolero would have been mathematical madness.

The whole reset thing - given the minimum amount of time allocated to it - stinks. It is about maximum revenue and absolutely nothing about a fair win.
Last edited by Kez100 : 19-03-2007 at 09:36