Oh, I would agree. I can kinda see the reason why they wouldn't release the figures during the show, but they should be made available at some point. I would have preferred Gethin in the final myself, but was trying to argue why the judges may have chosen Matt on a purely populist basis.

The OP wrote a long, detailed, considered post about SCD. Could we not trash her efforts by allowing this thread to descend into yet another endless set of explications about telephone voting and money, do you think?

No TV program that relies on a phone vote to decide the winner releases the actual percentages in full, during the run of the show.If they did then this may firstly demoralize a contestant if they knew they had no support.Secondly we may deduce the winner very early in the series and hence the audience excitement and anticipation would be reduced(eg. we have no idea who is going to win next week because we don`t know who the public are voting for.....if % had been previously released then we may already know the result)

I agree with the main gist of what the OP says. I think he/she is using the word 'decline' in terms of the basic integrity of the show as a showcase of dance rather than in terms of ratings, because clearly in the latter sense the show is not in decline at all.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I wouldn't be as pessimistic as the original poster, while agreeing that I think a little bit of back-to-basics thinking would refresh the show next year, rather than wholesale changes. A new judge to freshen up the panel might help (either replacing one of Len, Arlene or Bruno - Craig MUST stay, or even making a fifth panel member). I think the 'head judge' role that Len's been given is moronic in this context - its not a title he wears with any graciousness whatsoever. Does the panel really need a 'head judge'? As janjohn points out, the role of the judges seems to be unclear, and that seems to be the source of so much confusion and anger. It seems to me that they are increasingly being called upon to 'entertain' at the expense of 'judging' and 'advising' the viewers. Len and Bruno are obviously the worst in this regard, with Len's credibility in particular shot to pieces over the past series by his consistent over-marking and weird outbursts. I think the judges need to tone down the squabbling and shouting between themselves quite considerably, as SCD is not and never will be the X Factor, nor should it try to emulate it. I think the public vote needs to be valued more than it is, so that the judges have a less prominent role. There's a better chance that the public will listen to them and be guided by them if they do, so hopefully make more informed choices. At the moment, too often the public seems to be voting against the judges rather than for the best dancers. So the dance-off needs to go, with the results show returned to Saturday night. The public has made many good choices in the past, as well as some bad ones, but giving power back to the public vote and living with the public's decisions is the only way to stop the bad feeling that has arisen this year.

In the end, my laypersons understanding is that SCD is a light entertainment show that raises money for charity. That is its flagship role in the BBC schedule, and however much we dance lovers would love it to be more focussed on the competition angle with all that implies, I don't think it's ever going to be pushed in that direction by the TV executives. All we can hope is that within the light entertainment framework, the performers continue to showcase the magic of ballroom and Latin as well as they have done up to now. Aside from all the bitterness about the result on Saturday, there was some pretty good dancing in the semifinal which is a testament to the attitude and skill of all three remaining contestants and their professional partners. In fact, the commitment shown by all the celebs and their professional partners has been as impressive as ever this year, and as long as this remains the case we have a TV show to treasure.

Edit: Also agree with the main points of gorlagon's point about 'production values' above.
Last edited by Paperbag_Writer : 17-12-2007 at 12:39

Paperbag_Writer.....Great post and well written....Could`t agree more with your sentiments.

Lovely post, Paperbag - you've made me feel a bit more optimistic. You are so right about the commitment of the participants, both pro and amateur, though I have sometimes doubted the motivation of one young man who shall be nameless ....

I think in the event of a tie it should just go down to who has least points and if there's a second tie then public vote takes precedence... Len has too much power as it is

Glad the optimism's returning janjohn Hopefully the powers that be at the Beeb read the forums and take our comments to heart. I know the forums can get a bit rowdy and partisan at times, but hey, we all have our favourites. Beyond that, though, I get the feeling most of the committed SCD watchers on this forum basically feel the same concerns about our favourite show.

I'm sorry the MONEY part cannot be discounted. If there was no money involved I wouldn't be involved in this discussion.

Strictly's Decline: Can It Be Reversed?

I have skimmed though your rather long post. I only have a couple of things to say on this matter.

1. The judges should be consistent in their marking; they should mark by merit for the couple who dances technically and has the personality that shines forth.

2. How can it possibly be in decline when you have such amazing contestants year after year?

To be honest, the figures show the opposite - it's increasing in popularity. I don't know what the phone-in revenue figures are of course, but it seems reasonable to expect a correlation between votes and viewing, so I'd guess that these are also doing well.

Whilst I agree with many of your points, I just don't see any evidence of a "decline" - most of the points you make could have been made at any point in any previous series.

Similarly, the 2 main changes (Sunday show and dance-off) this series haven't reduced viewing share - Sunday's prog has been very successful in fact - so again there's no evidence of decline in this series.

So I'm not sure if the question's really relevant - it's making an unproved assumption IMO - although many of the points sum up my views very well

I'm enjoying this series - there's a lot right with it as well as a lot wrong with it.

For those with rosy-hued specs on, SCD always had things wrong with it. Every single series has had its faults including the first. In two words: 'Chris Parker'!

This year the judges have been the worst aspect but the participants and the drama have more than made up for the bunch of muppets sitting at that desk.

And for those suggesting replacing Brucie - shame on you! Brucie's an institution. SCD wouldn't be the same if he was replaced by someone slicker.

But if you do want to sack someone Tess' stylist could do with a long break and, as ever, the cameramen and their allergy to feet could do with aversion therapy.

SCD has disappointed me this year. The ranting and raving between the judges has become as big if not a bigger talking point than the dancers/dances - how wrong is this? It has dumbed down a great show to appeal to those who didn't previously watch because they couldn't care less about 'ballroom dancing' - how else can you account for the raised viewing figures? The fun and excitement caused by the live result has disappeared (the rush and scramble to get in a vote before the deadline - gone, gone, gone) WHY? viewing figures I assume - it isn't for the dedicated fans of this show is it? Of course I know where the remote is to turn over - but then I couldn't watch my favourite and lovely professional dancers - this is the reason I have stayed.

SCD has disappointed me this year.

Which is why the Beeb needs to have a proper Come Dancing to cater for the serious interest that there is in Ballroom and Latin dancing. I remember it from the days of Peter West, David Jacobs et al.

This is nonsense. SCD has improved rather than declined.
There was a higher general standard this series than there has ever been before.
The judges veto is a great improvement.

The judges seem to be behaving worse, that's my only criticism. I don't like personal insults & abuse dressed up as 'professional opinion.'

And the public still don't seem to be dissuadable from ejecting good dancers & keeping rubbish ones. If Penny & Gabby had stayed longer & Kenny & Dom had gone earlier the show would have been even better.

People forget how bad much of the dancing was in series 1 & 2.

The retrograde evolution of most of the televote-based RTV shows is IMO tied in closely to the phone-in scandals. The producers have to pander now to the hardcore of 'trusting' viewers who still vote....and it seems reaonable to assume that these remaining voters are highly susceptible to the kind of manipulation that we know the programme makers are increasingly addicted to.

In other words, to try and squeeze the same number of votes out of a shrinking number of voters requires more and more contrived editing and casts of increasingly contrived 'personalities'.

Probably this would have happened anyway without the scandals....but rather more slowly as people gradually became more cynical and clued-up.

Of course ultimately they can do this because most viewers don't care or prefer it this way...which is fair enough.

I don't think the trend is reversible but it's possible that not every series will be necessarily 'worse' than the previous one.

The good news is there's plenty of RTV which does not involve televoting.

with regards to the viewers votes, whilst it may not be fair to release them during the competition perhaps a post series breakdown would allow the Beeb to satisfy their critics and alay any fears of dogdy goings on.

oh and direcors have absolutely no idea of where to point a camera, period! It always used to annoy me on TOTP when they'd miss a key bit or focus on the drummer when the act was doing their little routine in the middle eight.

I think the answer is to screen all calls and discarding the 'stupids'. I'd gladly do it!

Maybe we should have the public vote on keeping the judges and not voting on the dancers.

Good idea.
They'd all be out & it would be Karen, Anton & James Jordan judging...

But of course, then we'd lose some great dancers.

What about those in a household, on their own network, and sharing an IP address? In this house that would be 3 (of the 4 PCs) taken out of the voting equation. There will be plenty of others with bigger networks.

Sorry, but that's not a realistic option.

That can be got round by "membership" like on here but it would exclude many who don't have internet access

Absolutely correct and as you intimate, that's not a viable option either. Far too exclusive.

We've got what we've got with the current methods which do raise money for CiN - and not the BBC. Like it or not, it's the modern way!

Since the very start of the show this has been the case so I don't see how that contributes to a decline - the idea should be that the judges vote on dance ability and the public on whatever the heck they like. That way you should get a balance between talent and other issues (popularity, improvement, likability). The dance off was seemingly designed to put the focus back onto the dancing (and as someone who has never enjoyed watching the underdogs I have no problem with that). The issue is the judges are no longer capable it seems of being objective (but I'll come back to that).


50% to CiN and 50% to the company who runs the phone lines. AFAIK the BBC has no direct involvement with the phone system at all (apparently they don't even know the vote totals on the night, but are just told the order). Again, it has always been this way.


I don't buy into the 'the judges are told what to do by the BBC to help the ratings!' conspiracy theories so I'll brush over that.

The problem lies in two place - one, the judges seems to be becoming too impressed with themselves, seeing themselves as stars in their own right and two, Len and Bruno's involvement in DwtS (which I think has lead to the US style over marking and very bad moods).

They have been fine in the past and done a fine job. Len was always a bit too kind but was balanced out by Craig being too harsh, Arlene was catty but usually fair and Bruno slightly mental but generally harmless. Personally I would now let Arlene go (she's embarrassing and has little in the way of TV skills), let Len and Bruno have one more series on the basis they don't do DwtS and keep Craig. They need to have a more agreed level of standards they are looking for. Yes I would say the standard of dancing this year has been overall probably the best, however that doesn't mean they should be getting 9's and 10's all the time - surely it's better to mark them based upon a standard for this year rather than in comparison to ones gone by. The problem now is they have given such high scores this year I'm sure they will continue to next - after all they wouldn't want to make it appear that standards are slipping.

I remember in series 2 when people were really pleased to get an 8 - now they look disappointed and it shouldn't be so.


It will have to be because money is involved.


Sorry but I don't agree with that at all. Dance involves ladies in small dresses and men with their chests out. In the past it has been considered scandalous. A lot of it is about sex. You can't take that away from the show and I have never thought it has crossed the line. Even yesterday's show dance was just your typical show dance, choreographed by two world class dancers. It wasn't made up by the BBC for the purposes of cheap titilation.


With a few exceptions most of the guest singers have always mimed. The band, as pointed out, have very little time to learn the music. Whilst the singing has been admittedly dreadful it was massively improved on Saturday so kudos to them for that.


Not really. The ratings are up and the longer show means for more pro dances which I am very pleased about. It's also great for people who go out on a Saturday night as they get to watch the main show and don't miss anything.

I haven't been as tense this year but that's only because I've always found out the result beforehand. I'm sure if I'd resisted and waited for the Sunday show it'd be just as nervewracking.

In the end I think this has been a terrific year for the dancing and that for me is by far the most important thing.

As for changes:

- Get rid of Arlene (I have major problems respecting her with her drooling over the fanciable males), keep Craig (he seems to have been the only one to manage to successfully adjust his scoring system to fit this year's contestants), allow Len and Bruno a final chance dependent on them giving up DwtS.

- Keep the dance off to stress the importance of the dancing but in the event of a tie between the judges go back to the public vote (that way it doesn't rest so much on the opinion of one person which is unfair whoever he or she is).

- More traditional/instrumental music. I was surprised looking back at series 2 about how many of the tracks were traditional songs especially for the tango and paso - they really worked and were mixed in successfully amongst the more well known songs for the other dances.

- Make the salsa into a group dance. At the moment it seems a rather pointless free for all.

- Try to organise it so that we don't have every couple doing a completely different dance on a single night. This makes it much harder to score and compare things fairly.

- On a similar not try to ensure no one is left at any point with two ballroom or two latin left to do as this is unfair if they are stronger at one discipline than another (poor Gethin for example!)

- I'd also consider getting rid of Brendan to be honest. I know he has his fans (I used to be one of them!) but as much as I don't like the judges trying to become stars bigger than the show I don't like the dancers doing it either. He's tabloid material due to the choices he makes and shows he takes part in and, whether his fault or not, he's involved in a lot of the irritating contraversy on the show. It may be a quieter, less stressy place without him. (Sorry Brendan fans! Only my opinion! Don't crucify me!) I'd perhaps also consider asking Karen to judge and bringing in a male dancer to replace Brendan and perhaps someone like Izabella Hannah back in Karen's place.

This is one of those "Do you still beat your wife?" type of questions.

My opinion is that the show is not in decline. Far from it. Ratings are as high as ever and the drama and the tension has been great this year.

Of course, you could tweak the show in numerous ways. Change the judges, change the rules, change the staff, scrap the band, make the contestants sing as well as dance or maybe break the scores into different categories (technical, creativity, personality and dress sense?)

But whatever you do, I guarantee somebody won't like it. Sorry for the cliche, but you can't please all of the people all of the time...

And if i may use just one more cliche, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The show is perfectly fine as it is, thank you.

Personally I think those involved in SCD should in my opinion not listen to the viewers - far too many of them and all have different opinions on how the show go progress.


Take it back to series 1 - back to basics.

The BBC should learn one lesson. Never listen to the viewers all they are good for is sitting on sofa and paying the license fee.