I find it bizarre how in spite of all the hoop-la about the phone-in scandals, ITV are still treading in dodgy ground by making it a lot easier for acts who go last.

Since day one of the semis we have had Signature, Andrew Johnstone, George Sampson and Faryl Smith all go last, and all win the public vote, which i think is certainly helped by ITV having a weird way of opening the phone lines.

It goes:

Last Acts Performs
Ant and Dec rush in and tell everyone their phone number
Lines Open
Ant and Dec Talk to Act
Judges Deliberate
Phone Number for Last Act Again
Other Acts Phone Numbers.

They must get literally a 5 minute head start on all the other acts, as well as having the bonus of being fresh in the mind of the public.

I find it quite incredible that they are allowed to do this.

Don't agree!! How do they get an extra 5 mins head start when the number for each individual act are given out after they perform?

If you wanted to vote for say the first act then surely you would take a note of their number at the time and start ringing as soon as the lines are open!

On the first night they did:
Signature finish
Lines Open
Signature's number on screen
Chat
Recap

But since then they have changed it to:
Final performance
Final performers number on screen
Lines Open
All numbers run across the bottom of the screen
Chat to final contestant
Full recap.

This way, nobody gets a head start.

Who's peforming first tonight.......they may as well not bother turning up.

The problem is that by then many people will have forgotten the impression the first act made so will have lost the motivation to vote for them.

I agree, but somebody has to go first and last, what would you suggest to do it differently ?

I agree, it does seem uncanny that the last act has come top on each show but have to ask the OP and others who make the same comments about the last act being fresh in the voters mind - do you vote? if so, who did you vote for? Are you influenced by the order of the acts?

If they had lines open from the start it would be much fairer.

Well if this is true then they couldn't have made much of an impression in the first place if they are forgotten after an hour!!!

What I dont find fair is that the last act to go on each night, is already the favorite to go through anyway. Why cant a lesser act go on last to at least make it fair.

perhaps tonight the favourite will go on first.

Didn't this happen the same last year? and wasn't Paul Potts the last one on in the Final as well?

I think Farryl is the "chosen one" this year:yawn:

That's a bit insulting to the voting public
Don't you think it's more likely they would vote for the act that gave them a lasting impression.
Do we actually know how many votes each act gets? There may well be little difference in it.

They seem to put the "favourites" last. I don't think that this necessarily means the result is "fixed", because I think that those acts would get votes anyway, but I do think that the show is fixed in other ways.

For example, why are many of these acts "favourite" to start with? I think it is because they have had far more air time and exposure than others, and so the public buy in to their stories more, and feel that they care about them and want them to do well.

Some acts that got to the semi finals were just shown as part of a montage of other acts, and then some got a whole 15 minute segment at the end of the show to peddle their sob stories, followed by a media drive for the next week or so.

I know that's how these shows work, but since they already know who is in the semis by the time the auditions are aired, I don't see why they couldn't have just shown all those auditions in their entirity, and then focused on their stories etc once we were in the semi finals. They may not be fixing the phone vote, but the whole show is still very stage managed and manipulated IMO.

Someone who will open the show in an energetic and lively manner, I'd guess.


Of course it isn't! Then people vote for someone without seeing all the performances. How can that possibly be fair? If you are good enough, people will remember you. It's not as though Leona Lewis got voted out of X Factor when she sang early... why? Because she was memorable. Strike went second and it clearly didn't harm their chances.


Because the casual viewer will only remember a few contestants from the auditions. When they give the names out at the start, the audience see someone like Faryl or George or Signature and remember the performance. By putting them on at the end, they (hopefully) convince viewers to stay with the show through to the end.

It also brings the show to a big climax so as people finish watching feeling that it was a good show and watch the next night. If you finish with Mary Halford March, people will be more likely to switch off or not return the next night because it would be such a dull ending.

One other reason is about the pace of the show. Tonight, Madonna will go last because she will inevitably sing a ballad (big climatic ending) and play up her sob story while Amanda might even cry. It doesn't fit in well between two upbeat, cheery acts.

I do too. But as long as they aren't tampering with the physical votes then it isn't illegal.

The ones with the most highlighted dramatic sob stories are last in the line up, get extra added attention and praise, then go through with ease.
I think somebody would need to be incredibly naive to not realise what the show is trying to do.

But it's not necessarily ITV doing this, it's more likely to be Cowell and his production team.

But as I say, it won't be illegal and won't break any rules, so they can get away with it.
The best thing people can do if they don't like it is to simply not vote.
If people say it's wrong and unfair but then go ahead and vote for their favourite act anyway, in effect they are complicit and condoning it with their actions.

The show can deny what they're doing all they like, but I don't think that the public are quite the suckers they think they are now. Or at least not so many of them now due to what has recently come to light.
Now that it has been proved that these shows will be bent and fix the vote if they so wish, the public shouldn't trust a word they say if they see something like this going on.
But they must think that their own viewers are stupid if they are trying to fob them off by saying it's just a coincidence. People just aren't that gullible any more and won't take kindly to the show insulting their intelligence.

has anyone noticed whoever goes on second normally makes the top 3 as well?
I do think that is just a coincidence but yep the last act to perform is a bit manipulated

The bigger the emotional sob story, the earlier you go on.
Act set up to be hated, the later they go on.

Not really saying that's how they should do it, just more highlighting the disparity of how certain acts get treated and what the viewer is encouraged to vote for.

The argument of it "not being fair" could go on forever realy. I agree it is'nt, but it never will be with Cowell involved. For example, the acts on last night and tonight will still be fresh in the audiences mind for tomorrows final so that could make them more popular. I have heard nothing of Kate & Gin or Signature since monday. It's endless realy.

I'd also add that the final act of the night is separated from the rest by means of an ad break. So when they come on it's almost like having their own little showcase sectioned off into a little mini-show of their own.
Every night this is the perception I've had about the final act.
It's as though there's all the acts,...then the final act who gets a little mini-show all of their own along with the voting lines opening.

Erm, wouldn't the first act get the most then because their lines had been open longer?

It might not be criminal but I suspect it is actually in breach of Ofcom rules 2.2 and/or 10.10. They are misleading the public that they are watching and voting for a fair competition while secretly rigging the result to get the final they want.

Ofcom did investigate similar complaints regarding the last Xfactor when the phone vote was effected by a ten minute time lag between the last two. They let ITV off in that case because they decided it did not make enough difference to have changed the eventual winner given that Leon had a big lead over Rhydian anyway. However, in these shows it is a much more blatant time difference than that was.

Simon may have let slip something at the end of the auditions on ITV2. Although he and his hired 'judges' had just supposedly chosen the 40 semifinalists on ITV1, he said "It was easy to decide the 10". Amanda nodded "Your top 10". It sounded to me like he had already picked the 10 for the final, which would mean the other 30 were just there to pad out these rigged semis.

I've just realised that. Hopefully they've did this due to the complaints of being biased.

How do you make a complaint re this unfair show

They did not "let ITV off" just because it wouldn't have made a difference. They found no evidence of any wrong doing and that the final was conducted appropriately.


With regard to 2.2, unless they are misleading the audience about the outcomes of phone votes then they should be fine.

And it is incredibly unlikely that they are fixing the votes in which case they will not be in breach of 10.10. Unless you are referring to some other part of the ICSTIS code (or whatever they call themselves now), I can't think what they could be doing wrong there.