The Voice UK

Dermot was terrible in his first year or so, this is Holly's first big show of its kind on her own and Reggie's first primetime gig. I think they're doing a great job so far. Holly wasn't great in the first week but she was much better on Saturday and she will continue to grow into the role. The questions are awkward but I'd lie the blame for that with the judges. Dermot asks the X Factor judges the same types of questions but X Factor judges are more receptive. Will.i.am is about as awkward as you can get. They should replace him with a woman next year, boring or not putting two female judges against each other is a recipe for press coverage.

Agree about lack of connection with acts too, but even at the judges houses stage when they have 32 contestants left, you still 'know' some of them so care whether they do or don't get through. The final aside, the judges houses results is often the most watched episode of the series so they need to build that connection better. The results show is completely lost in that schedule too.

I don't think Dermot was ever regarded as being awful in the first year. He was definitely better than Kate Thornton who preceded him.

Yep - but anyone was going to be an improvement weren't they?

He was stilted and awkward during his first series but he was a relative newcomer and X Factor was in Britain's Got Talent's shadow at the time so it went pretty unnoticed. He was a low key signing too, all of the focus that year was on Dannii Minogue & that choreographer joining as judges, I don't think Kate Thornton actually got a mention on the show itself. Then later in the series it was all about Sharon & Dannii hating each other so he never really got a look in, he was just wallpaper. That's in contrast to the BBC who 'stole' Holly from ITV and DOI so there is a bit more expectation from her. Incidentally if Dermot is ever to leave X Factor (for XFUS or otherwise), Holly will be quite near the top of their list to replace him and if The Voice is still on air should that situation ever arise, it will be interesting to see what she does.

The other dreadful thing about the format is that by doing just two of the teams each week, you essentially may not see your favourite for two weeks. Doesn't help with the whole "connecting with your favourites" thing. At least on X Factor, the acts the producers want to win are forced down your throat.



And the pathetic thing is, they're part of the reason the Beeb paid £22million for the rights to the show!

I did some research on this for an essay last year and one of the main reasons for format sellers insisting on nearly identical-looking programmes in each country was something to do with the fact that in many territories, copyright infringement can be rife with practically identical programmes springing up on other channels with little being done to combat it. I can't quite remember why but making the programme identical in each country would make it easier to take copycats to court... or something.

Of course format owners do it at their own peril. The BBC insisted that The Weakest Link would be identical in each country which was a terrible mistake because cultural differences meant that Anne's character simply wouldn't work right across the world. In East Asia for example the programme failed because audiences simply could not relate to a cold, strict female as that type of person just didn't exist (at least not in the mainstream) in those societies and was completely unrecognisable. The format initially sold very well but you'll find that in most countries it didn't make it past one series.

Thanks for your answer. It's an interesting one, even if you can't remember the finer details!

I guess it really depends on the will of the creator. John de Mol had a very tight reign on Big Brother in the early years and though he did allow some deviation in terms of the look it wasn't until the format was established that he gave local producers free reign. The Voice though is really following the example of Idol and X Factor in ensuring local producers are producing the show their creator envisaged rather than the show local producers want.

Pros and cons of course to a tight reign and a free reign - using Big Brother as an example it wasn't adapted at all for the local market in the US when it launched there and was seen to fail, but the next series which did consider the market proved successful and the platform for the long term future of the show, even if that show is somewhat different to Big Brother across the rest of the world.

Wipeout is another example which could be argued either way - I would say letting the BBC do what they did to it meant a lot got lost in translation and the UK versions wasn't half as good as the original format and didn't quite get the idea behind the show (an hour of light hearted fun, not some massive emotional journey for the winner!). Others would say though the BBC knew their audience, adjusted it accordingly and found success with it on a Saturday night.

I think the BBC did get the idea behind the show - the "drama" is just a satire on shows that do similar things.

The Voice's live show got 5.64m according to overnight figures. It is down 2.6m on last week. That follows on from 9.3m and 8.2m on the first and second live shows respectively. It's less than half of the average viewership of BGT Final.

It's very sad indeed. However, at 6:10pm, that's far too early for an entertainment show like this.

It's unquestionable that format changes will be needed for next year. I think it's only small things than need to be tweaked, however these in total are obviously making viewers turn off.

Those ratings were very much deserved last night and those trying to blame the early start just aren't accepting the show has serious work to do on it's live stages as even from it's traditional start time of 7pm through to BGT starting at 7.30pm it only had 6.2m viewers.

The Voice could actually do a lot worse than look at the BGT live shows for how to address the issue. Just have one show for each judge )over two weekends) with their 5-6 acts performing and then 2 through to the semi-final stage, and then as now have 8>4 in the semi-final and one act per judge for the final. However as well as the format they really need to address the judges - it started out so well but they're turning out to be one of the worst panels in the history of the genre when it comes to the live shows - it's just so painful to watch.


There are those who say they'll fix the live shows for next year but the format has been around for 18 months now and it's the same story the world over when it comes to the live shows - with no sign of them being fixed in any country that has aired a second season.

I don't think that would help either, not seeing your favourite for 4 weeks in some cases. The issue is how many acts are being let through in the first place. If each coach could take through 3 each and have every act participating each week that would help acts gaining that connection with the public and the issue of not seeing acts for 2 weeks. Giving each coach an equal team does lower the stakes, as one team may have weaker members. Its very close if not the same as the X Factor's model but its worth a shot.