The X Factor 2018

XF's current viewing figures are "pathetic"; Strictly is "very pedestrian" and "lethargic"; it's "embarrassing" that the former is being outdone by the latter by more than two to one.

I respect these views. And no-one - not even Simon and ITV - can disagree that XF's viewing figures are not what they used to be, and more than likely never will be again.

However, I'm not sure I would use the words I've put in quotation marks. With the very greatest of respect, they seem a bit *too* harsh...

(And if XF's current viewing figures *are* pathetic compared to its highest-ever ones, then the same could be said for Corrie, EastEnders, Mastermind and University Challenge, IMO. )

Fun fact: that was due to be Seann Walsh’s dance this coming week.

More entertaining than anything I've seen on the UK show. That would definitely get the viewers in!

I don't buy the "X Factor ratings are still respectable and only low compared to its peak" argument anymore.

Had X Factor launched with these ratings for series one and remained consistent, it would have been axed years ago and ITV would have tried something else.

Totally agree on this - however I think the show this year and last have been a vast improvement on the few years prior, but it’s clearly too late to reverse the show’s fortunes. A year or two rest before this current series and it would have had a successful return I reckon - they’ve got the judging panel and the talent right but it’s just not got the interest it maybe deserves. Robbie in particular is, I think, really good. If anything, Simon is the weak link.

There's only so many viewers that Strictly can get before what you're saying is self-evidently nonsense.

Well, I certainly wouldn't describe XF's current viewing figures as "good" - and I wouldn't describe them as "respectable" either (how can they be when they're less than half the figures of Strictly, and considerably lower than those of Corrie and the 'Dale too?)

But I'm still not sure I would describe them as "pathetic". I'd certainly describe them as "poor" and "unspectacular", and I wouldn't object if they were described as "terrible" and "nothing to write home about" - but "pathetic" feels just a bit *too* harsh and a bit *too* negative.

If the show's biggest figures had been three or four years ago instead of nearly ten, *then* there might be a case for describing the current figures as pathetic. And the same with the final figures for the original Millionaire and Deal or No Deal, to name two more shows that were once absolutely massive.

Of course, Millionaire and DOND continued beyond their respective ask-by dates - as has XF. And *any* show that's big but has an ask-by date is going to see its viewing figures fall considerably if it goes on a good bit beyond that ask-by date...

Is "underperforming" a fair word?

For comparison...
BGT final - 4.7m
The Voice final - 5.2m
Eurovision final - 6.9m
Strictly 2017 final - 11.6m

Yes, that's a fair word.

What’s an ask by date?

It's just like a use-by date for a food product.

And just as many food products are still safe to consume a few days beyond their use-by dates, a TV show can still be generally taken fairly seriously a year or two beyond its ask-by date.

XF's ask-by date, IMO, was during the period when Simon was away.

I think the point was, nobody uses that term. Even a quick Google bring this place up in its first page of results!