The Formula for a Successful Sitcom

indylaw writes "A team of scientists commissioned by British satellite channel UKTV Gold has developed a mathematical expression to predict the success of TV sitcoms. Using the formula [((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A, they determined that "Only Fools and Horses" and "The Office" are the best of British comedy, while "According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five."

Comments

The original Grauniad article:

[alanw]

Here is the original article, complete with scores for the top and bottom 5 shows.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Coryoth]

Seems like an interesting pile of horseshit, as it usual for these "mathematical formula for ..." stories.

Can someone explain to me how exactly Blackadder and Fawlty Towers scored so relatively low compared to The Office and Only Fools and Horses? Are Edmund or Basil notably less "Recognisable" or "Deluded" about their grandeur than Del or David? Certainly there are about the same number of successful plans, and at least the same level of difference in social status (Edmund is to Baldrick as Del is to ... nope, I'm drawing a blank). The only things left are "Verbal wit in the script" and "Number of times someone falls over or is injured" ... is Only Fools and Horses really that much wittier than Blackadder? Does The Office really have that many more pratfalls and injuries than Fawlty Towers?

I think it's nice that they've come up with a half assed justification to prefer their favourite comedies, but it really isn't significantly less subjective than asking a random person whether they like the show or not.

Jedidiah.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Pi_0's don't shower]

Can someone explain to me how exactly Blackadder and Fawlty Towers scored so relatively low compared to The Office and Only Fools and Horses?

Yes, they said the formula for a successful sitcom, not necessarily the formula for a quality sitcom. Apparently, having a huge nerd cult following doesn't mean success as much as having more people watch your show. Duh.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Bah.

Let's apply this "formula" to the recent NBC sitcom, "Friends."

R: 3.

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity on the show, due to her recent stint on the failed CBS drama "China Beach", and the fact that she was the girl who danced with Springsteen in that music video. Almost nobody remembered that Jenifer Aniston was in "Leprechan."

D: Zero. The characters all had rather low opinions of themselves, considering that they lived in the best two apartments in all of New York City.

3 x 0 = 0

V: 8.

It didn't suit everybody's tastes, but love it or hate it, the dialog on that show was its greatest strength. Otherwise dull scenes hinged entirely on the Chandler character just happening to think of the funniest thing you could possibly say at any given moment.

0 + 8 = 8

F: 1

There was an episode where Joey got a hernia from lifting weights, and I think Rachel bumped her head once or twice, but never badly enough to mess up Jenifer Aniston's perfect hair. I believe that was pretty much it.

8 x 1 = 8

S: 1

All six characters began the show as twentysomethings who were just starting out in life, and happened to luck into huge rent-controlled apartments. While wealth varied, class differences were pretty much non-existant. The poorest two character on the show in the first season, Joey, was the richest several years later. It seems that it was originally planned that the story of Rachel's fall and rise (Jewish American Princess - coffee shop girl - fashion-world executive) was to be one of the main story arcs, but it was almost never exploited beyond the first one or two episodes.

8 + 1 = 9

A: 10

The characters on Friends always came out on top. Even the worst disasters which came up were understood by the audience to be temporary setbacks. Just about every crazy scheme in the pursuit of either sex or money tended to pan out.

A good example is the "hernia" episode I mentioned earlier. Joey gets a hernia, but he had let his insurance lapse, and needed a paying acting job to get medical coverage for the surgery. After several failed auditions, he lands a part playing a dying man, because the pain of his injury made him so convincing as somebody who was suffering.

8 / 10 = 0.8

In other words, by this formula, Friends had no chance of ever catching on with TV audiences! What the hell was NBC thinking when they put that show in the slot once occupied by The Cosby Show and Cheers!?!?!?

Since the show ended it's miserable ratings failure of a run, NBC has been showing The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, in that time slot. By this formula, The Apprentice has a much better chance of success as a sitcom.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Coryoth]

I don't care about success or quality, I'm asking what numbers they plugged into their formulas to get the very different results - I see no significant differences in the scores for the variables they used - but perhaps you can tell me which of R, D, V, S, F, and A where so startlingly different for Blackadder and The Office or Fawlty Towers and Only Fools and Horses.

For the record I am just as much a fan of The Office and Only Fools and Horses as Blackadder and Fawlty Towers - I just can't see why the scored so differently (beyond random "pull numbers out of your ass" subjectivity which, let's face it, is no diffferent than pulling a single "S = successfulness of sitcom" score out of your ass).

Jedidiah.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[UncleGizmo]

While I don't disagree entirely with your premise [that it might be a stretch to apply a mathematical formula to determine success of comedy], I think you may be off a bit in your definitions.

I think they're talking about recognizability as it relates to the character, not the actor. In other words, how well the audience can identify with the archetype on the show. In the ensemble, you had many different character types that I assume you could at least identify with [or as someone you could know] in any given situation.

Also, all of them had delusions of grandeur at one time or another [Ross' PhD, Joey's soap stardom, Monica's catering, etc.] Given the ensemble cast, it changed, which expanded the possibilities of the script without it getting stale.

I think the verbal wit was fairly high, and the physical comedy was fairly low. But [in my observation], physical comedy seems to be more in tradition with British shows than U.S. ones that I'm familiar with, so this may be a cultural thing.

Social status - I'd agree with you, but again, that may have more to do with British culture and the humor/historical sensitivity to status vs. U.S. shows. Also don't forget, in homogenized U.S. TV-land, a slow-witted out of work actor and a driven PhD could be considered a fairly significant gap.

In terms of strategy success, many of the episodes have to do with the characters caught up in classic misunderstandings or working 'behind the scenes' to orchestrate some plot point against the others - even though the stratagems themselves were not grand, there was always someone scheming something on the show.

At any rate, an interesting idea to reduce abstract concepts to mathematical equation.

Apropos of nothing, I was reading a review of "Freakonomics" today as well - an interesting book that takes economic principals to a whole different area.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[jimicus]

R: 3.

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity

Whoa. Stop there. First misunderstanding : it's recognizability of the CHARACTERS. Not the actors. Practically everyone in the UK knows a Derrick Trotter or a David Brent.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[zambuka]

I think you miss-understood the first part of the equation R. The recognisability of the main character.

I don't think they mean the recognisability of the actor playing the main character.

Now apply the equation to The Apprentice.
R=8 :Most of us want the kind of job offered but not all of us will go through reality TV to do it.
D=10:Mr Trump takes the cake and the contestants are pretty up themselves too.
V=2 :Not really that witty, at least on purpose.
F=5 : Some of those contestants are gonna get hurt but not physically.
S=10:Yup, no need for explainations here.
A=3 :Someone is gonna win, the rest are gonna lose, they are the ones people watch this crap for.
(((8x10+2)x5)+10)/3
for a score of 140.
Yup. Toss poison spiders at the contestants every now and then and we have comedy gold.

Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now make a formula that can tell if a Slashdot-article is a dupe.

Re:Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now make a formula that can tell if a Slashdot-article is a dupe.

1

So...

[Bean9000]

What's the formula for coming up with the values for the variables that fill in this formula?

Re:So...

[justforaday]

According to the Guardian article someone posted:

Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognisability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V) and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).

"The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."

Oh, I get it.

[yotto]

It's a joke.

And I usually like British humor. Strange, that.

Re:Elfman?

[funwithBSD]

So long as her boobies jiggle when she does it, I could care less....

What's the cost of a formula?

[pieterh]

Here's mine:

S = intelligence and wit of the script
C = degree of variety and contrast of the characters
W = wise reflection on real life ironies
N = names that you remember
B = budget of producers

And the formula is:

(S + C + W + N) / B

That'll be 5c, please.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[MutantHamster]

Wait, I haven an even better forumalr. Where "R" stands for ratings, it goes like this:

R.

Even better: Success = T#ts + As#

[Vile Slime]

Need I say more

Re:QUESTION:

[davidmcw]

This is for marketing business lackeys, assume nothing

I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[P-Nuts]

How on earth do you go about measuring any of the variables in their formula. For example, D, deluesions of grandeur. Do they just order a delusionometer from a scientific supplies catalogue?

I've come up with my own formula: L=(nP+sqrt(C)/i). It calulates lameness of formulae (L) according to number of terms in arbitrary units (n), popularity of subject matter (P), column inches devoted to the formula in mainstream news (C), and intelligence of the researchers who came up with it (i). My formula has a lameness of only 4.7, but their is much lamer at 205.3.

So there.

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[rilister]

My favorite was "V - verbal wit of the script".
You mean "Is it funny or not"?

Wow! There we have it! The secret of writing a good sitcom is writing a funny script. How insightful.

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[uberdave]

Let me guess: You also tried making a stud finder, but it kept pointing at you.

For American audiences

[LoraxLorax]

They forgot the following bit of the equation: ^T+A

The most formulaic

[ndansmith]

In my opinion, the most formulaic sitcom in the United States in recent years was Home Improvement.

1. Tim wants to make some sort of souped-up home improvement.
2. Tim makes fun of Al.
3. Tim has a hillarious accident on Tool Time.
4. Tim offends someone close to him.
5. Tim seeks advice from Wilson.
6. Tim misquotes Wilson when making ammends.
7. Everyone is happy!

It was totally mindless yet entertaining.

Re:The most formulaic

[HD Webdev]

For an old sit-com, 'I Love Lucy' had an even less complicated formula and was still a major success:

1. Lucy get's an Idea
2. Lucy screws up whatever it is she was going to do
3. Lucy tries to hide the screw-up
4. Hilarity ensues when she gets found out

Dad's Army

[Skiron]

In all these so called 'best of's', Dad's Army never gets a look in.

To me, that was, and still is the funniest comedy series ever made, and it is timeless - still funny as hell after all this time.

"You stupid boy".

Re:Dad's Army

[FatRatBastard]

Dad's Army rules. Brilliant show. In terms of older BBC/ITV shows I also loved Open all Hours (which by some miracle our local PBS station actually showed for a few weeks) and Porridge.

Must say, other than Father Ted (which was ok) I can't disagree with their top 5.

If post hoc analysis is so great...

[winkydink]

we'd all know what mutual funds to put our money into

I dispute your theorem!

[digitalamish]

My evidence: The Pamela Anderson crapfest Stacked.

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[TheFlyingGoat]

I have mod points, but I'd prefer to counter that statement. A few months ago, I probably would have agreed. However, my wife, who normally abhors anything with too much T&A, started watching Stacked. She absolutely loves it. The humor is actually witty at times and the acting is acceptable. It's far better than most of the reality shows (Dancing With The Stars?) and better than a good deal of other sitcoms. I was pretty surprised.

The fact that there's a lot of T&A is an added bonus. :)

Simpsons, the sitcom

[3770]

I saw a Simpsons episode once where they switched from their normal format to the format of the Sitcom. They had typical one liners with the obligatory recorded audience laughter sounds.

Seeing it that way made me realise how shallow and weak sitcoms really were.

I was of course watching friends as usual 2 weeks later. But regardless of that, it was an interesting "experiment".

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[robertjw]

I hope you are not saying that the Simpsons is a deep show.

Are you kidding? The Simpsons is probably one of the 'deepest' shows that has ever been on TV. The humor is all over the spectrum from Juvenille to sophisticated. It's rare that I watch an episode that I don't catch a new joke or see something in the background that I've never seen before.

I can respect that you don't like the Simpsons, and Seinfeld was a great show too, but don't call the Simpsons shallow or weak.

Applied to American sitcoms?

[ArielMT]

... "According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five.

If the formula were applied to American sitcoms, what percentage of airing sitcoms would have been spared production and airing, tormenting viewers, only to be cancelled halfway through the first season?

Formula for getting high-mod points:

[pegr]

(F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A

Where:

F = Likelihood of remaining on the first page of comments
R = Recognizability rating (editors=9, Taco=10, ACs=0)
D = User ID numerical ranking, 3 or fewer digits=10
V = Actual intelligence score of post
S = Number of "Me too" replies generated
A = General interest of story commenting on

By that metric

[ajs]

Using their calculations, a sitcom that starred an elvis impersonator who thinks he's God, and features absolutely nothing him trying to stand up on a moving ship for 1/2 hour every episode would be the world's most successful sitcom...

Yeah, I don't think you meant to factor in Wit as an additive feature....

This is usually the problem with such a formula. It isn't the discovery of any kind of fundamental feature of the sitcom, it's just an attempt at an explanation of why the CURRENT set of sitcoms are good or bad.

My formula looks like this:

Originality * Quality * Acting

The real problem is that humor is FAR harder to write than drama (ask anyone who has written both successfully), and so getting good writers is far more important for a sitcom than it is for a drama. Not that it's not hugely important for a drama, just moreso for a sitcom.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[yotto]

Um, the "nothing" in your little pattern there /is/ the payoff. The boss says something that would get you fired in any office in the civilized world, and the guy/gal he says it to just stares at him. That's the joke. The lack of a laugh track may be making it hard for you to decide when to laugh.

Re:now all we need...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

-[((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A

Can't unseat the king!

[gosand]

In my opinion, the most formulaic sitcom in the United States in recent years was Home Improvement.

No way it can touch Three's Company. That was crap TV at its finest.

Re:now all we need...

[JadeNB]

As mentioned in the article summary, the formula for a bad sitcom is

1. Notice that a certain British show is successful.

2. Make an American show with the same name and a desperate and flawed attempt to capture the feel of the original.

I guess the obligatory next step is

3. PROFIT!!!

but it doesn't seem to have worked that way.

By the way, is it just me, or is the text we're supposed to read getting much harder to read? (Maybe I'm a script after all.)

Scooby Doo

[dmaxwell]

1. Mysterious Creature is terrorizing the town/amusement park/mansion residents/......
2. Mystery Machine rolls into town.
3. Creature encounters Mystery Machine Crew.
4. Shaggy and Scooby run away and hide in the kitchen/walk in freezer/....
5. Thelma notices something strange.
6. Daphne and Fred say inane things and Fred tries to play Strong Leader.
7. Shaggy and Scooby happily raid fridge until rousted by Creature.

8. Thelma notices more clues. Fred plays Captain Obvious.
9. Creature terrorizes Shaggy and Scooby some more.

10. Thelma figures the whole thing out. Fred or Daphnie unmask Creature who turns out to be a minor character we met at the beginning of the episode. It was all a plot to scare everyone away from the town/amusement park/mansion residents/......
so he/she could have it for his/her own greedy scheme.

11. "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids."

It's simple.

[Kiryat Malachi]

if(show == sitcom)
{
show_quality = bad;
}

Ranking of sitcoms:

[wolenczak]

702 That 70's show
512 Friends
412 The simpsons
294 Smallville
273 Lost
240 24
113 The OC
100 Two and a half men
53 Myth Busters
36 Scrubs
31 Will and Grace
13 Charmed
12 Without a trace
10 Third Watch
10 ER
9 The King of Queens
8 Six Feet Under
5 Everybody Lvs Raymond
4 Startrek Enterprise
3 CSI Las Vegas
2 The Apprentice

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[CmdrGravy]

Have you seen the original ( English ) version of The Office ?

Both Are You Being Served and Keeping Up Appearances are godawful excuses for comedy !

The whole amusement of The Office was the utter painfullness of David Brents behaviour rather than any regional jokes.

Father Ted Third!

[meehawl]

Father Ted is third, beating out Fawlty Towers. All is well with the world of algorithmic sitcom ratings.