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.

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....

Even better: Success = T#ts + As#

[Vile Slime]

Need I say more

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.

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: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.

I dispute your theorem!

[digitalamish]

My evidence: The Pamela Anderson crapfest Stacked.

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.