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:

[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.

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

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.

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.