The BBC reports that critics remain divided on Strictly Come Dancing’s new presenting team, though several now say the trio is settling into the role after a cool reception early in the series.
Key takeaways
- The BBC reports that the new presenters of Strictly Come Dancing have divided critics but are increasingly seen as finding their rhythm.
- Strictly Come Dancing now has a three-person presenting team, a different set-up from the two-presenter format viewers had grown used to.
- First reviews of new hosts on long-running entertainment shows are often harsh, and critics’ views tend to change as a series goes on.
- It is not known how viewing figures, audience surveys or the BBC’s own assessment compare with what critics have said.
The presenter change on Strictly Come Dancing
Strictly Come Dancing is one of the BBC’s flagship Saturday-night entertainment programmes. It has run since 2004 and is a modern version of the corporation’s much older ballroom series, Come Dancing. Each year celebrities are paired with professional dancers and perform live routines that a panel of judges scores. Viewers then vote by phone and online. The show runs from late summer to December, and its live broadcasts, results shows and Christmas special make it a fixture of the British autumn television schedule.
Presenters matter more on Strictly than on many other competition formats. They hold together a live broadcast lasting several hours. They manage the move from each routine to the judges’ scores, talk to nervous contestants straight after they dance, and keep the tone friendly when a judge’s comments have upset someone. Because the show’s previous presenting partnership was in place for many years, viewers had a firm idea of what the job looks like. That makes any new arrival easier to compare with what came before.
According to the BBC, the job now belongs to a trio: Josh Widdicombe, Emma Willis and Johannes Radebe. This article does not try to judge any of them as individuals. It covers the change of format and how critics have responded to it.
The early critical reception
The BBC reports that the first reviews were cool and that opinion was divided. It also says some critics now feel the presenters are settling in. This article does not reproduce or name individual reviews. The source summary does not say which publications took which view, how many critics were consulted, or which episodes they were writing about.
A cool start followed by a gradual warming is a familiar pattern in television criticism. Opening-night reviews of a long-running show are usually written straight after the first live broadcast. At that point, the main question for reviewers is whether the new version feels like the old one. Later reviews can draw on several weeks of episodes. By then the presenters have had time to change their delivery, the production team has adjusted scripts and camera positions, and the novelty has worn off for viewers.
It is not known whether the reported shift in critical opinion matches what viewers think. Critics and general audiences often disagree about entertainment programmes. The BBC’s source summary does not give viewing figures, social media sentiment or audience research.
The three-presenter format
Moving to three presenters is a significant change of format, separate from the question of who is doing the job. With two presenters, the work divides fairly naturally: one usually handles the main studio links and the other speaks to contestants after they dance. A third presenter means more possible arrangements, but also more people needing screen time. Hand-overs have to be managed so the live programme does not feel crowded or broken up.
Television producers usually say ensemble presenting takes time to work well. Spontaneous conversation between hosts depends on familiarity, and a new team only gets that through repeated live broadcasts. This may help explain why reviews written later in a series are more generous than those written at the start, although the source does not say so directly.
Which presenter does which job, and whether that has changed during the series, is not covered in the source material.
Precedents for host changes on long-running shows
New presenters on established programmes often get a frosty first reception in British television. Long-running quiz shows, panel shows, magazine programmes and other entertainment formats have all replaced presenters at some point. Early coverage typically compares the new arrivals with the people they replaced, and later coverage tends to judge them on their own terms.
Several things drive this pattern. Regular viewers become attached to familiar faces, and some see any change as a loss whatever the replacement is like. Critics, meanwhile, often write first reviews that lean on comparison because comparison is the most obvious story. Once a few weeks have passed and the new team has developed its own habits, the comparison becomes less useful and the commentary changes.
These points describe a general pattern. They do not predict how the new Strictly presenters will be regarded at the end of the current series or in later years.
What the reception tells us about format changes
Together, the presenter handover, the move to three presenters and the mixed but warming reviews show how audiences and critics react to change in a long-established show. Strictly Come Dancing is more than a competition. For many households it is a weekly ritual, and part of its appeal is that it is predictable. Changing the people who guide viewers through each episode tests how much of that appeal comes from the format and how much from particular personalities.
The early coolness the BBC reports fits that picture. It reflects the disruption of a familiar routine as much as any considered judgement of the new team. The later warming, if it continues, would suggest that the core of the format survives the change. The sequins, the live music, the judges’ paddles and the weekly elimination still give the show its identity. Viewers’ attachment to the presenters then moves, slowly, to whoever is in the role.
Some things remain unknown. The source does not say whether the BBC is considering any changes to the presenting arrangement, what audience data shows, or how the presenters themselves see the reaction. Any firm conclusion about whether the new line-up has succeeded will probably have to wait until the series ends, when critics and broadcasters usually look back on the full run instead of individual episodes.
The case also shows how quickly first impressions harden into headlines. Coverage of the opening weeks and coverage of the closing weeks can tell different stories about the same programme. Readers following the debate will get a fuller picture by reading reviews from across the series than by relying on first-night verdicts.
Sources and further reading
- BBC News arts coverage, which reports the critics’ changing view of the new presenting team
- BBC programme information pages for Strictly Come Dancing, covering format and broadcast schedule
- Television review columns in UK national newspapers, for a range of critical opinion over the series
- Broadcasting industry trade publications, for background on presenter changes and format decisions
Surfaced from the rss:bbc_arts signal “TV presenter change reception”. AI-assisted draft, editorially reviewed.
