When the BBC announced this year’s Strictly Come Dancing line-up, the headlines weren’t about glitter or sequins. They were, overwhelmingly, about Thomas Skinner. A businessman and media personality, Skinner was criticised for attending a barbecue with US Vice President JD Vance, and commentators quickly linked Skinner’s brand of rise-and-grind conservativism with Reform UK. The question posed in some corners was stark: Has Strictly gone alt-right?
The narrative is compelling. It has the simplicity, urgency and whiff of culture-war drama that makes for irresistible copy. But at Yonder, we think it’s worth pausing before jumping on the bandwagon. Our proprietary tool, Clockface, maps audiences across the British public, showing how sentiment clusters and spreads. Built using advanced modelling and analysis of micro-level geographic and census data, it shows how the fundamental forces of circumstance and identity shape who we are and how we behave. And in the case of Strictly, what the data shows is rather less dramatic than the headlines suggest.
If the media’s claims that Thomas Skinner represents or appeals to the alt-right were true, we would expect there to be much higher public awareness of him on the right half of the Clockface than on the left half, and that he would be viewed positively by the right half and negatively on the left half. Does our Clockface analysis reflect this, or does it paint a rather different picture?
A show that mirrors Britain
Let’s first look at which sections of the British public watch Strictly. Our Clockface data shows that while Strictly viewership peaks with high-security individuals (those between 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock) its appeal extends equally across all demographics of the British public.
Looking at how this year’s contestants are perceived by the public, what’s striking is the breadth: the contestants collectively cover the full spectrum – or the Clockface – of the public. In other words, the show is not tipping the scales to the right or left, but is balancing them. Far from being a sudden lurch rightward, this year’s casting looks remarkably like a cross-section of Britain itself.
Low awareness, low heat
So far, only a minority of the public is familiar with the new celebrity line-up. With a few exceptions, most contestants are familiar to less than a quarter of viewers. At this stage of the competition, it’s familiarity that drives sentiment: people who know a name are more likely to have a view on them, whether positive or negative. But because awareness remains low, our data shows that the overwhelming majority of the public – around 60% across all celebrity contestants – has a neutral perception. The supposed “national outrage” to Thomas Skinner’s casting is, in reality, a microcosm: a very vocal corner of commentary that’s been amplified through media echo chambers.
Skinner in context
Thomas Skinner is indeed more divisive than his fellow contestants, but the story is more complicated than the sensational headlines would indicate. Among those who know him, over half feel positively, a third are neutral, and only a small minority – just 17% – take a negative view. His harshest critics cluster around a single segment of the Clockface: largely urban, diverse and economically insecure, an audience less likely to relate to his style. In itself this is interesting – given the media furore one might expect his harshest critics to be those with high economic security and living in high diversity areas, often derided as the ‘liberal elite’. His supporters, however, are spread far more broadly. He is less a cultural lightning rod than an illustration of how thin slices of outrage can appear to represent the whole pie.
The quiet logic of casting
Casting Strictly is no easy task. Producers must craft an ensemble that feels both familiar and surprising, representative yet entertaining. Our Clockface data shows they have, once again, assembled a group that connects across demographics and ideologies. Viewers from each Clockface quadrant (or demographic typology, to use the technical term) are able to point to at least one celebrity contestant that they feel is relatable to themselves, or their friends and family.
Additionally, our Clockface analysis demonstrates that there is a clear cultural dividing line that runs through many hotly debated issues. Regarding diversity and inclusion on television, some prefer not to force diversity (1-5 o’clock), while others treat inclusion as a core value (7-10 o’clock).
Strictly’s genius has always been to do both at once: offering a glitterball reflection of the country, contradictions and all.
The bigger lesson
The Strictly row offers a reminder for brands, broadcasters and business leaders alike: in a fragmented media landscape, noisy pockets of outrage are easily mistaken for mass sentiment. The loudest voices are not always the most representative. Before rushing to judgment – or worse, overcorrecting – it pays to look at the data. At Yonder, we’ll be keeping track of how public sentiment towards the contestants develops between now and Christmas, both on and off the dancefloor. Can a good samba, the right partner, or a favourable edit shift public opinion? Time, and the Clockface, will tell.