5 reasons 'American Idol' may go on nearly forever — or not

American Idol sounds like a hit broken record: It has been TV's top-rated show year after year after year after year after …

That isn't likely to change in the 11th season that kicks off Wednesday night (8 ET/PT) either, which raises a key question: How long can the Fox reality singing competition remain a ratings and pop-cultural juggernaut?

Probably a long time, say observers who've followed a show that has survived the addition and elimination of judges Kara DioGuardi and Ellen DeGeneres, the loss of Simon Cowell, and even the victory of Lee "Who?" DeWyze in the eminently forgettable Season 9.

"I think it could be like Saturday Night Live," says MJ Santilli of MJ's Big Blog (mjsbigblog.com), which follows Idol and other shows in the genre. "At some point, it may not be as popular as it was. It may not be as huge a cultural touchstone as it was at its height. But I don't see any reason why it couldn't go on for a really long time, even with personnel changes. I know people were saying in Season 9, when Simon was going to leave: 'One more season and Idol is done.' Wrong."

But, as they say on Wall Street, past results aren't a guarantee of future performance. To that end, here's a a look at five reasons Idol may be singing a happy tune well into the future — and why things could get a little pitchy along the way.

1. It's America's choice.

Idol has been TV's top-rated show for a record seven consecutive seasons (eight among young adults), in recent years by a wide margin. Last year, Idol's numbers actually went up 4% to 25.2 million viewers — part of an impressive Season 10 rebound — while its ages 18 to 49 audience (11.1 million) was down just 3%.

While the sight-unseen predictions are for Idol to slip a bit this season, common for shows as they age, it should remain dominant and "head and shoulders above" everything else in the singing genre, says analyst Brad Adgate of ad firm Horizon Media.

"It's extraordinary. I think it could go on for a number of years. I think the show will last at least 15 years and still be a force on the television landscape, and that's only four more years," he says. "Last year, it overcame a hump. There were a lot of questions with the show, Simon had left, there were new judges, they were moving to Thursday nights. There were some of the biggest changes the show has had in its tenure on television, and it came out smelling like a rose."

But: Despite last year's uptick, Idol's ratings have been in gradual decline, down 18% in viewers and 32% in young adults since their Season 5 peak. Its audience is aging, too, from a median age of 32 to 47, which means a growing portion of its audience has outgrown the young-adult demographic prized by advertisers.

"It's been gradually creeping older. Younger folks are not watching Idol like in the days of (Season 1 and 2 winners) Kelly Clarkson and Ruben Studdard," Adgate says. "Kids are on to other things, whether it's stuff like Jersey Shore or Real Housewives, for their reality fix."

That audience may reflect a safer approach taken by the show, says Richard Rushfield, author of American Idol: The Untold Story. "The turn they made last year into a much more positive, uplifting, middle American (show) with their corniest champion yet — who has done very well — they've clearly cut out what their space is now. It is older and very down the middle, schmaltzy, tearjerker land. That's a huge thing. None of the other shows are competing with them to be that. But that could well be the biggest audience."

2. It's the leader of its pack.

While over the years there have been other singing competitions, most faded quickly. "We've been there the longest. I like to think we're the gold standard," executive producer Ken Warwick says. "We put a bit of comedy and humor in it. We don't take ourselves too seriously. The judges are great. When you want that little extra bit of bite, we have (music producer) Jimmy Iovine there. And I also like to think we produce better stars and talent than everybody else."

Says Randy Jackson, who has been at the judges' table since Day One, "We are the originals of this whole thing. You want to learn from the OGs, the original people that created something that was authentic. And this is just a great, great talent show. I still think it's the best of its kind. There have been many copies and there will be other versions, but this still is based on the talent."

But: The genre is rapidly getting crowded, and the newcomers are sticking around longer. With the addition of Fox's X Factor and NBC's The Voice (Feb. 5, after the Super Bowl, before moving to Mondays), which had successful first seasons but lag far behind Idol, the question arises whether there are too many singing competitions, and whether they'll cannibalize each other's viewers (if not their talent pool). NBC's America's Got Talent also should get a boost this summer from the addition of Howard Stern.

Warwick sees "audience fatigue" as the one potential threat to continued dominance. "It's kind of strange how all these shows are totally new and totally fresh and nothing like Idol. But, of course, they are identical, really. They change one little nuance."

Judge Steven Tyler isn't worried: "If there is competition, bring it on. We won't look too bad in the end," he says, before going off on the kind of riff that pleased Idol audiences last year: "Just tell them that the things that come to those that wait may be the things left by those that got there first. And that would be us."

Jackson follows Tyler with a dig at The Voice, which is bringing on Clarkson as an adviser. "And if you're looking for real talent, just look at Idol and choose some mentors from Idol."

3.Young blood freshened an aging show.

Fox reality chief Mike Darnell thinks that new judges Tyler and Jennifer Lopez are "great. I really think they did an amazing job. They are who they are and I want them to be true to their personalities." And he says they can do it without snark: "All Steven Tyler has to say is that he's disappointed in, say, a rock-and-roll guy. I've seen these kids devastated. So it has the same impact; it's just how they do it."

Last year was an improvement over its predecessor, says Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogger Rodney Ho, who writes about Idol. "To some extent, Steven, Jennifer and Randy do work reasonably well as a trio, better than Ellen, Kara, Randy and Simon. That didn't work at all. Chemistry really does matter. Randy has the respect of being there from the beginning. Jennifer and Steven respect each other as equals, as artists, and they seem to genuinely like each other."

But: Some felt that the critiques by the judges, especially Tyler, became bland and repetitive, especially as the series progressed into the live performances.

Ho says the judges' comments grew tired when there were about seven or eight contestants left, although he says that isn't uncommon as the show starts to wind down. While he feels that Lopez "did a good job overall," he says Tyler "just kept saying the same stupid things over and over again. … I hope this time he'll put more effort into it."

Santilli thinks superstar judges may have a tendency to hold back to avoid alienating their fan bases. "I thought the judging got kind of boring toward the end of the season," she says. "Steven ran out of things to say, which I think was a problem. He is a pretty funny guy. When they could edit him for the auditions, he was pretty hilarious. Once he got in front of the camera, he was repeating himself a lot."

Lopez says the judges were direct, but their less confrontational style may have disguised that to some degree. It may be more apparent this year, now that they have a season under their belts.

"I think people were more taken by the fact that we were kind. But we were giving them good notes and good criticism, constructive criticism. Criticism doesn't have to be given in a non-constructive way," Lopez says. "We're still the same this year, but again, I think we're a little bit more direct, we cut a little bit more to the chase. We know what our job is. We were getting our footing last year."

4. Its simple, successful formula focuses on the contestants.

X Factor and The Voice combine the roles of judging with mentoring, giving those who are supposed to critique a rooting interest in some contestants over others, and inciting feuds among the judges.

"The problem with The X Factor and The Voice (is) there's so much emphasis on the coaches, on the judges. …Idol really knows how to get viewers invested in the contestants," Santilli says. "We're Americans. We're aspirational. We want to see that kid from the small town who comes on Idol and gets his big break. It's not about the judges. It's about the kids. Idol understands that perfectly."

Lopez adds, "We enjoy the process as much as the audience does. It's so exciting to watch. It's a great journey and a real journey. It's not overproduced. You walk into a room, you audition and you keep going through rounds and rounds and rounds until you're in front of America and they get to vote. It's a very authentic process."

On Idol, which will feature no major changes this season, singers bloom before viewers' eyes, Tyler says. "When they first come here, they think they can sing. And then once we give them a little confidence and we let them through and they get themselves through to the next door and the next door and the next door, this flower comes out, this person that you didn't see the first time," he says.

But: Viewers often are drawn to shiny new things, whether it's The Voice's chair-spinning, blind auditions or X Factor's smoke-filled, laser-lit, heavily choreographed productions. "The Voice has younger, hipper judges. They do more modern styles. American Idol has really defined itself. They are in pageant land," Rushfield says.

X Factor and The Voice "are obviously a little fresher. The Voice has existing artists (known by) people under the age of 30. If you like a glossier product, X Factor is right up your alley," Ho says. (Clarkson will be an adviser this season on The Voice.)

5. It's a proven starmaking machine.

From Season 1's Clarkson to Season 10's Scotty McCreery, who just went platinum with his debut album, Clear as Day, Idol has a track record of creating or introducing stars, including Grammy winner Carrie Underwood, Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson, Chris Daughtry and Adam Lambert. Season 5 runner-up Katharine McPhee stars next month in NBC's musical series, Smash. "The list of stars they have from the show is amazing. I've never seen a show like it," Darnell says.

Last year was rich in talent, which could bode well for the future, Newsday pop music critic Glenn Gamboa says.

"They found a whole bunch of new talent, and if they can really sell themselves as a place to find new talent, they'll be set for a while. Seven of (Season 10's) finalists got major label deals. That hasn't been seen in I don't know how long," he says. "I think Scotty will be a real star in country and that's the kind of thing last year's class showed, that if you're really good in a specific niche, you can still do well in the show."

But: The machine has slowed recently. The bulk of Idol's big names come from the earlier years of the competition.

"They haven't found the next Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood. Those levels of stars don't come around very often," Gamboa says. "I think it's just tougher to launch a new star in general, no matter where they come from."

There also has been predictability but not much diversity, with white men winning the last four competitions, and only two women qualifying for those season finales. Rushfield says Idol shifted into more of a popularity contest a few seasons ago, with voters more focused on picking a winner as an end in itself rather than finding someone whose career they would support.

"Idol has its reign of the cute white boys. That's not the producers' fault, but you design a certain kind of show for this middle-American audience, this older audience, you're going to get a certain kind of result come out of that," he says. "Going into this season, if you're not a cute white boy, you've got to be thinking the best you can shoot for is No. 3, which makes it a different kind of competition."

Darnell counters that last year's field was very diverse, with the first country winner in a number of years. And he says the overall track record speaks for itself.

"I think the show's been amazing. It's unrealistic to think that every winner is going to become a superstar. We've had fully somewhere around a dozen people come from this television show (and become) bona fide celebrities, bona fide stars," he says. "Yes, I think we're doing fine. How's that?"

Seacrest Out for Good?

This could be Ryan Seacrest's last year hosting "American Idol." According to the Hollywood Reporter, the omnipresent media host is in the homestretch of a 2009 contract extension that pays him $15 million a year and is not likely to be renewed for that price.

According to an unnamed "Idol" insider quoted in the story, Seacrest -- who has hosted the show for all 11 of its seasons -- can be replaced for $2 to 3 million a year. In addition, Seacrest's biggest ally, "Idol" creator Simon Fuller, is no longer associated with the show.

But Seacrest, 37, is not likely to accept a pay cut when, according to this Wall Street Journal report, NBCUniversal is grooming him to take over co-hosting "The Today Show" for Matt Lauer, whose contract also expires this year.

According to the Hollywood Reporter source, the survival of "Idol" without Simon Cowell has proven to producers that it could take the lesser loss of Seacrest.

The 11th season of "American Idol" premieres Wednesday, Jan. 18, at 8 p.m. ET/PT on FOX.

Simon Cowell: I Want to Beat "American Idol"

Simon Cowell is out for blood tonight on "X Factor" -- telling TMZ, he wants to beat "American Idol" (and every other show for that matter) in the ratings department.

The big "X Factor" premiere isn't competing head to head with "Idol" -- but Simon still wants to outrank his big competition, telling us, "You don't compete for the silver or the bronze ... You may not get the gold, but you die trying."

When we asked how X will measure up against similar singing competitions --Simon responded, "It's definitely going to be better than the other shows."

As for what to look out for tonight -- Simon says the show is full of "nutcases" ... and one audition is especially terrifying.

Oh, as for what Simon thinks of "American Idol" without him -- well, he says, "It's not my cup of tea."

'The X Factor': How big will it be?

"The X Factor" judges Nicole Scherzinger, Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, L.A. Reid, and show host Steve Jones


The wait is almost over.

After months of hype, a reported $35 million in marketing costs and one high-profile judge switcheroo, Simon Cowell's "X Factor" will finally premiere on Wednesday. But will it be one talent contest too many? And can the show possibly be as big a hit in the U.S. as it is back in the UK?

I've been eagerly anticipating the U.S. launch of "The X Factor" for a long time now and have been frequently posting updates on my site Remote Patrolled. As a reality TV producer, originally from the UK but now living here in the United States, I'm very familiar with "The X Factor" format and its influence on British culture. For the past eight years, "The X Factor" has been the No. 1 entertainment show in British television, launching the career of several British pop stars and one international singing sensation, Leona Lewis. So can lightning strike twice?

In case you're not too familiar with "The X Factor" back story, here's a quick refresher.

Over in England in 2001, the ITV1 network unleashed a new talent contest called "Pop Idol." The show became an instant smash, due in large part to its toughest judge, Simon Cowell, and an addictive elimination format. In 2002, "Pop Idol" relocated to the U.S. as "American Idol." That show became an even bigger hit, launching stars like Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson and Carrie Underwood and making Cowell one of the richest people in show business.

Now here's where it gets really interesting.

"American" Idol was overseen by Spice Girls guru Simon Fuller, leaving Cowell as a mere (highly paid) gun-for-hire with no stake in the show -- or the success of its artists. As vocal as Cowell has been about being competitive, it is not surprising that he wanted to run his own show and reap the subsequent rewards. So back in England, "Pop Idol" was canceled after two seasons and replaced by the Cowell-produced "X Factor," resulting in some bad blood between the two Simons and a high-profile lawsuit (eventually settled).

The format of "The X Factor" is similar to "Idol," but there are several key differences. On "The X Factor," each of the four judges 'mentor' a category of contestant: Males younger than 30; females younger than 30; groups; and 30s and older. The show therefore becomes a contest between the judges as much as the contestants, often resulting in plenty of judges' bickering ("X Factor" judges Sharon Osbourne and Dannii Minogue were reportedly barely on speaking terms by the end of their run on the show). At the same time, the diversity of the contestants also makes the show rather different from "Idol," which these days only seems to crown white male guitar players.

One other key difference is that "The X Factor" is BIG! Auditions take place in front of a live audience, rather than a tiny audition room. And as the show progresses, it's the job of the judges to produce each of the contestants' performances as though they were staging an awards show style performance. So "X Factor" finalists get dancers, elaborate sets and complex lighting arrangements in contrast to the "static stand-and-sing" style of "American Idol."

Those are the differences. But can "The X Factor" succeed in the fiercely competitive U.S. marketplace? Back in England, the show faced little competition in the music competition genre. The BBC had "Fame Academy" (for which I produced all the live performance shows) and ITV1 had "Popstars" (a version of which also ran for two seasons here in the U.S.), but both shows had effectively run out of steam by the time "The X Factor" launched.

By contrast, the U.S. version of "The X Factor" is entering a crowded market dominated by a decade of the very successful " American Idol." Then there's NBC upstart "The Voice," which came out of nowhere in the spring to achieve strong ratings, especially among the highly coveted 18-49 demo. And at the same time as "The X Factor," NBC will also be rolling out a new season of another singing competition, "The Sing Off."

And those are just the success stories.

Over the last few years countless music competition series have come and go. Remember "Rock Star," "The One," "R U The Girl," "Clash of the Choirs" and MTV's "Top Pop Group?" Exactly! Even this year we've seen the heavily hyped "Glee Project" struggle on Oxygen, while Bravo's "Platinum Hit" was an outright flop.

Can "X Factor" buck the trend and become a bona fide phenomenon?

In large part, the success of "The X Factor" will depend on whether it can discover a true international superstar. Even Simon Cowell has admitted this will be the benchmark of the show's success. Unfortunately this will also be the show's toughest challenge.

It's been a long time since "Idol" discovered a true star. Not since Season 7's David Cook has an "Idol" artist sold a million albums (though Season 8 runner-up Adam Lambert has done reasonably well), and Season 10 winner Scotty McCreery seems unlikely to buck the trend. And while "The Voice's" Javier Colon has received plenty of critical kudos, "The Voice" finale was actually one of the lower-rated episodes of the season. It could be argued that the public appetite for music competition pop stars has already been sated.

Another challenge for "The X Factor" is that "The Voice" has effectively stolen one of the key gimmicks of the Simon Cowell series -- the idea of judges as 'mentors' who work with their contestants and are in a competition with one another. Even more damaging is that "The Voice's" starry line up -- Christina Aguilera, Blake Shelton, Adam Levine and Cee Lo Green -- is a heck of a lot more contemporary, successful and A-list then "X Factor" judges Paula Abdul, Nicole Scherzinger and L.A. Reid.

But "The X Factor" has one undeniable ace in its hand -- Cowell himself. After a pitiful season of "Idol" in which Steven Tyler, Jennifer Lopez and Randy Jackson could barely utter a word of criticism to any of the contestants, it will be refreshing to once again hear Simon's sharp-tongued but truthful feedback. On this year's "Idol," everyone was 'amazing', resulting in a tedious series that eliminated strong contenders such as Pia Toscano far too early and neutered others such as Casey Abrams who needed some harsh truth telling to raise their game.

Personally I think "The X Factor" will be a huge hit for Fox, enabling the network to dominate the fall season in much the same way it does the second half of the TV season.

With all the hype and hoopla surrounding Cowell's new show, audience awareness is higher than for any other show this season.

The only remaining question is just how big will "The X Factor" be? Can it possibly beat the 20 million plus audience "Idol" still routinely clocks up? Or will it have to settle for the more modest 12 million to 14 million "The Voice" pulled in? Knowing Simon Cowell, nothing less than No. 1 will be good enough. But for now it's up for us the audience to decide.