• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, February 1, 2012

It's all about "business" at Fox’s "X Factor," according to outgoing judge Paula Abdul, who didn't elaborate further. Does this "business" come down to what advertisers want?  Last year, major sponsors paid a premium to be associated with the much- anticipated show.  Its guaranteed rating of 6 to 7 for the 18-49 audience seemed reasonable, considering that the similar "Idol" was still rocketing along at 8-plus ratings.

But "X Factor" actually delivered a bit under a 4 rating. In most cases, this isn't a problem. Advertisers have long expected under-delivery of network shows. In 99% of the cases, networks make up for it with other shows. (That other 1%? The dreaded "cash- back").

We don't hear much from three of the main “X Factor” advertisers -- Pepsi, Ford and Verizon. Many have explained that through heavy attachment to the show’s social media efforts, they got plenty of media value from "engaged" fans.

Early on, Fox did well for advertisers because of the show's ability to finally generate decent 18-49 ratings points in the fall.

But it’s no ordinary show when Pepsi "outbids" Coca-Cola -- a big $50 million price tag, according to reports -- to be connected with it. 

Abdul tells us the "business" didn't go as planned -- not nearly. Plenty of times reality competition producers say, "It's all about those who are competing for the big prize, not necessarily the judges." Now with the mass changes in "X Factor," we are led to believe there is a lot more going on.

"X Factor" needs to be different.

Cecile Frot-Coutaz, chief executive officer of "X Factor"'s production company FremantleMedia North America, told a NATPE audience in Miami that all these shows are beginning to look alike, and that's a problem --not just for those who mentor, judge, and ruminate over potential big singing talent.