[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is affected most by a poor performance and who is affected the least? Assume that the general public assumes everyone to be equally bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
If everyone is equally bad then most people will make excuses for their favorites and damn the rest. Been there, done that, it's a very human reaction. No matter how bad everyone else has done, it's very hard to make a new fan with a bad performance. The net result is that whoever was last the previous week will fail to make up ground and thereby lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems logical. But consider this scenario, where like I said, all contestants are equally "bad." Think of the following as a summary of judges' responses.

Jordin: (Remember, she was terrible last week) "It was definitely better than last week, but still not great. Good to see you bounce back though."

Lakisha: "This wasn't nearly as good as last week and I didn't like it too much. It wasn't your worst, however."

Blake: "Glad to see that you're sticking with your originality, but this performance was a mess. I think you're unique enough to be safe, however."

Melinda: "Hate to say it, but this was by far your worst performance yet. Hopefully your fans will give you a chance to bring back the old Melinda next week."


What I'm trying to illustrate here is that, while all the performers in this hypothetical situation are equally "bad," they still remain in different relative positions because of their prior successes and failures. In other words, Jordin and Melinda could be equally bad, but because Jordin was so bad last week and Melinda has been so good, Melinda could be in danger as she will seem to be someone who hit a plateau and then started declining. Jordin, on the other hand, will seem to be improving again.

Not saying this would ever be the case...I'm just trying to generate some alternate scenarios.