Getting back on for a second go

[Adam Dexter]

So... this year marks 10 years since I was on (for those that need reminding, I lost my one and only game to the "Moral Octochamp" Mr Callum Todd on a crucial.

I have applied previously (around the 8 year mark) on the online form, and received no response whatsoever.

I'm wondering the following:

- Should I send a written application?

- Should I mention I've been on before? The form specifically says "Unless otherwise permitted by us at our sole discretion, you must not have appeared in the televised stages of the Programme on any previous occasion" but then there are numerous examples of people who've been on more than once. It's not exactly like I'd be slipping under the radar anyway as surely they'd do a simple search of the name.

- Is 10 years the normal wait time? Seems to be about right from what I've heard.

[Gavin Chipper]

10 years seems to be the standard method. Definitely apply and you might as well mention that you've been on if there's an obvious place on the form for that kind of thing.

[Steve Hyde]

I don't recall there being a place on the form to mention it, but the interviewer did ask whether I'd been on before (and had no problems at all once they realised how long ago it was). So yeah, you'll be fine to apply. And best of luck!

[Countdown Team]

By all means reapply - no need to write though, use the internet, it's much easier.

[Adam Dexter]

By all means reapply - no need to write though, use the internet, it's much easier.

Thanks. I did do the form online a couple of years ago but didn't get contacted back.

Not sure if they're held on file for a certain period or whether I should do another one (if this is even possible?)

[Marc Meakin]

I was told by the production assistant that 10 years is normal, mind you she also told me my opponent hadn't won 5 games previously

[Adam Dexter]

Have put my application in have put more details than previously so hopefully get a call

[Gavin Chipper]

It seems weird that they wouldn't even respond to some applications. But I think a few people have said that it happened to them.

[Adam S Latchford]

Have put my application in have put more details than previously so hopefully get a call

Good luck Adam! You can't octo i'm afraid though, as the adam - octochamp ratio at co events would be ruined.

Just win 7 then win the series from there

glglgl

[Thomas Carey]

Have put my application in have put more details than previously so hopefully get a call

Good luck Adam! You can't octo i'm afraid though, as the adam - octochamp ratio at co events would be ruined.

Just win 7 then win the series from there

glglgl

And then one of the 7 you beat can win a series in 10 years time

[dan spinks]

just turn up at the studio in the middle of a recording. that worked for getting you on Zoomdown

[Adam Dexter]

just turn up at the studio in the middle of a recording. that worked for getting you on Zoomdown

Need a haha react for this

[Countdown Team]

By all means reapply - no need to write though, use the internet, it's much easier.

Thanks. I did do the form online a couple of years ago but didn't get contacted back.

Not sure if they're held on file for a certain period or whether I should do another one (if this is even possible?)

Probably a data clash. Sometimes the online app detects malware and viruses but it may be over-sensitive. It stops them coming through if it detects anything remotely controversial.

[Countdown Team]

It seems weird that they wouldn't even respond to some applications. But I think a few people have said that it happened to them.

The other day you 'thought' we went through players profiles when selecting conundrums.
The only people we don't respond to are the ones who end up winning the series.

[James Robinson]

By all means reapply - no need to write though, use the internet, it's much easier.

Unless no-one reads it....

[Tom S]

It seems weird that they wouldn't even respond to some applications. But I think a few people have said that it happened to them.

The only people we don't respond to are the ones who end up winning the series.

Ah bummer- that scuppers my chances ;P ;P

[Rhys Benjamin]

Formally, there’s no chances.

Informally, you can get back on after 10 years.

Even more informally, it’ll be on a case-by-case basis (see Zarte Siempre, Glen Webb for ones which were very generous to give them a second go).

How new is this “online form”? I distinctly recall posting mine off but even then it still took the team two months to get back to me (this was in late 2014).

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Seems a lot of people were quite unlucky.
I applied, was contacted immediately, passed audition, and was offered a recording slot within the month.
I asked to postpone, as it clashed too much with the run up to the LC exams... also, I was not expecting such a fast turnaround and wanted a little more practise time. Got an extra 3 months. Not sure I'd have octoed without it.

One of my opponents (Game #6), and another person from my series reapplied during 2022 (as they failed to win a show, and 5 years had passed)... but they were told they needed to wait the full 10 years. No special Zarte treatment for them!

[Martin Hurst]

It seems weird that they wouldn't even respond to some applications. But I think a few people have said that it happened to them.

The other day you 'thought' we went through players profiles when selecting conundrums.
The only people we don't respond to are the ones who end up winning the series.

So for the benefit of everyone who applies/re-applies, can you confirm what the best course of action should be if they don't receive a response to an application? Should they re-submit, contact you guys separately, etc? How long would you say to wait before doing this?

[Philip A]

I don’t understand why some contestants get another go after 3 or 5 years and others have to wait 9 or 10. This “10 year rule” is inconsistent, woolly and misleading. May as well say you can come back in at least 3 years’ time. Are contestants genuinely asked to have another bite at the cherry without them having to actively reapply?

Rules should be applied consistently.

[Graeme Cole]

Formally, there’s no chances.

Informally, you can get back on after 10 years.

Even more informally, it’ll be on a case-by-case basis (see Zarte Siempre, Glen Webb for ones which were very generous to give them a second go).

How new is this “online form”? I distinctly recall posting mine off but even then it still took the team two months to get back to me (this was in late 2014).

They definitely had some sort of online application route before then. When I applied in 2011 I emailed them my application form, which was a Word document you'd download and fill in.

[Graeme Cole]

Regarding online application vs posting a piece of paper...

There persists this strange superstition that applying for something on paper is "more likely to work" than filling in an online form. This belief is held far more widely than for applications to Countdown or even game shows in general, as anyone whose well-meaning but naïve parents have encouraged them "no, don't apply online, hand in your paper CV and job application at the front desk, then they'll remember you!" can attest.

As with many myths, the origin of this one appears to be from a shred of truth from the past which is no longer applicable, like those poorly-researched listicles which still tell you with a straight face that unplugging your TV rather than leaving it on standby "will slash your energy bill".

In the old days, applications for jobs, game shows, and everything else were done by filling in a paper form and posting it. Then in the 1990s-2000s, businesses had to be seen to embrace the new internet age, so they cautiously started publishing email addresses and web forms with which people could submit their applications. An applicant or customer would submit their form by email or website and - in theory - be thoroughly impressed that they were dealing with an organisation which clearly takes technology seriously.

However, in most cases the reality was that behind the web form or email account, the office still operated the same way as it had always done - by pushing pieces of paper around. The only change was that someone would occasionally have to log in to the shiny new computer. These electronically-submitted forms would then be printed out and added to the big stack of paper the rest of the office was used to dealing with, and treated as a paper submission from then on. This made sense at the time - after all, why change your entire business process for an application method only a few people use, when instead you can keep 95% of the old process, saving all the upheaval and having to retrain everyone?

The problem, of course, was that online communication was still a second-class citizen. Sure, the office had a shiny new computer, but this is the late 90s and early 2000s, so an average office would have had some people who were vaguely familiar with computers because their kids played games, a few people who would tiptoe carefully around the computer and nervously back away when someone turned it on, and not many who would actually know how to fetch the online correspondence. So the new-fangled "print out the online applications" step would often get delayed or forgotten. "Oh, you contacted us online? We can't read emails for the next two weeks because Fred's on holiday, can you post us a letter instead?"

And so, the myth took hold. Email is "unreliable"! The "old ways" are the best! Pay your gas bill in cash at the Post Office! Hand in your paper CV at reception! Don't use the online form, they might "miss it"!

The thing is, this was 20 years ago. In that time, most offices have modernised. Every desk in every office has a computer on it. There's no "stack of paper forms" any more, they're all stored electronically. In our example above, it's now the other way round - the paper application is now the second-class citizen requiring extra effort. Someone has to open the envelope and scan or type all the details into the computer where all the other submissions are. And yet, the myths persist.

I have no special knowledge of the Countdown application process - the above is a far more general observation than that. But let's say you're working for a TV production company and you need contestants to fill an upcoming recording block. Do you start opening envelopes one-by-one, or do you browse through the hundreds of applications already on your screen? It's a no-brainer.

[JackHurst]

Never take it for granted that you will get another go. You set yourself up to be very disappointed after a long long time of anticipating getting back on.

It's completely up to the discretion of the team and there are so many factors at play.

It's like applying for jobs. Best applicants don't always get the job because businesses need to move quickly and get stuff done. You need to also be in the right place at the right time. Difference of course is that you can apply to as many jobs as you like, but there is only one Countdown!

[Graeme Cole]

I don’t understand why some contestants get another go after 3 or 5 years and others have to wait 9 or 10. This “10 year rule” is inconsistent, woolly and misleading. May as well say you can come back in at least 3 years’ time. Are contestants genuinely asked to have another bite at the cherry without them having to actively reapply?

Rules should be applied consistently.

Be careful what you wish for!

In the early days of this forum, long before any "10 year rule" existed, contestants would occasionally reappear after only a year or two. This was at the production team's discretion. Unfortunately, after a few of these reappearances, some people started to treat getting a second run as a right rather than a privilege, and they would bicker about why so-and-so got another chance when they didn't.

The production team responded to the growing tide of quibbles and re-applications by enforcing a very consistent rule: no more reappearances, ever, except in cases where an adjudication mistake affected the result.

This rule was enforced strictly for a while, then waived for a contestant whose last appearance was 14 years previously (to howls of protest from some!), before eventually settling on the unofficial "10 year rule" which I believe exists now, with a very small number of contestants slipping through that net. Note that even if 10 years have passed, you can reapply but that doesn't guarantee you a place on the show, just as a first-time applicant isn't guaranteed a place on the show.

I've deliberately avoided including names or links to old forum posts - I just want to make a general point rather than dig up old controversies. Countdown doesn't owe you anything, and there's an unpopular but very easy way they could "apply the rules consistently" if they so chose.

[Countdown Team]

So for the benefit of everyone who applies/re-applies, can you confirm what the best course of action should be if they don't receive a response to an application? Should they re-submit, contact you guys separately, etc? How long would you say to wait before doing this?

Info is here....https://www.channel4.com/4viewers/take-part/countdown

Some of the info states this.....Unless otherwise permitted by us at our sole discretion, you must not have appeared in the televised stages of the Programme on any previous occasion.
We have the right at our sole discretion to add to, delete from, modify or amend these Eligibility Requirements and to select contestants for the Programme. In all circumstances concerning the interpretation and application of these Eligibility Requirements, our decision will be final.

[Countdown Team]

Unless no-one reads it....

Of course somebody reads it.

[Martin Hurst]

So for the benefit of everyone who applies/re-applies, can you confirm what the best course of action should be if they don't receive a response to an application? Should they re-submit, contact you guys separately, etc? How long would you say to wait before doing this?

Info is here....https://www.channel4.com/4viewers/take-part/countdown

Some of the info states this.....Unless otherwise permitted by us at our sole discretion, you must not have appeared in the televised stages of the Programme on any previous occasion.
We have the right at our sole discretion to add to, delete from, modify or amend these Eligibility Requirements and to select contestants for the Programme. In all circumstances concerning the interpretation and application of these Eligibility Requirements, our decision will be final.

Apologies, what I meant was what happens if someone doesn't hear back following applying - do they just assume it has been rejected, or should they follow up in case it wasn't received (which (I think) is suggested what happened to Adam?).

[Countdown Team]

I'd imagine you'd hear either way but i can't be sure, i'll find out.
In any case, after a month i'd email to chase for a progress report.

[James Robinson]

Unless no-one reads it....

Of course somebody reads it.

So, I got rejected nearly 2 years ago, and 2 months ago as well...

Not really surprised in fairness...

I'd imagine you'd hear either way but i can't be sure, i'll find out.
In any case, after a month i'd email to chase for a progress report.

I think only Only Connect actually bothers to tell people if they haven’t got through (and that includes before the audition process)…

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Rules should be applied consistently.

Be careful what you wish for!

100% this.
As irritating as it is to see the likes of get back on far too soon, when other more deserving contestants have to wait,
a hard and fast rule is only likely to be more restrictive (read: worse) than what we have now.

[Philip A]

The other big thing I will say is don’t reapply too frequently (say, every year or two), especially if you have been on before. That will just make them prioritise new contestants even more IMHO.

[Patrick Thompson]

Good luck with your application Adam, will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Coming up to 8 years since my solitary appearance and I’m desperate to get back on. Applied last year but didn’t hear anything so might have to wait for the 10 year mark. Slightly tempted to apply before then but not sure putting in weekly applications, Andy Dufresne in Shawshank style, will do me any good.

Hoping it will happen eventually but might have to be a patient for a bit longer.

[Rhys Benjamin]

I do agree with Philip, a more consistent application of the rules would be better.

Given there’s been more than 200 returnees, of which there were only six in the Richard Whiteley era, might I recommend the rules are changed to reflect this?

Something like “[…] you must not have appeared in the televised stages of the Programme within the last 10 years on any previous occasion, and longer if you won at least one televised Programme.”

Edit: slightly spoilerific but given Colin’s comments on Monday’s show, that “no one is allowed to come on three times”, this seems to indicate the rules don’t reflect current practice.

[Ian Volante]

I'd suggest that the rules don't need rewritten as they're working pretty well. It's much easier to have a blanket ban, apart from at the discretion of production, rather than having higher expectations across the board.

[Fiona T]

Agree that the rules don't need rewriting. But it would be good if, when someone does re-apply, they got a response that tells them how long to wait before trying again.

[Tracey Anne Mills]

Good luck with your application Adam, will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Coming up to 8 years since my solitary appearance and I’m desperate to get back on. Applied last year but didn’t hear anything so might have to wait for the 10 year mark. Slightly tempted to apply before then but not sure putting in weekly applications, Andy Dufresne in Shawshank style, will do me any good.

Hoping it will happen eventually but might have to be a patient for a bit longer.

You were on Series 72 the series I was in, but it is worth it to give it another go.

[Patrick Thompson]

Good luck with your application Adam, will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Coming up to 8 years since my solitary appearance and I’m desperate to get back on. Applied last year but didn’t hear anything so might have to wait for the 10 year mark. Slightly tempted to apply before then but not sure putting in weekly applications, Andy Dufresne in Shawshank style, will do me any good.

Hoping it will happen eventually but might have to be a patient for a bit longer.

You were on Series 72 the series I was in, but it is worth it to give it another go.

Think I was the on penultimate episode of S72 so would have carried over to the next season if I hadn’t been so rubbish.

When I finished filming my episode all the finalists were in the green room (or just arriving). I’m glad I didn’t know beforehand you’d all be there as I would have been even more nervous.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Good luck with your application Adam, will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Coming up to 8 years since my solitary appearance and I’m desperate to get back on. Applied last year but didn’t hear anything so might have to wait for the 10 year mark. Slightly tempted to apply before then but not sure putting in weekly applications, Andy Dufresne in Shawshank style, will do me any good.

Hoping it will happen eventually but might have to be a patient for a bit longer.

You were on Series 72 the series I was in, but it is worth it to give it another go.

Think I was the on penultimate episode of S72 so would have carried over to the next season if I hadn’t been so rubbish.

When I finished filming my episode all the finalists were in the green room (or just arriving). I’m glad I didn’t know beforehand you’d all be there as I would have been even more nervous.

Well, I was on Series 73 Episode 1, so you’d have probably come up against me, mwahahaha…

[Fiona T]

Wonder what the deal is for mediocre octochamps/QFs - would love another crack now I've improved, but suspect more than 10 years would be required.

If I'm still alive and brain still works, I'll pencil in 2035

[samir pilica]

FWIW, have never really been in favour of people making multiple appearances. Would be far more interested in seeing new talent performing under the spotlight. Personally, would find it a tad inconsiderate towards others presumably eagerly awaiting to make the first appearance.

[JackHurst]

FWIW, have never really been in favour of people making multiple appearances. Would be far more interested in seeing new talent performing under the spotlight. Personally, would find it a tad inconsiderate towards others presumably eagerly awaiting to make the first appearance.

Very easy to say if you went on the show and had the success you wanted first time. There's so much luck involved, and some people put in a lot of hard graft. Why not let them retry? It's not as if there's a huge prize pot a stake. Think of how many series champs have been returning players. Tcap, Bevins, McColm, Dinos....

I do see the point about it taking away from others though. But hell, watching Kirk Bevins in series 60 is probably the most I've ever enjoyed watching the show.

Wonder what the deal is for mediocre octochamps/QFs - would love another crack now I've improved, but suspect more than 10 years would be required.

If I'm still alive and brain still works, I'll pencil in 2035

I think if you've qualified for QFs your hopes of going back on to a normal series are close to 0.

Having said that, it would be quite cool for there to be some sort of redemption mini series (maybe 16p knockout) where some hand picked "much improved" players get the chance to play again.


Another idea if you want to go crazy is to make the first week of each series a "returning contestants week" featuring improved or unlucky contestants. The twist is that the Friday challenger is a previous "Expert" player who retires after 1 game even if they win (most likely a returning series champion). So effectively for any of the returning contestants to make series finals, they would have to beat an expert level player in heats.

[Philip A]

FWIW, have never really been in favour of people making multiple appearances. Would be far more interested in seeing new talent performing under the spotlight.

Absolutely this. Countdown needs more new contestants.

[Fiona T]

I don't think returning contestants are stopping new players - AIUI if a new player applies, they get an audition. If they pass that audition, they get to play.

[Marc Meakin]

FWIW, have never really been in favour of people making multiple appearances. Would be far more interested in seeing new talent performing under the spotlight.

Absolutely this. Countdown needs more new contestants.

There is, room for both surely.
10 years, is a reasonable length (though it seems a long time for a 60 year old ) to allow returnees.
There is interest in watching former winners, I'm waiting for Kai Laddiman to apply
Cillian and others like him have proven there is room for returnees

[Fiona T]

Wonder what the deal is for mediocre octochamps/QFs - would love another crack now I've improved, but suspect more than 10 years would be required.

If I'm still alive and brain still works, I'll pencil in 2035

I think if you've qualified for QFs your hopes of going back on to a normal series are close to 0.

There have been at least a couple, but a lot longer than 10 years! There was definitely a former octochamp in my series, and didn't Tom play a former semi-finalist?

But yeah, I'd agree that contestants who have made the finals should be bottom of the pile for a reappearance.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Wonder what the deal is for mediocre octochamps/QFs - would love another crack now I've improved, but suspect more than 10 years would be required.

If I'm still alive and brain still works, I'll pencil in 2035

I think if you've qualified for QFs your hopes of going back on to a normal series are close to 0.

There have been at least a couple, but a lot longer than 10 years! There was definitely a former octochamp in my series, and didn't Tom play a former semi-finalist?

But yeah, I'd agree that contestants who have made the finals should be bottom of the pile for a reappearance.

And herein lies the problem with a case by case approach, it creates entitlement.

I appreciate the late 2010s may have seen a complete dearth of applications, but given we had a run of several gamechanging returnees which pushed the boat out, the rules as written don't really bear any resemblance to reality right now.

- as soon as Marcus Hares reappeared the door was suddenly open to people to won their first game (some may say "Bruce Lambert" at this point but he was only 12 in his first run so this wasn't a gamechanger);
- when Glen Webb reappeared the door was suddenly open to quarter-finalists;
- when Chris Feetenby reappeared the door was now presumably open to losing semi-finalists;
- Zarte was a 5-time winner let back on less than 5 years after losing to Dylan Taylor;
- Anthony Jenkin was the first octochamp to have a second go...

[Fiona T]

And herein lies the problem with a case by case approach, it creates entitlement.

It doesn't at all. FTOAD I think it's very unlikely they would allow me back for a second crack - and if they did it would probably be so long that I'd be dead or doolally. Fun to hope though

[Phil Hulme]

I sort of raised this when I went to watch the CofC16 finals, after a prompt from a cameraman. I wasn't told definitely no, but I got the impression it was a non-starter for myself as a losing Q-F.
I guess that if Countdown had a noticeable revision of format that would give more scope to invite back any contestant. That said, to my knowledge CD was only ever revised once, from the nine to fifteen round format. I quite like some of the rounds in the French version.

[dan spinks]

next week we will get a 6th? member of the triple appearance club

[Dame Eadie]

Some things to consider. Not every returnee has been honest when asked on the application form about 'previous TV appearances'.
We have a changing research team who don't know the past contestants in the same way i do, so it's inevitable that some will slip through the net.
We've even had people use different names 2nd time around to avoid detection.
Basically, there's no rule as such. If you came onto the show a decade ago and were hopeless, or an asshole, or even a hopeless asshole, then there's little chance of having a second bite. I'm dead against multi-winners taking part again unless it's been for decades. Yes there have been exceptions, but lessons have been learned.
Ultimately, i'm massively in favour of new contestants, and if you take part once and don't achieve what you hoped, then it's too bad.
Peace.

[Steve Hyde]

We've even had people use different names 2nd time around to avoid detection.

They're a sneaky pair are Kostadinos Sfyris and Matt Croy

[Tracey Anne Mills]

We've even had people use different names 2nd time around to avoid detection.

They're a sneaky pair are Kostadinos Sfyris and Matt Croy

Crimewatch most wanted !!

[Marc Meakin]

Some things to consider. Not every returnee has been honest when asked on the application form about 'previous TV appearances'.
We have a changing research team who don't know the past contestants in the same way i do, so it's inevitable that some will slip through the net.
We've even had people use different names 2nd time around to avoid detection.
Basically, there's no rule as such. If you came onto the show a decade ago and were hopeless, or an asshole, or even a hopeless asshole, then there's little chance of having a second bite. I'm dead against multi-winners taking part again unless it's been for decades. Yes there have been exceptions, but lessons have been learned.
Ultimately, i'm massively in favour of new contestants, and if you take part once and don't achieve what you hoped, then it's too bad.
Peace.

Hopeless and useless, I resemble that remark .
I may have to change my name.

[Dame Eadie]

I think the key thing is don't apply until you're ready.

[Marc Meakin]

I think the key thing is don't apply until you're ready.

I don't think people on the whole apply unless they feel ready I would have thought.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing

[Adam Gillard]

I think the key thing is don't apply until you're ready.

I don't think people on the whole apply unless they feel ready I would have thought.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing

I wasn't "ready" when I applied, in the sense that I hadn't been on apterous for very long and I was an average player. I was ready however to go on TV and have fun, which the previous contestants frequenting apterous had encouraged me to do. I had a big gap between recording heats and recording finals though, during which I played a ridiculous amount of apterous so then I was "ready" in the sense of having done as much practice as I wanted.

[Adam S Latchford]

I think the key thing is don't apply until you're ready.

I don't think people on the whole apply unless they feel ready I would have thought.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing

I dunno. I think people feeling ready means very different things. I was ready to go on when I did - just wanting to go on and have a bit of fun and escape lockdown for a bit. Obviously I was nowhere near the level i could get to when I did it but it doesn't mean I wasn't ready.

[Gavin Chipper]

Well I think some people don't know about Apterous etc. when they apply so consider themselves ready, and then find out and suddenly they're not ready any more. Though having said that, in 2023 I find it hard to believe that people aren't aware people are doing things beyond just watching the show to reach the levels we now see.

[Fiona T]

If I'd found apterous before I applied I'd never have felt ready! Glad I went on when I did - had zero expectations, so was delighted with a teapot, and never even contemplated 8 wins (hence the recycled outfits!). I'd love another go, but mainly cos the whole experience was great fun, not because I think I'd do better - I'd probably spot better words, but could well lose game one - plenty of players better than me don't have a teapot!

[Mark Deeks]

The two days of filming heats were, even now, probably the best two of my life. There was no expectation, only a small amounted of self-inflicted pressure (certainly made up for that later on), a receptive actual audience, a bunch of fun stories/coincidences, the fun of new experiences, and, moreover, the thrill of how unexpectedly well it all went. It wasn't a part of my life; it was a thing I was doing on a whim, and only afterwards did it become what it did. I would dearly love to relive those days, the naivety of youth, the freedom from measuring self against others, the making of new friends and dropping some ad-hoc decent lines on telly. But you can't really relive them, since it was all a product of unrepeatable circumstances. The novelty is gone, the audience is gone, the lack of expectation is definitely gone. So perhaps to some it'd be worth exploring how much of the desire to have another go is chasing nostalgia (which, tempting though it is, never really works in life), versus a desire to actually do better (which, hey, me too, but no one is owed that).