I see the bigger problem was NBC’s expectations. They were never going to get huge numbers on a Friday evening. NBC did an admirable job promoting the show, and Ancestry certainly got their advertising money’s worth. I put this on my blog, but maybe this could get picked up by the National Geographic Channel, or even run as a purely online show via YouTube or through a partnership with Facebook.

Oh, and I’m glad to hear the younger genealogists speaking up here too. I’d like to consider myself one of the “younger genealogists” since I started my family history research in my early to mid 30′s.

Excellent analysis of what went wrong with WDYTYA. You could attach that to your resume if they ever ask you to consult on a similar show.

I was intrigued by the possibility of doing something similar on a local format. Littleton, where I live, would be a perfect spot for such a show. We have great corral of minor celebrities from which to choose (news anchors, talk show hosts, and flamboyant politicians), a big emphasis on the history of the community, and we even have a web-only television network that produces short documentaries on local events. There are several local genealogical societies that could provide consultants and researchers and the possibilities of a governmental or charitable grant to help cover costs might be available. I think I will try to talk this up.

Of course, the British version is sponsored by BBC – which as far as I am aware is 100% funded by the government, so it is even less beholden to ratings than PBS is in the US.

I find it somewhat humorous for genealogy buffs to argue that the show would garner more ratings if it focused on the research, when it is really only us who are fascinated by research. To be successful the show needs to attract non-genealogists who are interested in the lives of the rich and famous.

Less actors, and more celebrities from other fields (sports, corporate, politics, media), might have been more compelling, as emotion wouldn’t have been ascribed to acting ability. Though I do like to give the actors the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t think Reba McEntire, Rob Lowe, Ashley Judd, or Tim McGraw would normally be described as PC or Liberal in their political views. There are many others on the list for the past three years whose political views are unknowns, at least to me.

I’m a 40-something and have been hooked by the genealogy bug since I was a 30-something.

It’s heartening to see so many posts from under-50 (some lots under) genealogists, but I still think Thomas is right about the demographics of this avocation and for the show.

I think another reason for the increased interest in genealogy in the over-50 crowd is twofold – a growing sense of our own mortality, and a desire to find some answers for parents or other loved ones still living (my parents are 83) who may be finding it difficult to do their own research. At least, those are motivators for me – I just turned 55 last month. I got started in genealogy when I had my first child nearly 26 years ago, but the passion has intensified as I – and my parents – have aged.

And I disagree that genealogy isn’t cheap/free. It all depends how you go about it. I estimate I’ve spent about $60, ever, on genealogy, including a year’s membership at the local historical society. You can always do things the hard and cheap way.

The few episodes of the US version I have seen seemed rather dumbed down compared to the BBC original. Perhaps they should have followed the original formula more closely. It might have matched the success of 8 series.