Ben Grossman of Broadcasting & Cable reported yesterday that Fox issued an online market research survey about “American Idol” last week, perhaps in an effort to retool a show that, while still No. 1, has seen its ratings dissipate in recent years.

He said that while the network has been using the ‘net for polling for three years, “now the stakes are getting higher as viewership gets lower.” He then quoted Fox scheduling chief Preston Beckman:

We’re not in denial. It’s still the biggest show on TV, but that doesn’t mean there are things we can’t do. The feedback from this year you’ll probably see on the show next year.

Although the B&C reporter listed few questions verbatim, I wanted to weigh in on the ones he mentioned. Paraphrased questions will not appear in quotes. So here we go:

Do you like the show more or less than last year?

This is a tough call. The heart of the show, the constestants, have been mostly above-average from top to bottom, and while I resisted to the idea of allowing singers to play instruments, that’s both helped and hurt contestants in fair fashion. Better still, most of the Sanjaya Malakar-like contestants—like Josiah Leming, the high school dropout with bipolar tendencies who lived out of his car and sang with a British accent for no reason—were weeded out early either by the judges or through the voting process. But I don’t feel like this season has more superstars than previous years. In fact, in two years, we’ll probably have a tough time remembering anyone other than David Cook and David Archuleta… and maybe Carly Smithson if my wishful thinking means anything. Overall, I probably like the show more, but there the non-contestant factors are worse than ever; more about those as we continue.

“Suppose the first few weeks of American Idol started in Hollywood with flashbacks of the auditions; would that increase or decrease your enjoyment of American Idol?”

Increase. Big-time. It’s a good way to cut to the chase and it might just limit the number of uninteresting rejects that don’t fit the age qualifications. Plus, it might give the viewer the illusion that the contestants were chosen because they can sing, instead of just because of their supposedly interesting family drama.

Is too much or too little banter between the judges?

Too much, but really only because of the Paula Abdul, whose unintentional humor and well-meaning manner are far upstaged by her loopy, useless commentary that waste time that could be used for more constructive criticism from Randy Jackson and Simon Cowell. Replace her with another “nice” judge who makes more sense and better use of her/his time, and I wouldn’t feel compelled to fast-forward through the middle judge’s comment every week.

Is there too much or not enough Ryan Seacrest?

Too much. He does a decent job, but even for a competition host, too much of what he does feels like filler. Plus, there’s no need to torture the contestants on results shows (which should return to the half-hour format for the sake of us all). Tell the singers if they’re safe or not and let’s move on with life.

Do you have any new ideas?

Yes, and some controversial ones. In descending order of preference:

First and most important: Flip the voting format on its head and have voters vote people OFF the show. This will not only prevent Sanjaya Syndrome but also keep the contestant quality maximized for the show’s run.

Second: Return the first three pivotal voting rounds—those before the Top 12—to contestants’ choice instead of ’60s, ’70s and ’80s weeks. If we’re really searching for the nation’s next big pop star, they should be allowed to sing whatever they want in those first three voting rounds. This most likely means more current songs, more excited contestants connecting with more familiar material and, hopefully, better performances all the way around. Save the “challenges” of theme weeks for the Top 12.

Third: Bring back more mentors, but have the themes be more broad-based: For example, if Mariah Carey is the mentor, the theme week could be ’90s R&B instead of Carey’s songbook. And tonight’s Neil Diamond theme could be “songs by anyone other than Neil Diamond.” Again, the focus of the show should be on the contestants establishing their OWN identity, not forcing them to sing something by someone to whom they can’t relate.

Fourth: As I mentioned earlier, limit the results show to a half-hour and actual results. Toss in a Ford music video, one mentor performance, one “Where Are They Now” segment and the send-off montage; I actually don’t mind any of those and they and the results should fill out 22 minutes perfectly. But cheesy group numbers, the superfluous recap of the previous night’s show, call-in segments and extraneous montages weigh the show down. And the half-hour format would make it more difficult to drag out the agony for contestants on the cusp of being eliminated.

Fifth: Limit “Idol Gives Back” to an hour—or 90 minutes, tops. Even devout “Idol” fans were complaining that the show was too much quantity and not enough quality. Last year’s special was more effective, powerful and musically impressive. Also, there’s no excuse for a nearly-three hour “Idol” special if it’s taped and poorly edited. Return it to a live format and be choosier with guests and material.

If you have other suggestions, agree or disagree with mine, or want to commission me as an “American Idol” consultant, post your comments below.

(Photo by Sam Jones/Fox; Logo courtesy of Fox.)