Dr Detroit reminds us that there is another market for the BB product which is severely disadvantaged by Channel 5 and their absolute control tendencies.
I have many friends who do not live in the UK and no longer have access to any Big Brother, certainly Spain, Ireland and America have had little access in the past, and if Desmond and his cohorts have their way, will have none in the future.
What have they to gain from this?
The programme will certainly have no resale value in the future, so they cannot be holding it back for Big Brother xx - The Director's Cut dvd. And they don't want anyone offshore from our Small Island to watch it now.
I feel the fell hand of the Multi-Nationals behind this. There has certainly been a desperate scramble on the Internet to regionalise the delivery of material. It isn't driven by governments because they are like the giant supertankers - it takes them forever to slow down and change direction. Multi-National corporations however do have the resources to force through this process and have the money and skills at their disposal to make it happen. It certainly happened with the dvd market. But that was to ensure that differential pricing would not lead to grey market imports. There is no profit to be had from blocking BB alone outside of the UK. It must be a side effect of something else.
The something else.
This seems to be driven by the need to separate markets so that particular products (TV shows for example) can be made available on subscription streams at some time in the future. Their default setting seems to be that it will only be available in one country and they are perhaps just testing the system. (This is regardless of the fact that if it can be streamed it will be re-streamed by third parties because the people who are good at diverting the system largely work outside the system).
It does not seem to be wholly a Ch5 issue, BBC iPlayer is the same and I dare say the other TV channels also are closing it down.
Can we sway them with a well chosen argument?
I doubt it. The Big players seem to be impervious to common sense arguments, But that does not mean we cannot follow the well trodden pathways of aggravation and avoidance. We aggravate them and we also circumvent their controls. They are irritating but we are resourceful.
Tuesday 27 September 2011
Monday 26 September 2011
2 Evictions down - and what have we got?
I think it is fair to say that they are pissed off with us. We are pissed off with them so that is all square. Today's questions are therefore...
1. Does Live Feed seem any nearer?
2. How is Twitter filling the gap?
3. Does FB work?
4. How are CH5 reacting?
5. Where do we go from here?
Does Live Feed seem any nearer?
I think it is a fair bet that although we can see nothing out here in the tumbleweeds, deep in panic control there will be a contingency plan. My view is that the delivery of advertising revenue from the sponsors would have been contractually dependent on the delivery of an audience. If the sponsors did not insist on that, they may as well have given their cash to charity.
If I can take that as a given then it follows that there would have been a target number involved. Perhaps the phrase used was that Ch5 would deliver an audience of or greater than X. Down in the weeds it would have stipulated where and how that audience was measured. For TV they would use BARB. For the selected 'Social Media' they would have taken some measurement of the Facebook hits and possibly click-throughs to their web page and videos. How they measure Twitter is beyond me at the moment because all I see is one way traffic - an endless stream of pointless Tweets from them - ranging from the inane to the totally absurd. That one-way torrent of drivel cannot be used as a valid measurement for financial transactions. So, we don't know what they measure and against what target.
What do we know then? Well, rumours suggest that they have given themselves a deadline to hit targets. That means, if taken at face value, that they are not meeting them.
What else do we know? The handling of Nikki Cowan suggests an element of absolute panic in Ch5 - at least in Borehamwood. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing and the way they reacted suggests that someone very high up the organisation had shouted at the underlings and they reacted in the way that people do when shouted at. The someone would have to be above the programme producers. Perhaps in the rarefied air inhabited by dear Jefford. I would imagine that he is sick and tired of hearing 'Live feed'. The terseness of his response to questions about Live Feed suggested someone of a testy disposition. Perhaps the decision to drop it rest on his shoulders and he feels the cold wind from the Job Centre beckoning? Certainly it suggests that he is the person who will have to change his mind and allow the stream to return to our computers at least. Perhaps he doesn't like us? Perhaps he won't take any notice of us? Perhaps he will only listen to the advertisers and their lawyers?
I asked a colleague of mine about a useful way forward for the campaign. This was the response.
HOW:
Social Media, the same way Ch5 are trying to control the program. Not just one FB group, a dozen or more. All on the same message, all saying the same things. Twitter, again everybody tweets and re-tweets each other. Over and over again using hashtags to get a trend going. STAY ON MESSAGE AT ALL TIMES, ignore the trolls but re-tweet them to increase the trend.
WHO:
Firstly, Channel Five, ALL of Ch5 not just the program. Directors, heads of department, newspaper editors, everybody. Secondly the fans. Not just the aggrieved like yourself but the others who are still tuning in. Tell them what they are missing and why and keep telling them.
TARGETS:
The Advertisers, they are paying for the program and have very thin skins when it comes to public criticism, they don't like being shown up as supporting an unpopular program.
Again, Channel 5. E-mail complaints and 'suggestions' on how to improve the show.
Enough from me, feel free to suggest anything else you can think of or disagree if you like. If you REALLY want live feed to come back, ever, you have to do something before the end of this show.
Perhaps Live Feed will get a bit nearer if we adopt these strategies.
How is Twitter filling the gap?
The answer is that it provides the 'endless stream of pointless tweets' that give us the opportunity for ReTweeting and generating publicity. It will never fill the 'Live Feed Gap' because all it is is somebody else telling us what we should be thinking. And that, dear Mr Jefford is precisely what Live Feed wasn't. We watched, we formed our own opinions and we spread the opinions and defended them.
Does FB work?
It provides Ch5 with what they want and it gives us the opportunity to aggravate them. Ch5 are reduced to inventing whole groups of 'flavoured' posters to combat the constant Live Feed chorus. Some days they are all Nigerian-ish, others they are Irish-ish depending on who in the office has the job of spamming the walls with pro-Ch5 twaddle. FB is not working for them unless they are generating enough click-throughs to satisfy the sponsors. They cannot be measuring traffic on wall posts because they keep on deleting ours. As long as we do not click through their video or picture links, or take part in the polls we should be doing them no good at all.
How are CH5 reacting?
Badly. Which is good news for us.
Where do we go from here?
See above in blue.
Do not give up.
1. Does Live Feed seem any nearer?
2. How is Twitter filling the gap?
3. Does FB work?
4. How are CH5 reacting?
5. Where do we go from here?
Does Live Feed seem any nearer?
I think it is a fair bet that although we can see nothing out here in the tumbleweeds, deep in panic control there will be a contingency plan. My view is that the delivery of advertising revenue from the sponsors would have been contractually dependent on the delivery of an audience. If the sponsors did not insist on that, they may as well have given their cash to charity.
If I can take that as a given then it follows that there would have been a target number involved. Perhaps the phrase used was that Ch5 would deliver an audience of or greater than X. Down in the weeds it would have stipulated where and how that audience was measured. For TV they would use BARB. For the selected 'Social Media' they would have taken some measurement of the Facebook hits and possibly click-throughs to their web page and videos. How they measure Twitter is beyond me at the moment because all I see is one way traffic - an endless stream of pointless Tweets from them - ranging from the inane to the totally absurd. That one-way torrent of drivel cannot be used as a valid measurement for financial transactions. So, we don't know what they measure and against what target.
What do we know then? Well, rumours suggest that they have given themselves a deadline to hit targets. That means, if taken at face value, that they are not meeting them.
What else do we know? The handling of Nikki Cowan suggests an element of absolute panic in Ch5 - at least in Borehamwood. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing and the way they reacted suggests that someone very high up the organisation had shouted at the underlings and they reacted in the way that people do when shouted at. The someone would have to be above the programme producers. Perhaps in the rarefied air inhabited by dear Jefford. I would imagine that he is sick and tired of hearing 'Live feed'. The terseness of his response to questions about Live Feed suggested someone of a testy disposition. Perhaps the decision to drop it rest on his shoulders and he feels the cold wind from the Job Centre beckoning? Certainly it suggests that he is the person who will have to change his mind and allow the stream to return to our computers at least. Perhaps he doesn't like us? Perhaps he won't take any notice of us? Perhaps he will only listen to the advertisers and their lawyers?
I asked a colleague of mine about a useful way forward for the campaign. This was the response.
HOW:
Social Media, the same way Ch5 are trying to control the program. Not just one FB group, a dozen or more. All on the same message, all saying the same things. Twitter, again everybody tweets and re-tweets each other. Over and over again using hashtags to get a trend going. STAY ON MESSAGE AT ALL TIMES, ignore the trolls but re-tweet them to increase the trend.
WHO:
Firstly, Channel Five, ALL of Ch5 not just the program. Directors, heads of department, newspaper editors, everybody. Secondly the fans. Not just the aggrieved like yourself but the others who are still tuning in. Tell them what they are missing and why and keep telling them.
TARGETS:
The Advertisers, they are paying for the program and have very thin skins when it comes to public criticism, they don't like being shown up as supporting an unpopular program.
Again, Channel 5. E-mail complaints and 'suggestions' on how to improve the show.
Enough from me, feel free to suggest anything else you can think of or disagree if you like. If you REALLY want live feed to come back, ever, you have to do something before the end of this show.
Perhaps Live Feed will get a bit nearer if we adopt these strategies.
How is Twitter filling the gap?
The answer is that it provides the 'endless stream of pointless tweets' that give us the opportunity for ReTweeting and generating publicity. It will never fill the 'Live Feed Gap' because all it is is somebody else telling us what we should be thinking. And that, dear Mr Jefford is precisely what Live Feed wasn't. We watched, we formed our own opinions and we spread the opinions and defended them.
Does FB work?
It provides Ch5 with what they want and it gives us the opportunity to aggravate them. Ch5 are reduced to inventing whole groups of 'flavoured' posters to combat the constant Live Feed chorus. Some days they are all Nigerian-ish, others they are Irish-ish depending on who in the office has the job of spamming the walls with pro-Ch5 twaddle. FB is not working for them unless they are generating enough click-throughs to satisfy the sponsors. They cannot be measuring traffic on wall posts because they keep on deleting ours. As long as we do not click through their video or picture links, or take part in the polls we should be doing them no good at all.
How are CH5 reacting?
Badly. Which is good news for us.
Where do we go from here?
See above in blue.
Do not give up.
Sunday 25 September 2011
Kit Marsters writes - Big Brother - How to Win Back Viewers
Huffy Post
Channel 5 must have expected ratings to drop after Celebrity Big Brother. They must have expected it, as Celebrity Big Brother tends to attract a higher amount of viewers than the regular series. Whether or not they expected a drop of nearly 50% compared to the last series on Channel 4 is a different matter. According to Barb overnight figures, the first five episodes pulled in an average of just 1.7 million viewers, with the first eviction watched by 1.83 million. Indications are that even 1.7 million is proving difficult to maintain, as on Thursday only 1.16 million tuned in to see the highlights. A record low was reached on Saturday, when a mere 900,000 viewers showed an interest. With some eight weeks of Big Brother still to come, it will be interesting to see if Channel 5 can get their audience back to above the 1 million mark, or if even more people will switch off.
Whilst such ratings are still pretty decent for the channel, and they may actually be content with them, it is clear to Big Brother viewers that all is not well.
Why are dedicated fans abandoning their beloved show?
Why are people who have watched the show from series one now moving on?
And what can be done to win them back?
For Linda, it's simple. "Two words are all that's needed - live feed!" She says that she has been a stalwart fan for years, but she will not watch without the feed.
Bradley is still watching but feels that there is room for improvement. He agrees with Linda on the live feed issue.
"Whilst I see their thinking, the people who watch the live feed are the hardcore fans who will watch it no matter what. We are down to the core now. Their thinking is that by providing live feed it makes it harder to hide things and won't get more people watching. They are wrong in the sense that those people are the people who spread the word to the ones who won't watch live feed, who don't know what's going on so won't bother to watch the highlights show. If a BB fan tells them, "You've got to see it tonight, there was a massive argument last night," then others will tune in and become more involved."
Bradley also thinks that the producers should go back to basics. "BB has felt the need to constantly change, whereas apart from the tasks people enjoy the same things that encouraged them to watch in the first place.
The nominations process keeps changing. Go back to the way it was. None of the "surprise" things work; they don't encourage people to tune in, there's no need. Let's go back to nominations on Monday, the announcement on Tuesday, and eviction on Friday. One of the most important parts of the show has constantly been altered and people miss it. In the last few series they didn't even show some housemates actually nominating. With this in mind, the extra nomination programme, when we would see more of the nominations, would be helpful if it returned."
He prefers Big Brother to keep it real. "At present they do everything to create arguments, so much so that none of the arguments are real and are a nightly thing, therefore no one cares. In the first few series when an argument occurred it mattered, because it was real, organic and in some cases, as with Nasty Nick, brewing for weeks. Now they won't let them sleep during the day or allow anything to stimulate them. Give them the opportunity to sleep for an hour or two, or even allow reading material for an hour a day. This will help produce more energy and more excitement. At present they aren't allowed anything but just to sit and wait for a task. They do it to create tension, but in the end it produces boredom and silly arguments. Arguments will come naturally if you allow them to."
Sarah says she used to be an avid viewer. "I loved the sociological/psychological aspect of the show. When I say that, I mean it in terms of group dynamics and being shut away from the outside world, not as a substitute for the care in the community/"OMG I wanna be famous" culture. As a social scientist it was fabulous to see how people formed groups and dealt with isolation. I loved Nasty Nick, because Nick showed some fascinating human traits and instincts to win. It was all about how people get on. I love people watching and this really is the ultimate people watching show. Live footage was brilliant when I was revising for exams - Big Brother has more or less covered my entire career as a student.
"Sadly the show seems to have gone along with the moral decline in this country. It's now about mad people who want to be famous and have the morals and attitudes of alley cats rather than group dynamics. It also celebrates this "I wanna be a star" culture; you never get academics on BB do you? We aren't all boring, but we do have standards. Now it's like care in the community titillation. Let's put a load of unstable people in a house for several months, lock the door and see what happens - carnage! Horrendous, it gives off completely the wrong image to the kids who are the target audience.
"I suppose the major question is why do the producers/makers feel the programme has to be this way now? That's something I'd love to know.
"Let's go back to the more psychological/sociological experiment format. I think the concept has gone from seeing how people react to different situations, to really pushing them to extremes purely for TV entertainment. It's like a human zoo. The problem is, I suppose this could be a reflection of a bad change in society in general, so Big Brother is a symptom. Have tasks, and games, and challenges that test people's endurance etcetera, rather than make them look stupid. I find it really worrying, always have when people leave and are booed by people they have never met."
Bradley agrees with Sarah about the booing. "Eviction night booing. It's revolting and does nothing to improve occasional viewers' feelings on the show. Totally unnecessary and should be banned. Eviction nights used to be special, now they are ruined by nastiness to evicted housemates who often find it terrifying. If so called hardcore fans boo these people, why should others bother to watch? Ban it and tell people there that if they do boo, they will be kicked out and banned in the future."
Sarah has a final point to make: "Have a wider range of people on the show, from different walks of life. The twists that have seen people go into houses in different countries have been fascinating! The age range this year is 18-30, and they all have a very similar demographic."
Whilst the views expressed here are those of just three Big Brother viewers, their sentiments appear to be reflected around the forums. Will they be listened to? Channel 5 and Endemol decide.
Channel 5 must have expected ratings to drop after Celebrity Big Brother. They must have expected it, as Celebrity Big Brother tends to attract a higher amount of viewers than the regular series. Whether or not they expected a drop of nearly 50% compared to the last series on Channel 4 is a different matter. According to Barb overnight figures, the first five episodes pulled in an average of just 1.7 million viewers, with the first eviction watched by 1.83 million. Indications are that even 1.7 million is proving difficult to maintain, as on Thursday only 1.16 million tuned in to see the highlights. A record low was reached on Saturday, when a mere 900,000 viewers showed an interest. With some eight weeks of Big Brother still to come, it will be interesting to see if Channel 5 can get their audience back to above the 1 million mark, or if even more people will switch off.
Whilst such ratings are still pretty decent for the channel, and they may actually be content with them, it is clear to Big Brother viewers that all is not well.
Why are dedicated fans abandoning their beloved show?
Why are people who have watched the show from series one now moving on?
And what can be done to win them back?
For Linda, it's simple. "Two words are all that's needed - live feed!" She says that she has been a stalwart fan for years, but she will not watch without the feed.
Bradley is still watching but feels that there is room for improvement. He agrees with Linda on the live feed issue.
"Whilst I see their thinking, the people who watch the live feed are the hardcore fans who will watch it no matter what. We are down to the core now. Their thinking is that by providing live feed it makes it harder to hide things and won't get more people watching. They are wrong in the sense that those people are the people who spread the word to the ones who won't watch live feed, who don't know what's going on so won't bother to watch the highlights show. If a BB fan tells them, "You've got to see it tonight, there was a massive argument last night," then others will tune in and become more involved."
Bradley also thinks that the producers should go back to basics. "BB has felt the need to constantly change, whereas apart from the tasks people enjoy the same things that encouraged them to watch in the first place.
The nominations process keeps changing. Go back to the way it was. None of the "surprise" things work; they don't encourage people to tune in, there's no need. Let's go back to nominations on Monday, the announcement on Tuesday, and eviction on Friday. One of the most important parts of the show has constantly been altered and people miss it. In the last few series they didn't even show some housemates actually nominating. With this in mind, the extra nomination programme, when we would see more of the nominations, would be helpful if it returned."
He prefers Big Brother to keep it real. "At present they do everything to create arguments, so much so that none of the arguments are real and are a nightly thing, therefore no one cares. In the first few series when an argument occurred it mattered, because it was real, organic and in some cases, as with Nasty Nick, brewing for weeks. Now they won't let them sleep during the day or allow anything to stimulate them. Give them the opportunity to sleep for an hour or two, or even allow reading material for an hour a day. This will help produce more energy and more excitement. At present they aren't allowed anything but just to sit and wait for a task. They do it to create tension, but in the end it produces boredom and silly arguments. Arguments will come naturally if you allow them to."
Sarah says she used to be an avid viewer. "I loved the sociological/psychological aspect of the show. When I say that, I mean it in terms of group dynamics and being shut away from the outside world, not as a substitute for the care in the community/"OMG I wanna be famous" culture. As a social scientist it was fabulous to see how people formed groups and dealt with isolation. I loved Nasty Nick, because Nick showed some fascinating human traits and instincts to win. It was all about how people get on. I love people watching and this really is the ultimate people watching show. Live footage was brilliant when I was revising for exams - Big Brother has more or less covered my entire career as a student.
"Sadly the show seems to have gone along with the moral decline in this country. It's now about mad people who want to be famous and have the morals and attitudes of alley cats rather than group dynamics. It also celebrates this "I wanna be a star" culture; you never get academics on BB do you? We aren't all boring, but we do have standards. Now it's like care in the community titillation. Let's put a load of unstable people in a house for several months, lock the door and see what happens - carnage! Horrendous, it gives off completely the wrong image to the kids who are the target audience.
"I suppose the major question is why do the producers/makers feel the programme has to be this way now? That's something I'd love to know.
"Let's go back to the more psychological/sociological experiment format. I think the concept has gone from seeing how people react to different situations, to really pushing them to extremes purely for TV entertainment. It's like a human zoo. The problem is, I suppose this could be a reflection of a bad change in society in general, so Big Brother is a symptom. Have tasks, and games, and challenges that test people's endurance etcetera, rather than make them look stupid. I find it really worrying, always have when people leave and are booed by people they have never met."
Bradley agrees with Sarah about the booing. "Eviction night booing. It's revolting and does nothing to improve occasional viewers' feelings on the show. Totally unnecessary and should be banned. Eviction nights used to be special, now they are ruined by nastiness to evicted housemates who often find it terrifying. If so called hardcore fans boo these people, why should others bother to watch? Ban it and tell people there that if they do boo, they will be kicked out and banned in the future."
Sarah has a final point to make: "Have a wider range of people on the show, from different walks of life. The twists that have seen people go into houses in different countries have been fascinating! The age range this year is 18-30, and they all have a very similar demographic."
Whilst the views expressed here are those of just three Big Brother viewers, their sentiments appear to be reflected around the forums. Will they be listened to? Channel 5 and Endemol decide.
Friday 23 September 2011
BB - Big Brother or Bigger Bully
Huffington Post
Whilst for many viewers the Big Brother experience on Channel 5 has soured somewhat, for Nikki Cowan it's personal. Living only a stone's throw away from Elstree Studios in Borehamwood, he's perfectly placed to be the official reporter for Big Brother's Bit on the Radio,
the unofficial but increasingly popular radio show. Each week he
attends the live shows and chats with members of the audience. Later in
the night, he reports his experiences live on the radio.
After twice using an Applause Store ticket, on his third visit security and members of the crew referred to him as "the guy from the radio", and he was offered a pass. On subsequent visits he didn't even have to show his ticket. He could simply go to the office, request his pass and sign it out. One visit it was suggested he attend the spin-off show Big Brother's Bit on the Side, though he was advised not to plug the radio show. This was fine by Nikki, who happily accepted the offer.
On Big Brother's Bit on the Side he kept his promise, but he did mention the live feed, much to the delight of many viewers. He also admits to using a "rude word" towards Darryn Lyons. Despite that, he was told he'd been a great guest and would be welcome back.
Unfortunately, it all went downhill from there. "After spending five hours at the compound for the finale of Celebrity Big Brother and having lovely chats with Sally Bercow, Kerry Katona, Brian Belo and Marcus Akin ,and leaving on a high to do the radio show... the next day, for no reason, I was banned.
I arrived to report from the live launch of civilian Big Brother and was greeted on the door by a panicked and irate producer. She instructed the security guards to barricade the entrance and not let me in. As if I was going to rush the gate. She insisted I wasn't with the radio show. She then refused to speak to me."
Nikki ended up going to the main gate, where he was met by security once again. He asked to speak to a producer, and a Bit on the Side crew member told him that it had nothing to do with them; they had no control. They suggested he get in touch with one of the main producers during the week. Feeling rather puzzled, Nikki went home.
"That week I spoke to one of the producers of Bit on the Side, who told me I had upset someone on Big Brother by saying I had permission to be there from him. I unequivocally denied it, as that was a total lie. He said he would find out more and call me back.
When he called me back he told me categorically that, as long as I had a press pass or an audience pass I was allowed back and that I was most certainly not banned. I therefore got myself an Applause Store ticket, like I'd done every time, and went back on Friday."
On the Friday, he discovered that matters had not been solved. Soon after arriving for Tashie's eviction, a member of the Applause Store team asked to see his ticket. Nikki showed it to him, and the team member took it and walked off.
Nikki made his apologies to the people in the queue who he was talking to and followed the team member. At that point he was beckoned over by a police officer and surrounded by security. "I could hear people in the queue gasping and muttering as I was treated like a felon and questioned over my reasons for being there."
He was told by the police that he was not coming onto the site, and that he should go home. Feeling confused, he asked to speak to someone higher up. There'd obviously been a mix up; he'd been told, after all, that he wasn't banned.
Accompanied to the main gate by a member of security and the police officer, he was told over the phone by a member of the production team that they had no problem with him being on the show. They claimed it was full and that they had no control over who the main show let in. They stated they didn't know why he was banned or if, indeed, he even was.
"I was told by the police officer in a very condescending manner that I'd be best off going home. I reminded the officer that I was still allowed on Tesco's land, which Big Brother use for the fans to queue up before the gates open. The security guard concurred, telling me not to cross the railings where the people queue. I duly conceded but returned to the queue."
That night, Nikki had with him a set of posters inspired by housemate Tashie's fish finger incident. Designed by a listener of the radio show, Twitter followers loved it so much that Nikki had a set printed to hand out to audience members. "In my possession that day were 52 posters, A3 size in colour with pictures of Big Brother housemate Tashie crying with a fish finger wedged in her mouth. Down the side of the picture was her name spelt using only the bread-crumbed-meal-time-favourite. As I spoke to people for their opinions, I gave out a free poster."
Right after handing out the last one, security marched down the queue and shouted for the posters to be handed in. The people in the queue were in shock, according to Nikki, and asked to be allowed to keep them, even if just as a souvenir. They were told that the only way to keep their posters would be if they left with them now - they'd not be allowed to take them in. If they did want to come in, they had to hand over their posters, which would be burned.
"I was even told not to do it and that it was wrong. I left soon after, telling the queue not to get into trouble over me."
Nikki was further surprised when he received a tweet from one of his contacts inside the compound, who'd taken a photograph of warm-up act Andy Collins telling the audience that if they were in possession of one of the posters that they "must hand them in or get booted out!"
"Needless to say I was not in a good mood for the radio show that night and shall not bother trying to get back in this week. I will, however, still talk to the queue. Let them try and stop me!"
Nikki's experiences are the most recent in a series of events that have left fans of Big Brother confused and dismayed. Several viewers, making use of the show's Facebook page, have found themselves blocked from the page and even banned from the social networking site altogether. They insist that their comments weren't rude of controversial, nor did they spam the page - one poster only left a single message with a polite request for live streaming.
Viewers from outside the UK, including those from Ireland, are unable to view the clips on Facebook, lauded as the new way to enjoy the Big Brother experience.
Channel 5's press office has been invited to respond to Nikki's experiences, but thus far there has been no comment.
Big Brother Versus Mr Nikki Cowan - The Ongoing Saga
Posted: 23/9/11 15:13 GMT
After twice using an Applause Store ticket, on his third visit security and members of the crew referred to him as "the guy from the radio", and he was offered a pass. On subsequent visits he didn't even have to show his ticket. He could simply go to the office, request his pass and sign it out. One visit it was suggested he attend the spin-off show Big Brother's Bit on the Side, though he was advised not to plug the radio show. This was fine by Nikki, who happily accepted the offer.
On Big Brother's Bit on the Side he kept his promise, but he did mention the live feed, much to the delight of many viewers. He also admits to using a "rude word" towards Darryn Lyons. Despite that, he was told he'd been a great guest and would be welcome back.
Unfortunately, it all went downhill from there. "After spending five hours at the compound for the finale of Celebrity Big Brother and having lovely chats with Sally Bercow, Kerry Katona, Brian Belo and Marcus Akin ,and leaving on a high to do the radio show... the next day, for no reason, I was banned.
I arrived to report from the live launch of civilian Big Brother and was greeted on the door by a panicked and irate producer. She instructed the security guards to barricade the entrance and not let me in. As if I was going to rush the gate. She insisted I wasn't with the radio show. She then refused to speak to me."
Nikki ended up going to the main gate, where he was met by security once again. He asked to speak to a producer, and a Bit on the Side crew member told him that it had nothing to do with them; they had no control. They suggested he get in touch with one of the main producers during the week. Feeling rather puzzled, Nikki went home.
"That week I spoke to one of the producers of Bit on the Side, who told me I had upset someone on Big Brother by saying I had permission to be there from him. I unequivocally denied it, as that was a total lie. He said he would find out more and call me back.
When he called me back he told me categorically that, as long as I had a press pass or an audience pass I was allowed back and that I was most certainly not banned. I therefore got myself an Applause Store ticket, like I'd done every time, and went back on Friday."
On the Friday, he discovered that matters had not been solved. Soon after arriving for Tashie's eviction, a member of the Applause Store team asked to see his ticket. Nikki showed it to him, and the team member took it and walked off.
Nikki made his apologies to the people in the queue who he was talking to and followed the team member. At that point he was beckoned over by a police officer and surrounded by security. "I could hear people in the queue gasping and muttering as I was treated like a felon and questioned over my reasons for being there."
He was told by the police that he was not coming onto the site, and that he should go home. Feeling confused, he asked to speak to someone higher up. There'd obviously been a mix up; he'd been told, after all, that he wasn't banned.
Accompanied to the main gate by a member of security and the police officer, he was told over the phone by a member of the production team that they had no problem with him being on the show. They claimed it was full and that they had no control over who the main show let in. They stated they didn't know why he was banned or if, indeed, he even was.
"I was told by the police officer in a very condescending manner that I'd be best off going home. I reminded the officer that I was still allowed on Tesco's land, which Big Brother use for the fans to queue up before the gates open. The security guard concurred, telling me not to cross the railings where the people queue. I duly conceded but returned to the queue."
That night, Nikki had with him a set of posters inspired by housemate Tashie's fish finger incident. Designed by a listener of the radio show, Twitter followers loved it so much that Nikki had a set printed to hand out to audience members. "In my possession that day were 52 posters, A3 size in colour with pictures of Big Brother housemate Tashie crying with a fish finger wedged in her mouth. Down the side of the picture was her name spelt using only the bread-crumbed-meal-time-favourite. As I spoke to people for their opinions, I gave out a free poster."
Right after handing out the last one, security marched down the queue and shouted for the posters to be handed in. The people in the queue were in shock, according to Nikki, and asked to be allowed to keep them, even if just as a souvenir. They were told that the only way to keep their posters would be if they left with them now - they'd not be allowed to take them in. If they did want to come in, they had to hand over their posters, which would be burned.
"I was even told not to do it and that it was wrong. I left soon after, telling the queue not to get into trouble over me."
Nikki was further surprised when he received a tweet from one of his contacts inside the compound, who'd taken a photograph of warm-up act Andy Collins telling the audience that if they were in possession of one of the posters that they "must hand them in or get booted out!"
"Needless to say I was not in a good mood for the radio show that night and shall not bother trying to get back in this week. I will, however, still talk to the queue. Let them try and stop me!"
Nikki's experiences are the most recent in a series of events that have left fans of Big Brother confused and dismayed. Several viewers, making use of the show's Facebook page, have found themselves blocked from the page and even banned from the social networking site altogether. They insist that their comments weren't rude of controversial, nor did they spam the page - one poster only left a single message with a polite request for live streaming.
Viewers from outside the UK, including those from Ireland, are unable to view the clips on Facebook, lauded as the new way to enjoy the Big Brother experience.
Channel 5's press office has been invited to respond to Nikki's experiences, but thus far there has been no comment.
Thursday 22 September 2011
I posted this on Nick Bateman's blog and he deleted it - then reinstated it.
- Plenty to think about here Nick, not least your interest in being employed in some sort of advisory capacity *lol*.
First things first. I might have expected you to be a bit more positive about Live Feed. You said in your opening paragraph that "The lack of a live feed is perhaps the most contentious issue for BB fans. But let us not lose sight that it was Channel 4 who forced the issue and took away the live feed citing quite reasonably, the cost, the extra staff and of course the legal issues in having a 24 hour feed."
You are right. It is contentious and is also the most important issue facing the programme and the subsequent loss of the audience. As I have said before, Ch4 lost their collective nerve during and after the Shilpa Shetty incident. They took a foolish risk (of bringing in the disfunctional Jade clan) and it backfired spectacularly. After that they never took a risk and as a consequence they removed anything from Live Feed remotely interesting. (Plus they decided to keep anything that looked like a news story back for the main show.) Channel 4 attempted to kill Live Feed (as it had been) deliberately. They were attempting to back out of the show and did not really care about the future of BB. The cost of providing it (staff and kit) is a red herring, part of the smokescreen. We don't believe cost is the issue. If they stopped paying the people they have censoring Facebook and their own website they would have some cash left to re-employ sensible skilled people to carry out the technical and administrative aspects of the feed. (If the quality of the skills and the educational qualifications of the Facebook Channel 5 admins can be judged by the quality of their language, posting styles and decision making then they will probably be free to pursue other employment opportunities elsewhere once Facebook posting is simplified by the provision of Live Feed.)
Legal issues can be reduced with common sense. We live in an increasingly litigious society; the risk wont go away. Again, my view is that the risk of being harassed by vulture-like lawyers is not the reason either. The real reason that we have no Live Feed is because all the young trendies on the production team took the view that Facebook was the solution to socialising BB; bringing the target audience to them in a risk free manner. Their new voting strategy relies on block Facebook voting by people who are reluctant to pick up the phone and vote. My view is that they chose the Facebook solution first and having talked themselves into believing it would work decided to drop Live Feed (and dropped the audience as well). Th truth is of course that they tapped into the articulate core within Facebook who can use all social media for their own ends, rather than have an external social media solution imposed upon them.
No doubt Mr Ford is a bit aggrieved that we haven't gone away, while his audience has. -
22 September 2011 13:23
Big Brother is shedding viewers faster than a cat sheds it’s coat in the summer!
http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/big-brother/big-brother-2011-in-ratings-crisis/
The Celebrity version of the reality TV series proved a hit for Channel 5 when it launched last month and attracted a decent amount of viewers to the channel over it’s three week run. However, the normal series has now begun and though it launched with 3 million people watching earlier in September, the figures have been steadily falling ever since.
On Saturday night, only 900,000 people tuned in for the hour long daily catchup episode. This was the lowest ratings the show has ever achieved, since it first launched on Channel 4 in 2000.
Although the Saturday episode is normally the least popular of the week, the drop was still marked, with the lowest previous recorded ratings occurring during its 11th series when the weekend special drew in 1.5 million in 2009.
Have you been watching Big Brother? Is it as good as previous year’s? Leave all your BB related comments and musings below.
brian garbutt says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
bring back the live feed thats the problem.you cannot get to know the housemates with the small amount of highlights that your putting out.you need toget to know them at there normal surroundings when its live its off the cuff,they do things and say things for us to see at a instance,your cutting it and editiong,taking away the build up of relations with the housemates therfore making us watch more to see what they are going to do next.
REPLY
Max King says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:32 am
It’s really boring now that its all young under 30 singles.
Big Brother is supposed to have a diverse mix of people from society. There have been such big characters who viewers love such as Carol or Jonty who would not qualify under these bizzare requirements that you have to be under 30 and single. It’s boring because they are all veery similart
REPLY
Loz says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I think some of the problem has to be down to the fact that it doesn’t start until 10pm. It’s a bit late to start watching something for a lot of the people I know. Plus, the time does float around a bit so can be a bit confusing as to when it’s actually on.
I love BB but have got to say that until last night’s episode which was hilarious I have found this series uninteresting and lacking in energy.
I also think they’ve made a mistake putting contestants in who are all under 30.
REPLY
claire says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I wasn’t impressed at first with the ages of them but its turning out to be quite funny.. 10pm is too late for me 9pm was much better. I have to record it and watch it the night after. Mix it up some more BB, we want more laughs and more drama x
REPLY
DT says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Its on too late for some people. Think we should be voting for who we want out, like the borings gits! Apart from that its great!
REPLY
Debs says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm
decided not to watch as there were no over 30s. Think that may be one of the main problems…older people generally are more interesting
REPLY
mary tait says:
September 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm
ive been an avid fan all these years a 1hr show with 2min. clips doesn’t do it for this type of show never getting to know housemates or what their doing is rather annoying and irritating so people switch of, big brother means watching you 24/7 but 45mins doesnt come close even 4 or 5 hrs a day we could maybe get interested. by choosing all english under thirties was also a mistake youve lost scots. welsh and irish viewers. i am scottish and a much older viewer i would have liked to watch but it holds nothing for me or my ilk. reading about whats happening on facebook page means absolutely nothing to bb fans, you could say anything how do we know its real.
REPLY
Michael says:
September 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm
There have been quite a few under 30′s that have been entertaining, (Glyn and his egg song etc), but they were REAL people not chosen from a portfolio of would be actors or models. The lack of at least some live feed has had the most influence, the lack of being able to relate to each character while their guard is down. The ‘Social Media’ experiment is not working at all because of the bias of those that are administrating it, any comment that doesnt follow the party line is deleted and users blocked, the people they are attacking are the REAL BB fans, the core audience that channel 5 needed, instead they have alienated them – Channel 5 have missed a golden opportunity and have made a laughing stock of a program that is popular wordwide.
REPLY
Darren says:
September 22, 2011 at 5:33 pm
There are many reasons Big Brother on Channel 5 is failing. The main reason is the lack of live feed. An hour of highlights a night is not enough to really get to know the house mates properly. Highlights can and are minipulated to show certain people in a good or bad way, only live feed truely reflects how people genuinely are. Also the highlights show is on too late for many people, it should be shown at 9 o clock every night which is still after the water shed. Also every house mate under 30? come on, we should he a better mix of ages. What about people from Scotland, Wales and N Ireland didn’t they audition for the show?
REPLY
Jazz says:
September 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Channel 5 have got BB spectacularly wrong after the stunningly poor decision making by Jeff Ford and his team. Live Feed was and is the solution to socializing the programme, not some inept and totally censored Facebook offering. Unless he recants this rash decision and perhaps even admits he is sorry for his arrogant and derisive justification there is no way he will get the fans back. The advertisers must be really unhappy with the audience size and with the fall in numbers week on week. We are unhappy with the lack of Live Feed. There is a single solution that will make us all happy Mr Ford:Bring back Live Feed. It might not cheer you up greatly to admit you were wrong but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step – so get on and make it.
The Celebrity version of the reality TV series proved a hit for Channel 5 when it launched last month and attracted a decent amount of viewers to the channel over it’s three week run. However, the normal series has now begun and though it launched with 3 million people watching earlier in September, the figures have been steadily falling ever since.
On Saturday night, only 900,000 people tuned in for the hour long daily catchup episode. This was the lowest ratings the show has ever achieved, since it first launched on Channel 4 in 2000.
Although the Saturday episode is normally the least popular of the week, the drop was still marked, with the lowest previous recorded ratings occurring during its 11th series when the weekend special drew in 1.5 million in 2009.
Have you been watching Big Brother? Is it as good as previous year’s? Leave all your BB related comments and musings below.
brian garbutt says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
bring back the live feed thats the problem.you cannot get to know the housemates with the small amount of highlights that your putting out.you need toget to know them at there normal surroundings when its live its off the cuff,they do things and say things for us to see at a instance,your cutting it and editiong,taking away the build up of relations with the housemates therfore making us watch more to see what they are going to do next.
REPLY
Max King says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:32 am
It’s really boring now that its all young under 30 singles.
Big Brother is supposed to have a diverse mix of people from society. There have been such big characters who viewers love such as Carol or Jonty who would not qualify under these bizzare requirements that you have to be under 30 and single. It’s boring because they are all veery similart
REPLY
Loz says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I think some of the problem has to be down to the fact that it doesn’t start until 10pm. It’s a bit late to start watching something for a lot of the people I know. Plus, the time does float around a bit so can be a bit confusing as to when it’s actually on.
I love BB but have got to say that until last night’s episode which was hilarious I have found this series uninteresting and lacking in energy.
I also think they’ve made a mistake putting contestants in who are all under 30.
REPLY
claire says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I wasn’t impressed at first with the ages of them but its turning out to be quite funny.. 10pm is too late for me 9pm was much better. I have to record it and watch it the night after. Mix it up some more BB, we want more laughs and more drama x
REPLY
DT says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Its on too late for some people. Think we should be voting for who we want out, like the borings gits! Apart from that its great!
REPLY
Debs says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm
decided not to watch as there were no over 30s. Think that may be one of the main problems…older people generally are more interesting
REPLY
mary tait says:
September 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm
ive been an avid fan all these years a 1hr show with 2min. clips doesn’t do it for this type of show never getting to know housemates or what their doing is rather annoying and irritating so people switch of, big brother means watching you 24/7 but 45mins doesnt come close even 4 or 5 hrs a day we could maybe get interested. by choosing all english under thirties was also a mistake youve lost scots. welsh and irish viewers. i am scottish and a much older viewer i would have liked to watch but it holds nothing for me or my ilk. reading about whats happening on facebook page means absolutely nothing to bb fans, you could say anything how do we know its real.
REPLY
Michael says:
September 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm
There have been quite a few under 30′s that have been entertaining, (Glyn and his egg song etc), but they were REAL people not chosen from a portfolio of would be actors or models. The lack of at least some live feed has had the most influence, the lack of being able to relate to each character while their guard is down. The ‘Social Media’ experiment is not working at all because of the bias of those that are administrating it, any comment that doesnt follow the party line is deleted and users blocked, the people they are attacking are the REAL BB fans, the core audience that channel 5 needed, instead they have alienated them – Channel 5 have missed a golden opportunity and have made a laughing stock of a program that is popular wordwide.
REPLY
Darren says:
September 22, 2011 at 5:33 pm
There are many reasons Big Brother on Channel 5 is failing. The main reason is the lack of live feed. An hour of highlights a night is not enough to really get to know the house mates properly. Highlights can and are minipulated to show certain people in a good or bad way, only live feed truely reflects how people genuinely are. Also the highlights show is on too late for many people, it should be shown at 9 o clock every night which is still after the water shed. Also every house mate under 30? come on, we should he a better mix of ages. What about people from Scotland, Wales and N Ireland didn’t they audition for the show?
REPLY
Jazz says:
September 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Channel 5 have got BB spectacularly wrong after the stunningly poor decision making by Jeff Ford and his team. Live Feed was and is the solution to socializing the programme, not some inept and totally censored Facebook offering. Unless he recants this rash decision and perhaps even admits he is sorry for his arrogant and derisive justification there is no way he will get the fans back. The advertisers must be really unhappy with the audience size and with the fall in numbers week on week. We are unhappy with the lack of Live Feed. There is a single solution that will make us all happy Mr Ford:Bring back Live Feed. It might not cheer you up greatly to admit you were wrong but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step – so get on and make it.
Wednesday 21 September 2011
Sleepwalking into a very subtle form of totalitarianism
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Social-networking-sites-are-gagging-free-speech/279714052057549?sk=info
Networking sites are being abused more and more as a channel for controlling, rather than expanding freedom of expression. We're sleepwalking into a very silent and insidious form of oppression.
If you subscribe to groups or pages of interest on your favourite social network provider, you will more than likely find that any posting that deviates from the orthodoxy of the group will more than likely be deleted, with the poster getting blocked. What's wrong with that? you might say. If the poster is being inciteful, defamatory or abusive, not very much. However if a poster is challenging statements or opinions that deviate from the orthodoxy of the group founder, and being suppressed simply for this, then this is an abomination and a lamentable commentary upon how little genuine freedom of speech there is in our so called democracy. The fact that such a practice is so mainstream is somewhat chilling. The world wide web has always offered the opportunity of emancipation to a new generation of users around the world. However with the advent of the social networking culture, we are sleepwalking into a very subtle form of totalitarianism. You will see more and more of this wherever you step within this virtual world. Social networking can be a fantastic gateway to a world of people one would never ordinarily meet, but it has the potential to be our enslaver as well. We must avoid sleepwalking into this abstract cage.
Networking sites are being abused more and more as a channel for controlling, rather than expanding freedom of expression. We're sleepwalking into a very silent and insidious form of oppression.
If you subscribe to groups or pages of interest on your favourite social network provider, you will more than likely find that any posting that deviates from the orthodoxy of the group will more than likely be deleted, with the poster getting blocked. What's wrong with that? you might say. If the poster is being inciteful, defamatory or abusive, not very much. However if a poster is challenging statements or opinions that deviate from the orthodoxy of the group founder, and being suppressed simply for this, then this is an abomination and a lamentable commentary upon how little genuine freedom of speech there is in our so called democracy. The fact that such a practice is so mainstream is somewhat chilling. The world wide web has always offered the opportunity of emancipation to a new generation of users around the world. However with the advent of the social networking culture, we are sleepwalking into a very subtle form of totalitarianism. You will see more and more of this wherever you step within this virtual world. Social networking can be a fantastic gateway to a world of people one would never ordinarily meet, but it has the potential to be our enslaver as well. We must avoid sleepwalking into this abstract cage.
Sunday 18 September 2011
Saturday 17 September 2011
New Coffeeshop on the block
A place to discuss things without being overheard
Up there ^^^ is a place that I have just set up to discuss BB & Ch5 away from FB. As we have discussed before, walls have ears and they are going to sweep us away before too long has passed.
Once the battle is won or lost we can say our farewells and be down the road.
The way it is set up does not require you to submit anything honest at all, in fact its probably best to lie about it all. But make sure that you are known to one other person (via PMs or similar) on FB so that we can get a group together with no Ch5 plants or moles. Once we have done that we can let people in by invites and discuss things that we need to discuss away from prying eyes. We may well get one or two to start with (moles) but we live with them everyday anyway.
I also propose that everybody should have moderator powers. If anyone else wants the admin responsibility (design and engineering things) they can have it.
That is my offer.
How to campaign successfully to ensure all stakeholders (us) have a say
Before we wander off to have a think about how we can change things viz-a-viz Live feed, a few thoughts on where we are after a week or so.
We have reached the end of the first week of OBB (Ordinary Big Brother).
This is not to be confused with the OBB (Official Big Brother) Facebook page which exists in two forms: The Community and the TV Show. There is a reason for this but it is not obvious to me. Someone suggested that it may be to do with keeping the Live Feed Spammers out but that cannot be the complete case for once we found out about it, we spammed there as well.
It may be to do with the voting system that they are trying to put into place. The previous voting system seemed quite well regulated (externally) and above suspicion. That may no longer be the case as both CH5 and FB can hardly be said to be independent and yet they are the owner and provider of the system which allows those within it to vote a fraction of the cost of those outside it.
The system using the FB App allows massive numbers of block votes from multiple accounts. A disreputable organisation which knew what the current vote totals were might easily be tempted to use multiple accounts at low costs to ensure that their favourite was kept in the house. 500 votes can cost as little as £30 but if you are a big rich company and a fair % of that £30 is coming back to you, what is to stop you voting tens of 1000s of times and ensuring your own outcome is achieved. All the changes wrought so far seem to be about distancing the viewers from the show so this may be a logical progression.
Who is going to be the independent adjudicator for the votes now?
I asked Channel 5 for some reassurance about the integrity of the new system:
Dear Channel 5. Can you please explain how you intend to ensure that the new Facebook block voting system is independently administered to ensure that there is no block voting from within the organisation to influence outcomes and also to ensure that the actual vote numbers are both kept secret from your group until the final vote is taken and that the actual total votes cast are published with the numbers broken down to show the amount of votes tallied against each voting mechanism provided?
Thank you
JM
So back to the theme of this blog today: What can we do?
I think the first thing we need to do is find somewhere else to discuss strategies. Only today the Live Feed Organiser was deleted as it is his group that provides a focal point for the 'Bring Back Live Feed' members.
I think it would be prudent to set one up as soon as possible while we are still able to converse.
I shall return here in due course...
We have reached the end of the first week of OBB (Ordinary Big Brother).
This is not to be confused with the OBB (Official Big Brother) Facebook page which exists in two forms: The Community and the TV Show. There is a reason for this but it is not obvious to me. Someone suggested that it may be to do with keeping the Live Feed Spammers out but that cannot be the complete case for once we found out about it, we spammed there as well.
It may be to do with the voting system that they are trying to put into place. The previous voting system seemed quite well regulated (externally) and above suspicion. That may no longer be the case as both CH5 and FB can hardly be said to be independent and yet they are the owner and provider of the system which allows those within it to vote a fraction of the cost of those outside it.
The system using the FB App allows massive numbers of block votes from multiple accounts. A disreputable organisation which knew what the current vote totals were might easily be tempted to use multiple accounts at low costs to ensure that their favourite was kept in the house. 500 votes can cost as little as £30 but if you are a big rich company and a fair % of that £30 is coming back to you, what is to stop you voting tens of 1000s of times and ensuring your own outcome is achieved. All the changes wrought so far seem to be about distancing the viewers from the show so this may be a logical progression.
Who is going to be the independent adjudicator for the votes now?
I asked Channel 5 for some reassurance about the integrity of the new system:
Dear Channel 5. Can you please explain how you intend to ensure that the new Facebook block voting system is independently administered to ensure that there is no block voting from within the organisation to influence outcomes and also to ensure that the actual vote numbers are both kept secret from your group until the final vote is taken and that the actual total votes cast are published with the numbers broken down to show the amount of votes tallied against each voting mechanism provided?
Thank you
JM
So back to the theme of this blog today: What can we do?
I think the first thing we need to do is find somewhere else to discuss strategies. Only today the Live Feed Organiser was deleted as it is his group that provides a focal point for the 'Bring Back Live Feed' members.
I think it would be prudent to set one up as soon as possible while we are still able to converse.
I shall return here in due course...
Guardian comments
Just reading some excellent comments on the Guardian to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/14/big-brother-ratings
Flipsidetv
14 September 2011 5:59PM
Channel 5 cannot see that by alienating viewers(anyone over 30 can just shuffle off to the glue factory in their opinion) and by removing a live feed(an integral part of the Big Brother show)that this would have a dramatic effect on ratings, add to this many of the "housemates" are already trained up as actors or media presenters, it's not Big Brother, it should be renamed The Only way is Borehamwood.
anthony47
14 September 2011 6:26PM
It ain’t Big Brother any more, the only people watching them 24/7 are some newly churned out, dim Media Studies graduates in Porta Cabins outside the house.
How they allowed such an interesting format to be trashed in such a way is a mystery to me. I clocked in one night and when you take out the ad' breaks you have about 45 minutes of editorial jiggery pokery. If that's not enough of an insult to the format (45mins) if you then clock on to OK TV the next day, they will show you some of those same clips over again, nothing new, no effort at all has been spared to tell us naff all.
Whoever is overseeing this series needs the boot pronto because its farcical. We now know why Channel Five have such low ratings, if they can't grasp the concept of Big Brother and what “it” means, there’s no hope for them.
I was an avid BB follower and looking forward to this series and others to come, and funnily enough I thought they would produce this show far better than CH4 and take it to a new level, how wrong can you be? Shambles, utter shambles.
stentionhouse
14 September 2011 6:26PM
There are various reasons why C5's poor interpretation of Big Brother is failing & will continue to do so. Top of the list, even above the loss of the essential live feed, is the appalling way they've treated the long term fans of the show.
They have repeatedly broken Facebook's T&Cs (the 'malicious reporting' part, to be precise) in an attempt to gag the huge flood of complaints on their page.
Jeff Ford made his notorious 'we could have had a live feed...but we've all moved on' speech - pretty much guaranteeing the show's die hard fans would switch off.
All of the tweaks have made the show much worse - OTT Marcus, captions, incidental music, annoying flashbacks, dire spinoff show, all English housemates, all 30 or under, all media experienced wannabes, one or two of whom would have been more at home on CBB than the likes of Bobby or Lucien.
There's no way the viewers can ever get to know the housemates with the paltry snippets we're shown. Unlike a show such X Factor, I'm A Celeb or Britain's Got Talent, we're not voting on performances but on the overall personality of the housemates. As we can't get to know them at all, few will vote. And few will watch because it's just so frustrating.
CBB rated relatively well because it contained big, current RTV stars. BB was always going to struggle - and the dreadful way C5 have conducted themselves and awful changes they've made to what was essentially a pretty sound formula will surely spell the final end for a once great show, after fans had got their hopes up that it had been reprieved.
Richard Desmond was clearly hoping to use the Big Brother name to shift copies of his papers and magazines, with a few spinoff shows thrown in documenting the latest woes of Kerry Katona and the like. He cares nothing about the format of Big Brother, its history or the people who kept it rolling for so long. He wanted a new audience - and he's gone one. A rather small one, even by C5 standards.
Mickey31
15 September 2011 10:16AM
Like many,i was a fan of Big brother from the beginning and i hardly ever missed an episode in all the time it was on channel 4 but since seeing one episode of Cbb i've given up on it.Its one thing to make afew changes and add your own flavour to something but channel 5 have missed the whole point.
The Whole point of Big Brother was that you could watch a live social experiment for several hours a week and see how the charactors got on(or didn't)or got drunk and said or did stupid things which used to be in all the tabloids and all the fans on all the forums would be talking about it for the 3 months it was on and often for a couple after that,the advert used to say " SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR SUMMER" and millions pretty much did and got completely addicted but all that has gone due to the lack of,not only 24/7 live feed but also the axing of live feed after the main show at night,when all the things that made Big Brother popular used to happen.
Jeff Ford,the person to blame for most of the problems with channel 5,arrogantly said channel 5 had decided to move on from BB 24/7 live feed and pointed out that channel 4 temporarily got rid of it,but what he seems to have missed in his questionable wisdom is that Channel 4 never got rid of live bits at night because they knew it was when all the action happened and the very reason why so many were hooked.
Anyway,Jeff Ford says channel 5 have move on an so should Big brother fans and i for one have taken his advice and move on to another channel.Frankly its no wonder channel 5 are so unpopular if thats their attitude,they deserve everything they get.
Flipsidetv
14 September 2011 5:59PM
Channel 5 cannot see that by alienating viewers(anyone over 30 can just shuffle off to the glue factory in their opinion) and by removing a live feed(an integral part of the Big Brother show)that this would have a dramatic effect on ratings, add to this many of the "housemates" are already trained up as actors or media presenters, it's not Big Brother, it should be renamed The Only way is Borehamwood.
anthony47
14 September 2011 6:26PM
It ain’t Big Brother any more, the only people watching them 24/7 are some newly churned out, dim Media Studies graduates in Porta Cabins outside the house.
How they allowed such an interesting format to be trashed in such a way is a mystery to me. I clocked in one night and when you take out the ad' breaks you have about 45 minutes of editorial jiggery pokery. If that's not enough of an insult to the format (45mins) if you then clock on to OK TV the next day, they will show you some of those same clips over again, nothing new, no effort at all has been spared to tell us naff all.
Whoever is overseeing this series needs the boot pronto because its farcical. We now know why Channel Five have such low ratings, if they can't grasp the concept of Big Brother and what “it” means, there’s no hope for them.
I was an avid BB follower and looking forward to this series and others to come, and funnily enough I thought they would produce this show far better than CH4 and take it to a new level, how wrong can you be? Shambles, utter shambles.
stentionhouse
14 September 2011 6:26PM
There are various reasons why C5's poor interpretation of Big Brother is failing & will continue to do so. Top of the list, even above the loss of the essential live feed, is the appalling way they've treated the long term fans of the show.
They have repeatedly broken Facebook's T&Cs (the 'malicious reporting' part, to be precise) in an attempt to gag the huge flood of complaints on their page.
Jeff Ford made his notorious 'we could have had a live feed...but we've all moved on' speech - pretty much guaranteeing the show's die hard fans would switch off.
All of the tweaks have made the show much worse - OTT Marcus, captions, incidental music, annoying flashbacks, dire spinoff show, all English housemates, all 30 or under, all media experienced wannabes, one or two of whom would have been more at home on CBB than the likes of Bobby or Lucien.
There's no way the viewers can ever get to know the housemates with the paltry snippets we're shown. Unlike a show such X Factor, I'm A Celeb or Britain's Got Talent, we're not voting on performances but on the overall personality of the housemates. As we can't get to know them at all, few will vote. And few will watch because it's just so frustrating.
CBB rated relatively well because it contained big, current RTV stars. BB was always going to struggle - and the dreadful way C5 have conducted themselves and awful changes they've made to what was essentially a pretty sound formula will surely spell the final end for a once great show, after fans had got their hopes up that it had been reprieved.
Richard Desmond was clearly hoping to use the Big Brother name to shift copies of his papers and magazines, with a few spinoff shows thrown in documenting the latest woes of Kerry Katona and the like. He cares nothing about the format of Big Brother, its history or the people who kept it rolling for so long. He wanted a new audience - and he's gone one. A rather small one, even by C5 standards.
Mickey31
15 September 2011 10:16AM
Like many,i was a fan of Big brother from the beginning and i hardly ever missed an episode in all the time it was on channel 4 but since seeing one episode of Cbb i've given up on it.Its one thing to make afew changes and add your own flavour to something but channel 5 have missed the whole point.
The Whole point of Big Brother was that you could watch a live social experiment for several hours a week and see how the charactors got on(or didn't)or got drunk and said or did stupid things which used to be in all the tabloids and all the fans on all the forums would be talking about it for the 3 months it was on and often for a couple after that,the advert used to say " SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR SUMMER" and millions pretty much did and got completely addicted but all that has gone due to the lack of,not only 24/7 live feed but also the axing of live feed after the main show at night,when all the things that made Big Brother popular used to happen.
Jeff Ford,the person to blame for most of the problems with channel 5,arrogantly said channel 5 had decided to move on from BB 24/7 live feed and pointed out that channel 4 temporarily got rid of it,but what he seems to have missed in his questionable wisdom is that Channel 4 never got rid of live bits at night because they knew it was when all the action happened and the very reason why so many were hooked.
Anyway,Jeff Ford says channel 5 have move on an so should Big brother fans and i for one have taken his advice and move on to another channel.Frankly its no wonder channel 5 are so unpopular if thats their attitude,they deserve everything they get.
Thursday 15 September 2011
The world view of Big Brother
There are six special pan-regional versions of Big Brother. All these follow the normal Big Brother rules with the exception that contestants must come from each of the different countries in the region where it airs:
Key points about the format are as as follows:
A group of volunteers living together under continuous observation are gradually voted out over a period of weeks. The public choose who to vote out from a subset of that group selected by the group themselves. The public have a chance to observe the group and decide who they wish to evict based on that observation.
The series is notable for involving the Internet. Although the show typically broadcasts daily updates in the evening (which are sometimes criticized for their heavy editing), viewers can also watch a continuous, 24-hour feed from multiple cameras on the web. These websites were highly successful, even after some national series started charging for access to the video stream.
Nobody has yet given up live streaming (possibly subject to a delay for legal reasons) apart from Jeff Ford and the apologists at Channel 5. Other countries, notably the USA have added a Social Media interaction as well, but they have used it to increase viewer share for the regular coverage and live streaming (10% increase).
Everybody is watching Live Feed - except the UK. But that decision was not made in consultation with the users; it was a unilateral decision by those who seem to know little about what keeps the show in schedules worldwide. Having decided to make a mistake there seems little to dissuade them from learning and changing. The world decides (based upon experience) that Live Feed is necessary and Channel 5 decides it is not. Their reasons for this conversion on the road to Damascus seems to have been the partial information from Channel 4 that viewer numbers were decreasing. What Channel 4 failed to put into the public domain was that the reasons for that were largely their decision to place less and less information into the Live Streams. They quoted legal issues but in truth the first reason was that they got burned in the Shilpa Shetty incident and never recovered their nerve. Their early involvement with controversy with 'PJ and the BJ' and Stuart under the table with Miss Bass faded into inconsequential footnotes once the very righteous GBP and the Press got on their high horses as never before after a British Institution revealed her more unpleasant side.
Another reason was that they wanted to withhold Live Stream content to provide the main show with story-lines. They also did not wish the main show version of events to be in conflict with the actual chronology of the action watched, and often recorded, by the Live Feed watchers. Channel 4 showed less and people watched less. In the words of the loathsome Meerkat - "schimples". This was never a sensible reason to remove the main plank of the show's existence all over the world. But it is the only reason advanced so far by the dogmatic and determined Mr Ford.
- Africa: Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania,Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
- Former Yugoslav Republics: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro.
- Arab States: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Tunisia.
- Pacific: Chile, Ecuador and Peru
- Scandinavia: Norway and Sweden.
- United Kingdom and Ireland: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland
- The USA Version is slightly different and did not follow the Endemol format from Series 2.
Key points about the format are as as follows:
A group of volunteers living together under continuous observation are gradually voted out over a period of weeks. The public choose who to vote out from a subset of that group selected by the group themselves. The public have a chance to observe the group and decide who they wish to evict based on that observation.
The series is notable for involving the Internet. Although the show typically broadcasts daily updates in the evening (which are sometimes criticized for their heavy editing), viewers can also watch a continuous, 24-hour feed from multiple cameras on the web. These websites were highly successful, even after some national series started charging for access to the video stream.
Nobody has yet given up live streaming (possibly subject to a delay for legal reasons) apart from Jeff Ford and the apologists at Channel 5. Other countries, notably the USA have added a Social Media interaction as well, but they have used it to increase viewer share for the regular coverage and live streaming (10% increase).
Everybody is watching Live Feed - except the UK. But that decision was not made in consultation with the users; it was a unilateral decision by those who seem to know little about what keeps the show in schedules worldwide. Having decided to make a mistake there seems little to dissuade them from learning and changing. The world decides (based upon experience) that Live Feed is necessary and Channel 5 decides it is not. Their reasons for this conversion on the road to Damascus seems to have been the partial information from Channel 4 that viewer numbers were decreasing. What Channel 4 failed to put into the public domain was that the reasons for that were largely their decision to place less and less information into the Live Streams. They quoted legal issues but in truth the first reason was that they got burned in the Shilpa Shetty incident and never recovered their nerve. Their early involvement with controversy with 'PJ and the BJ' and Stuart under the table with Miss Bass faded into inconsequential footnotes once the very righteous GBP and the Press got on their high horses as never before after a British Institution revealed her more unpleasant side.
Another reason was that they wanted to withhold Live Stream content to provide the main show with story-lines. They also did not wish the main show version of events to be in conflict with the actual chronology of the action watched, and often recorded, by the Live Feed watchers. Channel 4 showed less and people watched less. In the words of the loathsome Meerkat - "schimples". This was never a sensible reason to remove the main plank of the show's existence all over the world. But it is the only reason advanced so far by the dogmatic and determined Mr Ford.
Wednesday 14 September 2011
Can Big Brother survive?
1. Can it be as big as it was?
2. Can it survive at all under the present ownership with or without changes?
Can it be as big as it was?
The world has changed. BB was new and exciting. Over the years it changed in what it offered and in what the viewers expected. As a consequence its share of viewers fell over time. There is more choice now.
Can it be as big? Not a chance.
Can it survive at all? That depends.
If they don't change it cannot survive. The reason is simple. Big Brother has always been more than just a rat cage with performing rats in it. Channel 5 seem to have missed the interaction with the public that made the show what it was in UK and the world. Little Brother and Big Mouth, Diary Room Uncut, Psychiatrists plus the live feeds and specials all formed part of that Big Brother Experience for us. They talked about their experience and we talked about ours. We felt we owned the programme and for much of the time that was partially true. We could communicate with the programme providers through the various doorways they provided us with. We felt that someone recognised that without us the programme would not exist as it was.
That was the truth, here in the UK and throughout the world thanks to Endemol. They have a vested interest in the success of the brand. They should not let a team of rank amateurs lose the plot and the goodwill that kept the programme alive. The money that CH5 gave to Endemol was enough to ensure that BB returned in the UK for one more year but it does not seem to have purchased the wisdom born of experience.
Looking at the show now some four weeks in, it is obvious that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of BB in the team who were selected to bring it to our screens. From what we see of the tasks it looks like there are still good ideas being brought to the show but what is the point of that if nobody watches? And nobody will watch because the audience numbers will drift on downwards, then the advertisers will withdraw their funding and then the show will be pulled.
The only way that the show will survive is if they hold a crisis meeting, bring back live feed, bring back real audience participation and generate the goodwill which they are losing with every day they maintain this arrogant and ignorant approach to the very people who can make the show a success. Success is not measured by the numbers of tasks won, the shopping budgets awarded, the misery heaped upon the rat cage of massive egos and little ability. It is measured by how much we like it and then how much we watch it and how we celebrate it with our parties and how we talk about it to colleagues. And it is even measured by how much we vote.
Here is the news Mr Ford. You choose not to hear us and we will choose to ignore you. On that basis your show cannot survive. Time is running out Mr Ford. The dole queue for unsuccessful producers of TV programmes beckons.
The changes to voting that will be introduced
There is little doubt that CH5 intend that the Social Media interaction will be used to enhance vote numbers. According to some reports CH5 'squandered' money that could have been and should have been used for LF on 'FB Apps' & probably 'Twitter Apps'. They have yet to show anything on FB or Twitter that looks remotely new so it seems probable that the Apps in question are to do with voting.
Presuming that is the case the question must be why?
Its a fair bet that voting numbers have been sliding for years and yet they (votes) are the best revenue stream: All they do is put up a phone number and people give them money. To justify their costs so far they need a good solid vote stream, but they cannot expect to get it with the amount of TV coverage they are providing so they have to think that we can be 'encouraged' to vote more easily via FB/Twitter.
Perhaps they imagine that we can be whipped into a voting frenzy by all the brilliant pro-BB conversations we are having on FB. Their experience so far with a large percentage of responders asking for Live Feed and the majority of the rest complaining about that activity, can hardly have been what they imagined.
Perhaps they think that they can provide a secure on-line voting system that will not be as financially painful as text and phone voting. That seems unlikely though as does the concept of them providing cheaper votes. So far it hasn't happened and I don't think it will.
Perhaps they think that a mob mentality will consume us and we will all discuss doing block voting to ensure our favourite makes it.
So where are they now?
They think we will vote more easily and perhaps in some sort of 'team voting' brought on by collective BB hysteria. If that is it they are wasting their time and have never analysed the difference in reality between those who say they are voting on the forums and those who are actually putting their hands in their pockets.
Looks like CH5 are in for a rude awakening when they start counting the receipts regardless of new apps or not. You cannot get blood out of a stone and you certainly cannot get voting money out of stoney hearted (long term and bitter about the lack of Live Feed) BB fans.
NB. From FB
Slack Alice
From Heatworld:
TheBig Brother voting app will be powered by Facebook Credits, which can be purchased via the FB payment tab in Account Settings or from the BB Vote app on the Big Brother Facebook page. Each vote will cost no more than 7pence. Still with us? Good. Here’s so more info…
Facebook Credits are available from as little as £1.00, or you can choose to purchase larger bundles of Facebook Credits and save money with a discounted rate. Throughout the run of Big Brother 2011, Facebook Credits can be used whenever housemates are up for eviction and the standard voting lines are open. Viewers will be able to place up to 500 votes per eviction.
Jeff Ford, Director of Programmes at Channel 5 is particularly exited, “Thanks to this integration with Facebook, we are able to provide Big Brother fans with the opportunity to vote via Facebook - a first in UK broadcasting. Big Brother is the sort of show that works extremely well in conjunction with social media platforms, and this app will allow fans to get even more involved in the show.”
So each FB account can spend 7p x 500 per eviction = £35. Obviously if punters have 10 FB accounts they can spend a potential £350 *lol*
Good luck Mr Gorsky
Update 2:
Viewers can buy bundles of Credits which will allocate them a certain number of votes.
10 Facebook Credits buys 12 votes and costs 63p, while
20 Credits buys 24 votes at £1.26;
40 Credits buy 50 votes at £2.53, and
80 Credits buys 100 votes at £5.06.
Presuming that is the case the question must be why?
Its a fair bet that voting numbers have been sliding for years and yet they (votes) are the best revenue stream: All they do is put up a phone number and people give them money. To justify their costs so far they need a good solid vote stream, but they cannot expect to get it with the amount of TV coverage they are providing so they have to think that we can be 'encouraged' to vote more easily via FB/Twitter.
Perhaps they imagine that we can be whipped into a voting frenzy by all the brilliant pro-BB conversations we are having on FB. Their experience so far with a large percentage of responders asking for Live Feed and the majority of the rest complaining about that activity, can hardly have been what they imagined.
Perhaps they think that they can provide a secure on-line voting system that will not be as financially painful as text and phone voting. That seems unlikely though as does the concept of them providing cheaper votes. So far it hasn't happened and I don't think it will.
Perhaps they think that a mob mentality will consume us and we will all discuss doing block voting to ensure our favourite makes it.
So where are they now?
They think we will vote more easily and perhaps in some sort of 'team voting' brought on by collective BB hysteria. If that is it they are wasting their time and have never analysed the difference in reality between those who say they are voting on the forums and those who are actually putting their hands in their pockets.
Looks like CH5 are in for a rude awakening when they start counting the receipts regardless of new apps or not. You cannot get blood out of a stone and you certainly cannot get voting money out of stoney hearted (long term and bitter about the lack of Live Feed) BB fans.
NB. From FB
Slack Alice
TheBig Brother voting app will be powered by Facebook Credits, which can be purchased via the FB payment tab in Account Settings or from the BB Vote app on the Big Brother Facebook page. Each vote will cost no more than 7pence. Still with us? Good. Here’s so more info…
Facebook Credits are available from as little as £1.00, or you can choose to purchase larger bundles of Facebook Credits and save money with a discounted rate. Throughout the run of Big Brother 2011, Facebook Credits can be used whenever housemates are up for eviction and the standard voting lines are open. Viewers will be able to place up to 500 votes per eviction.
Jeff Ford, Director of Programmes at Channel 5 is particularly exited, “Thanks to this integration with Facebook, we are able to provide Big Brother fans with the opportunity to vote via Facebook - a first in UK broadcasting. Big Brother is the sort of show that works extremely well in conjunction with social media platforms, and this app will allow fans to get even more involved in the show.”
So each FB account can spend 7p x 500 per eviction = £35. Obviously if punters have 10 FB accounts they can spend a potential £350 *lol*
Good luck Mr Gorsky
Update 2:
Viewers can buy bundles of Credits which will allocate them a certain number of votes.
10 Facebook Credits buys 12 votes and costs 63p, while
20 Credits buys 24 votes at £1.26;
40 Credits buy 50 votes at £2.53, and
80 Credits buys 100 votes at £5.06.
Sunday 11 September 2011
Channel 5 try Big Brother and the viewers patience
Channel 5 try Big Brother
Nice story in the Huffington Post by Kit Marsters Click the Link above ^^^
In the meantime we will tell Ch5 that they are wrong.
Nice story in the Huffington Post by Kit Marsters Click the Link above ^^^
Channel 5 is convinced that prioritising social media is the way to get people involved in the show, despite the fact that negative comments are quickly removed from the dedicated Facebook page, with members complaining they've been blocked and even banned from Facebook altogether as a result of posting polite criticism or requests for live streaming. Viewing figures will tell if Channel 5 is correct.
In the meantime we will tell Ch5 that they are wrong.
Saturday 10 September 2011
The value and meaning of Social Media
- The value and meaning of Social Media
But be warned, Ch4 had their own forum for years and it degenerated into a bear pit. The Ch4 managers treated us as lepers and we despised them. The costs of running the service were probably very high and in the end they ran away.
Why you have formed the view that this constant rain of FB posts/videos/polls is entertainment is a source of amazement.
In brief, Social Media should add value. Your FB (with every post that asks for Live Feed or criticizes Ch5 removed, sometimes in their hundreds at a pass) or Twitter (where Tweets disappear without trace) don't add value. Your video clips consist largely of advertisements.
No dissent is tolerated. Social Media is interactive and 2 way. If you don't want to hear what we have to say, don't pretend its a dialogue.
What should be dropped?
- What should be dropped.
You may think you are dealing with a vociferous minority who don't know what's best for them but we are the most articulate and determined subset of your audience and we have been watching BB for far longer than you have being playing games of producing it. We understand the manipulation of audiences and we accept some of it as part of the game. What we dont accept is your flagrant disregard of what it is that actually makes the programme work.
It works because we watch it and study the people and understand them, probably better than they do themselves. We observe them, all the nuances, body language, verbal language, inter-relationships, habits & skills. That is why we like the programme. Don't tell us that the way forward for BB is social media. It is no substitute for Live Feed. It never will be. But Live Feed is what makes the programme work. It is pure arrogance to tell us that we are wrong and you are right.
You change your attitude and we will cheer up and even help the show along by talking positively about it.
What should be carried forward?
- What should be carried forward?
The house.
Live Feed.
Marcus
Live Feed.
BBLB with George
Live Feed.
Emma if you must but she struggles in that environment and would be better off with George.
Live Feed.
Russell Brand BBBM.
Live Feed.
Brian has made a reasonable start of it and he is a sweetie.
Live Feed.
The Tree of Temptation.
Live Feed.
Tasks which involve abject misery and smelly things for the HMs but no eating live things or Kangaroo knobs.
Treat us as partners in the process and we will play the game. But we do not feel like partners when we are being treated as outcasts Ch5 & Jeff Ford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)