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.

I posted this on Nick Bateman's blog and he deleted it - then reinstated it.

http://bigbrotherveteran.blogspot.com

I posted this on Nasty Nick's blog and it was removed, but now its back again - strange world innit?

Jasmine Merryweather said...

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