[karl100589]

Most of us know by know that the some of the Big Brother contestants of recent years have openly been recruited specifically for the show by both the producers and by casting agencies, and although on paper the idea of recruiting people is a bad thing I am of the belief that sometimes gaining recruited contestants does have it's advantages.

The first plus about recruiting is that it helps to create a lot more diversity in the cast, it is arguable that a large number of Big Brother auditionees and applicants all seem to fit the same narrow demographic (18-24, lower working class), by recruiting the producers are able to give us a group with more varied backgrounds and a diversity in ages and personalities. The second suggestion is that because some of the contestants are recruited they don't have the same knowledge and understanding of how the show works, which means as a result they may not play up to the cameras as much, BB11's Mario was a massive Big Brother fan, but was so savvy about the show that his actions were all with the intentions of pleasing the audience, finally putting recruits into the house, especially those from upper class backgrounds, creates a fish-out-of water scenario which is enjoyable to watch, seeing Derek's audiable distain for the environment and the people he was living with created some funny moments.

On the other side of the coin recruiting contestants rather then people who actually want to be on the show demoralises the real fans and annoys them that they are overlooked for people who don't care, added to that because recruits don't share the same enthusiasm for the show they don't care as much as what an applicant would, and therefore don't put as much effort into the tasks as they should, Ben's performance in the bootcamp task being evidence of that.

The question I ask is where do you stand on the Recruits vs Applicants debate?