[ThriceShy]

How about nominations for who they want to save and then the rest go up for the public vote.

I think that would be an interesting slant on it.

[Jason.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

How about nominations for who they want to save and then the rest go up for the public vote.

I think that would be an interesting slant on it.

They had something like that in BB6, where they nominated to save during a week. I think it was Kemal vs. Orlaith week.

Surprised they've never done that nowadays, considering all the nomination twists we get.

But knowing the current production, they'll completely mess with it, and butcher the whole purpose of it.

[GLENN BILL BB7]

Originally Posted by BB6

They had something like that in BB6, where they nominated to save during a week. I think it was Kemal vs. Orlaith week.

Surprised they've never done that nowadays, considering all the nomination twists we get.

But knowing the current production, they'll completely mess with it, and butcher the whole purpose of it.

Yea they should do this again for a change, I remember Makosi was being sneaky and didn't pick 'Her Best friend in the house' Kemal.

[Rob!]

Resizing Wolfy is between her and laws of physics

[Jay_Roberts441]

Would a mix of BBUK and BBCAN/BBUS formats work for BB16?

Say we (the public) vote for the 3 housemates to face an Immunity challenge and let the housemates decide on who is evicted out of the 2 that are left.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Jay_Roberts441

Would a mix of BBUK and BBCAN/BBUS formats work for BB16?

Yes, they have the live coverage.

[Marsh.]

The viewing figures have been going down every year

As they did on channel 4 with live feed. Tends to happen with shows, they decline in viewership.


Not to mention the feed for the housemates in a secret room does not require all of the filtering/monitoring/costs that a public feed would require. They don't just click a button and that's it forever.

Live feed does not get enough viewers to justify the cost.
BB14 had higher viewers but still nowhere near a justifiable rating for the live feed to be cost efficient or anywhere near the reason for an increase in ratings.
The ratings increase wasn't significant in anyway, it's tiny.

That's the last thing I'll say now as we're going in circles.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not to mention the feed for the housemates in a secret room does not require all of the filtering/monitoring/costs that a public feed would require. They don't just click a button and that's it forever.

Internet feed would require less regulation. And how bloody hard can it be to get a couple of people who know what they're doing to push a button when need be?

Live feed does not get enough viewers to justify the cost.

You keep saying this but (1) you have no idea how many viewers it gets (something that would be impossible to measure with the 24/7 feed anyway) and (2) you have no idea what the cost actually is. Another problem (3) is that there is the cost of not having it and the lack of immediacy and interest hardcore fans now feel as a result which ultimately damages the viability of the product as a whole.

BB14 had higher viewers but still nowhere near a justifiable rating for the live feed to be cost efficient or anywhere near the reason for an increase in ratings.

This is pure speculation on your part as you have no idea how much it costs nor can any of us know exactly what the reason for the ratings increase was. Furthermore, there are ways of cutting costs with other things to pay for the feed, and if need be you could have a subscription charge. Only this time, unlike with BB11, create a website and fill it with features that actually justify any charge.

The ratings increase wasn't significant in anyway, it's tiny.

It's significant by the standards of Channel 5.

That's the last thing I'll say now as we're going in circles.

We are, but it's clear that the vast majority of the complaints on forums, fan sites and on twitter are to do with the live feed the lack of which harms the show considerably regardless of how many viewing figures it gets at any particular time. A great website with that at the heart of it would help the show, it would get more people visiting the site, and it would earn them the good will of those who continue to watch but who had been ready to give up on it. Which I'm sure they will if next year carries on the same as before (if there even is a next year)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

Internet feed would require less regulation. And how bloody hard can it be to get a couple of people who know what they're doing to push a button when need be?

Because SHOCK HORROR, it requires more than pushing a button.

If only life was simple.

You keep saying this but (1) you have no idea how many viewers it gets (something that would be impossible to measure with the 24/7 feed anyway) and (2) you have no idea what the cost actually is. Another problem (3) is that there is the cost of not having it and the lack of immediacy and interest hardcore fans now feel as a result which ultimately damages the viability of the product as a whole.

Again, I don't need to know the cost or the viewers. The fact it was axed due to low figures tells me that. Why else was it not reinstated? As Jeff Ford said they felt the money would be better spent elsewhere as the viewers just weren't interested in live feed anymore.

You and a few others still being passionate about it doesn't change that fact.

but it's clear that the vast majority of the complaints on forums, fan sites and on twitter are to do with the live feed the lack of which harms the show considerably regardless of how many viewing figures it gets at any particular time.

Yes and, unfortunately, not enough of them are interested when it comes to live feed on the website. Thus it was axed.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because SHOCK HORROR, it requires more than pushing a button.

It doesn't. You have the thing on a delay (30 minutes if need be) and you silence any problematic stuff. If it was any more problematic than that why would so many other countries have the live coverage including multiple feeds in some cases. All you need is one or two people who understand the legal issues and one person who knows how to cut anything that needs to be cut out.

Again, I don't need to know the cost or the viewers.

Yes, you do. If you're going to make a convincing case.

The fact it was axed due to low figures tells me that. Why else was it not reinstated? As Jeff Ford said they felt the money would be better spent elsewhere as the viewers just weren't interested in live feed anymore.

Yes and he proved himself an idiot on that. Jeff Ford consistently showed himself to not understand the show and what was most important to it. He believed the money was better spent on the twitter updates and facebook. That tells you everything you need to know about the fool.

You and a few others still being passionate about it doesn't change that fact.

It's the only thing people have complained about since it moved to Channel 5. So it's not just a few of us.

Yes and, unfortunately, not enough of them are interested when it comes to live feed on the website. Thus it was axed.

The 24/7 coverage has never been tried on the website. It had 2 hours at 7 pm on Channel 5 against soaps and it had 2 hours at midnight. The fact is with a 24/7 feed anyone who visits the site would be watching it at some point during the day and in doing so getting more involved with the characters and the show. As Phil Edgar Jones stated "I wonder if we'd had the live feed in there, would more people have got connected and passionate about it."

It is also important from a trust point of view. As the exec producer of BB Canada correctly pointed out... The Live feeds keep the show honest. And if any version of Big Brother has lost the trust of the viewers it must be this one.

[ThriceShy]

You keep talking about live feed allowing us to get to know and care about the housemates, which is true, but why would we bother investing the time to do that when the production team can just pull a stunt like 4in4out and get rid of people that haven't even been nominated?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

You keep talking about live feed allowing us to get to know and care about the housemates, which is true, but why would we bother investing the time to do that when the production team can just pull a stunt like 4in4out and get rid of people that haven't even been nominated?

Exactly. There's more pressing (and much less costly) problems with the show.

[Marsh.]

All you need is one or two people who understand the legal issues and one person who knows how to cut anything that needs to be cut out.

Yes, 24/7 for three months requires one or two people. Ok.

Yes, you do. If you're going to make a convincing case.

No I do not.

The people who's job it is to know that have said time and again there is not enough interest to justify paying the money for it.
That is all I need to know.

If it was any more problematic than that why would so many other countries have the live coverage including multiple feeds in some cases.

Because, like the UK did 10 years ago, they have the interest for it.
BBUK no longer does.
Why bother paying money and going through all of the effort for it when it does nothing for them in return. It's a waste of resources.

The 24/7 coverage has never been tried on the website.

Channel 4 had 24/7 coverage on the website and in Jeff Ford's own words the original decision to not carry it over to channel 5 was because of the poor performance during channel 4's final series.

The Live feeds keep the show honest. And if any version of Big Brother has lost the trust of the viewers it must be this one.

I couldn't agree more. And in its heyday that is what it did.

But at the end of the day, television is a business and if it's a waste of money they're not going to continue anything unless it's providing for them in return. The live feed no longer does that.

Television is a business first and foremost and cuts will be made for things no longer working. Sad fact but true, especially on a channel like 5.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, 24/7 for three months requires one or two people. Ok.

They already have an enormous team. They would just need a few more to handle the legal side of it. It really is not that difficult to run as can be demonstrated by the fact that so many other countries have not just one feed but multiple feeds.

No I do not.

You do really. One proven idiot who doesn't understand the show and the long term costs of not having it is meaningless, and he clearly said it could have been done but they instead chose to invest in other things. Those other things have been a proven failure and can be scrapped.

The people who's job it is to know that have said time and again there is not enough interest to justify paying the money for it.
That is all I need to know.

One person. A man who thought the money was better spent investing in twitter updates and facebook. Your faith in thinking these people know what they're doing is nice, but they haven't shown much sign of doing so.

Because, like the UK did 10 years ago, they have the interest for it.

And there continues to be an interest for it here. As is made clear by the number of people who continue to argue for it on forums and twitter. And again, the website would benefit hugely from it.

BBUK no longer does. Why bother paying money and going through all of the effort for it when it does nothing for them in return. It's a waste of resources.

Because the show is suffering without it. They are killing the show stone dead. That is a far bigger waste if the show could still be viable.

Channel 4 had 24/7 coverage on the website and in Jeff Ford's own words the original decision to not carry it over to channel 5 was because of the poor performance during channel 4's final series.

I will have to go through a lot of Oathy's posts on Digital Spy to find the truth behind this, but there is actually a lot more to the story. I can't do it now as my eyes hurt and I'm ready to top myself.

I couldn't agree more. And in its heyday that is what it did.

But at the end of the day, television is a business and if it's a waste of money they're not going to continue anything unless it's providing for them in return. The live feed no longer does that.

You keep asserting this when it has never been tried on Channel 5. If they did one series with it and it failed then so be it, but to not do this is ridiculous.

Television is a business first and foremost and cuts will be made for things no longer working. Sad fact but true, especially on a channel like 5.

Cuts must be made. But it's what cuts you do make that are important. And they have cut something that is essential to the show where they could have made other cuts. In doing so they're killing the show off even for the most hardcore fans. From a business point of view, that is stupid.

[Marsh.]

Of course CBB's launch was huge, it's CBB.

CBB7 (the last on channel 4) drew in over 6 million for the launch, BB11 (the last on channel 4) drew in just over 5 million.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Of course CBB's launch was huge, it's CBB.

It was the return of Big Brother on a new Channel that caused the major interest.

[the_answers]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If what you're saying is true, we'll take the BB viewers and subtract them from the CBB audience

So are you saying you'd like ratings to be high but if they plummet you're not really bothered ?

Or just that you think any decrease in figures will be so small or negligible as to not make any huge impact on current figures ?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the_answers

So are you saying you'd like ratings to be high but if they plummet you're not really bothered ?

Or just that you think any decrease in figures will be so small or negligible as to not make any huge impact on current figures ?

I was responding to Mock's assumption that the hardcore BB fans would switch off from CBB too if it was axed and cause CBB to then fail.

Let's be generous and say every one of BB's audience is a hardcore fan and subtract that figure from the average CBB rating (to account for the hardcore fans switching off) and CBB STILL out-rates BB by more than double. That won't result in CBB failing and highlights just how small the civilian audience is.

[the_answers]

Not in the short term no.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the_answers

Not in the short term no.

Elaborate? Explain? Source? Add to the discussion?

CBB can more than stand on its own two feet. It's the only one to get any media attention and was outperforming BB regularly even 5 years ago on channel 4.

[the_answers]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Elaborate? Explain? Source? Add to the discussion?

CBB can more than stand on its own two feet. It's the only one to get any media attention and was outperforming BB regularly even 5 years ago on channel 4.

Well I don't know really, was just my guess.
I just think it feels like short-termism and if that's the problem with BB, then in the longer term maybe it might not work with CBB either.

But then again maybe it's comparing apples and pears.
Reality TV may not be a winner anymore.
Celebrity BB ?

All shows seem to need to remain interesting, relevant etc.

Just think the advantage old BB have is the underlying reality format of the show.
Take that out, I do wonder if chucking in new celebs is going to be the answer everytime.
Like I said I really don't know and I'm guessing but CBB's appeal seems a bit of a mix and match between being reality TV and being a celebrity puller.

If it can survive on celebrities alone then I guess it'll be fine.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the_answers

Well I don't know really, was just my guess.
I just think it feels like short-termism and if that's the problem with BB, then in the longer term maybe it might not work with CBB either.

But then again maybe it's comparing apples and pears.
Reality TV may not be a winner anymore.
Celebrity BB ?

All shows seem to need to remain interesting, relevant etc.

Just think the advantage old BB have is the underlying reality format of the show.
Take that out, I do wonder if chucking in new celebs is going to be the answer everytime.
Like I said I really don't know and I'm guessing but CBB's appeal seems a bit of a mix and match between being reality TV and being a celebrity puller.

If it can survive on celebrities alone then I guess it'll be fine.

I'm not saying anything is the answer.

I'm not saying CBB is in a better state than BB.

I personally feel the format is dead on the whole and reality TV as we've known it is being phased out (even American Idol is ending) but CBB is the one still with legs for this show. Whether those legs last another year, 2 years, 5 years or more is a different story. But the civilian shows legs were broken years ago and they're simply dragging its crippled carcass around the floor. IMO of course. It may manage to drag itself onto its knees every now and then but those moments are getting fewer and further between.

It needs at least a rest to patch up.

[Marsh.]

It really is not that difficult to run as can be demonstrated by the fact that so many other countries have not just one feed but multiple feeds.

You're missing the point. Yes, they could, but why spend all that money and hire the staff to do these tasks when it's not justified by the viewing figures? It's a waste of time and money.

You do really. One proven idiot who doesn't understand the show and the long term costs of not having it is meaningless, and he clearly said it could have been done but they instead chose to invest in other things. Those other things have been a proven failure and can be scrapped.

Well that "one idiot" is long gone and has there been a change? No.
Of course it "could" be done, ANYTHING "could" be done, but again channel 5 is a business. They're not going to want to please the few viewers who will watch a live feed despite losing money on it.

Those other things have been a proven failure and can be scrapped.

They're not a failure, but they require improvements.

Your faith in thinking these people know what they're doing is nice, but they haven't shown much sign of doing so.

I haven't put faith in anyone, not the least a man who hasn't been running the place for years.
I don't care where they decided to place the money, but from a business standpoint it's quite clearly better spent in a place where there is a substantial number of viewers (social media).
They could do with spending even more in this department.

And there continues to be an interest for it here. As is made clear by the number of people who continue to argue for it on forums and twitter. And again, the website would benefit hugely from it.

Getting back to the point, not ENOUGH interest. You and your forum friends don't pay the bills for them I'm afraid.

Because the show is suffering without it. They are killing the show stone dead. That is a far bigger waste if the show could still be viable.

They are killing the show and I have yet to hear a valid comment from yourself that shows live feed is the prime reason. It has been proven however that the vast majority of the BB audience do not care for it.

You keep asserting this when it has never been tried on Channel 5. If they did one series with it and it failed then so be it, but to not do this is ridiculous.

They inherited a 10 year old show. They had all the data and research there to tell them what state the show was in and all of its extensions. Channel 4 had already deemed live feed not worth to keep going and channel 5 agreed and continued this decision.

And they have cut something that is essential to the show where they could have made other cuts.

So essential to the show, only a small few of an already niche programme are even watching it. It is essential to the spirit of what Big Brother was but was axed because viewers moved on from it.

We're a world away from when watching streaming from the house at any time on the internet was in anyway exciting or appealing to a general audience. No fancy website will change this.

The "hardcore" fans don't make up such a significant number, hence their say being a small voice in a large crowd. That doesn't pay for the show to do half of what it did in its heyday.

Popularity = Money

BB has neither anymore.

It was the return of Big Brother on a new Channel that caused the major interest.

Yes and CBB was more popular than the main show by this point, hence the reason channel 5 wanted to buy CBB and only CBB.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're missing the point. Yes, they could, but why spend all that money and hire the staff to do these tasks when it's not justified by the viewing figures? It's a waste of time and money.

The viewing figures for what though? That the figures for the live coverage at any given time of day might be low I don't doubt. The point is, with a 24/7 feed how many people do watch at some point during the day, get more involved, and in doing so become more interested in the show. That can help with the actual viewing figures for the highlight shows. As I have pointed out, they have lost 600,000 viewers since 2 years ago. That is an enormous loss and it makes the show less viable. Had they found a way to build on the success of BB14 by increasing the live coverage they may have actually done better last year and continued to do well this year. But they didn't. They had less live coverage and now have become reliant on the sort of desperate headline grabbing stunts that have increasingly put viewers off as a result. So whatever the costs of the live coverage, the costs of not having it can be argued to be the ultimate destruction of the show.

Well that "one idiot" is long gone and has there been a change? No.
Of course it "could" be done, ANYTHING "could" be done, but again channel 5 is a business. They're not going to want to please the few viewers who will watch a live feed despite losing money on it.

It wouldn't just be pleasing them though. It's about making the whole show better for everybody who ever clicked on the website, which plenty would do if it was good and featured the things people want. Imagine one big argument in the first week and people on twitter who are watching start tweeting about it and a buzz is created. Immediately people would visit the website to watch what was going on and the fall out. It would be exciting in a way that watching the events happen 24 hours afterwards on a HL show just cannot be.

They're not a failure, but they require improvements.

The facebook site is ****. And the twitter updates are an embarrassment. Both can be scrapped in favour of the things that would actually make the show better.

I haven't put faith in anyone, not the least a man who hasn't been running the place for years. I don't care where they decided to place the money, but from a business standpoint it's quite clearly better spent in a place where there is a substantial number of viewers (social media).

It hasn't worked out that way for them has it. The fact is social media, social networking, 24/7 twitter activity, the live feed actually lends itself very well to these things. They have failed miserably to understand that.

Getting back to the point, not ENOUGH interest. You and your forum friends don't pay the bills for them I'm afraid.

Again... There could easily be, if done right.

They are killing the show and I have yet to hear a valid comment from yourself that shows live feed is the prime reason. It has been proven however that the vast majority of the BB audience do not care for it.

No, it has not. And certainly not by you.

They inherited a 10 year old show. They had all the data and research there to tell them what state the show was in and all of its extensions. Channel 4 had already deemed live feed not worth to keep going and channel 5 agreed and continued this decision.

Channel 4 got rid of the live coverage the same year they knew they were getting rid of the show. a show that had probably wanted rid of earlier because of the trouble it had gotten them into.

So essential to the show, only a small few of an already niche programme are even watching it.

What are you basing this **** on? How many people go to the website? Do you know? No. If every time they went to the site the first thing to open would be the live coverage they would be watching it. Putting it on at midnight isn't likely to bring a lot of viewers of it. Nevertheless, when they did do that it was the highest rated series on Channel 5.

It is essential to the spirit of what Big Brother was but was axed because viewers moved on from it.

Blah, blah, blah Jeff Ford.

We're a world away from when watching streaming from the house at any time on the internet was in anyway exciting or appealing to a general audience. No fancy website will change this.

The "hardcore" fans don't make up such a significant number, hence their say being a small voice in a large crowd. That doesn't pay for the show to do half of what it did in its heyday.

Popularity = Money

BB has neither.

It's the most popular show on Channel 5, but it is sinking fast because of the disillusionment of the fans. And one source of that disillusionment is the lack of the live feed.

A good website with the live coverage and a return to the old format, may boost its popularity by its current standards. If they don't do that, they will lose even more viewers, and therefore more money.

[Marsh.]

Ok.