[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?

[Vicky.]

I think the only people who go in should be genuine applicants. Not people who have been 'invited' to apply or whatever rubbish they say. Same with the likes of the x factor and that

[Niamh.]

yep and no one with an agent either

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

yep and no one with an agent either

Anyone with an agent should not be allowed in the auditions at all.

Might be an interesting series though if they had 2 houses once as its rumoured every year and put one with normal people and one with wannabes with agents and compare how fake the wannabes are compared to the normal people.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Anyone with an agent should not be allowed in the auditions at all.

Might be an interesting series though if they had 2 houses once as its rumoured every year and put one with normal people and one with wannabes with agents and compare how fake the wannabes are compared to the normal people.

That's a really good idea actually, if they had the two houses like you suggested but each house doesn't know about the other one and then when they're down to, say 5 HMs in each merge them, that'd be funny, you'd get the whole new dynamics but with out having to get to know newbies

[ElProximo]

Agent = instant disqualification.

Recruiting. I think it fails when they are recruiting from nightclubs or from friends and family.
Even stranger to me - recruiting wannabe starlets and models. It would seem that IS who fills public auditions to start with?

But recruiting can be good when it's finding those who don't follow BB, don't pay attention to audition calls, rural people, the introverts, even those types who would like to audition but would say "..Oh.. don't bother.. they won't ever pick someone like me".

I want to see those types!

But I do see the complain about recruiting too. It does seem unfair to the many people applying properly through the advertized process.

Like it or not. The public auditions have become more useful for promotions than for actually finding HM's anymore.
However,
Maybe 5 is going to change all that?