[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.