Earlier in this thread, I asked people to estimate how many viewers a live feed would add, and I made an estimate myself. The numbers we came up with were in the range 100,000 to 200,000 viewers. That's significant, but not huge; the twists have added more without any significant help from the currently minimal live feed.
they would need a decent cast first. of which they do not have this year.
I don't know the exact basis of the other estimates for how much a live feed would add, but mine assumed HMs who can generate and sustain the interest in what the live feed showed.
I don't think this year's cast was usually poor, but of course the cast will make a difference, and other factors will too. That's one of the reasons why it's not clear how much (if any) difference a live feed would make.
However, suppose you're right that the live feed needs a decent cast before it can make a significant difference, and that this year's cast wasn't good enough. If so, then those who think a live feed would have made a big difference this year are wrong. What was needed was cast changes, and that's what BB's done.
Meanwhile, other people think this year's cast was ok, and that if things had been allowed to develop naturally, with a live feed, the ratings would have been good without needing the big, cast-changing twists.
There's no way to tell which side is right.
Some people may think the answer was cast changes + a live feed, but there's no way to tell whether that would have worked any better. The result could even have been worse, for all we know.
"how many people" the live feed will add is not important... the question is "the substitution cost" of replacing something that makes "x amount of money" and costs "y" with somethine else... and when c5 did it last year they found the slot made "less" than leaving the old american repeat that normally occupied the slot.
this is not c4 of the early 2000s... c4 when it started to get more business minded also dropped the live feed.. it has to pay the the economic rent of any space it fills.. and live feeds just dont do it. end of story.
I think we would have the exact same amount of live feed we have today if the show was still on Channel 4. The only reason they brought it back for BB11 was because it was the last series there.
I think we would have the exact same amount of live feed we have today if the show was still on Channel 4. The only reason they brought it back for BB11 was because it was the last series there.
I think we'd have the late night feed from 00:00 - 03:00 or similar.
C4 had considerably more viewers than C5 so that feed could be justified.
C4 were also brave enough to try the subscription based Live Feed model so that may have continued if the show had remained on C4,of course we'll never know that though.
It's what oathy and Richie4eva have discussed in the live feed thread. Viacom are such crap owners of channel 5, it's unbelievable. >:(
I've seen many such discussions, and I agree with Hollie_Louise.
One of the problems is that when people argue for a live feed, it can sound like they think the live feed would make a huge difference. That's why I asked people to try to put a number on it. Three of us tried to do that. I said 100,000 to 200,000 with the right HMs, Salv* said 150,000, and oathy said "around the 150k + I would think hopefully pushing onto 200k". I explained my reasoning here.
However, my approach was to take a case where people thought the live feed made a difference (bb14) and then thinking: if it made a difference, how much difference did it plausibly make? The difference might actually have been entirely due to other factors.
That two people have discussed it on an Internet forum doesn't provide me with any actual evidence that a live feed would increase viewing figures for highlight shows.
I don't understand really how not providing live feed for Big Brother makes a multi billion dollar global corporation "crap owners" either.
I think joeysneddon made some good points about the "crap owners" idea in a recent post above.
Anyway, one of the main arguments is that a live feed will create "buzz" on social media and in newspapers, etc, and that will bring in viewers. That sounds plausible, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean it would actually happen, and there are reasons to think it wouldn't.
For a start, there are other things that already create "buzz". Even the highlights can create buzz that could bring more viewers to subsequent shows. It's not at all clear how much buzz a live feed would add to what already happens.
Also buzz and 'word of mouth' don't actually seem to bring in more viewers. Such things seem to have very limited power to help BB these days. The way they ought to work is that, as word spreads, more and more viewers come in. But that doesn't happen. The numbers don't go up and up, day by day, as more more viewers come in. Instead, they go up in one jump when there's a big twist or other big development, and then they stay at about the same level until the next big thing.
I suppose it's possible to believe that buzz created by a live feed is somehow different and would bring in more and more viewers in a way that other forms of buzz don't. I think that's pretty unlikely anyway, but I can say more than that. I can say, for instance, consider bb9. It had 24/7 live coverage, and almost everyone seemed to think it was much better than bb8. Surely word would spread, and it would have more viewers than bb8. Odd-numbered BBs had always had more viewers anyway. (Compare 3 to 2, 5 to 4, and even 7 to 6, though the difference between 6 and 7 wasn't great.) BB 9, though, had fewer viewers than bb8. It was the first time there'd been a fall two years in a row.
if channel 5 had approached this show in a different way from day one then i'd say yes ,live streaming would have had a positive effect on ratings ,hard to say how much as there's other factors to consider
channel 5 were very coy from the start about why the live streaming was missing
i don't buy any of their explanation ,complete nonsense ,not much has changed on that front
one day endemol want it then they don't then it's channel 5's fault then it's viacom's fault or it's the viewers fault for not watching .. etc and so it goes on to this day
as for the present ,if it happened in the next series ,i'd say it would have minimal effect
the format was always too big for channel 5 too handle , their cut down version maybe plugging a hole in their schedules but that's all it's doing now
maybe just about ok for them ,not so good for me
this is as good as it's going to get in my opinion
That two people have discussed it on an Internet forum doesn't provide me with any actual evidence that a live feed would increase viewing figures for highlight shows.
I don't understand really how not providing live feed for Big Brother makes a multi billion dollar global corporation "crap owners" either.
BB10 lowest rated C4 series no 24/7 feed.
BB14 highest rated C5 series had live feed all be it 2 hours a night but it was there.
BB15 no live feed ratings down.
BB16 no live feed ratings down again.
UK BB the only BB in the world not to have 24/7 live feed. The only other country to try the C5 way was Australia, BB has been axed in Australia.
I don't believe the return of live feed will bring a load of viewers back because it's too late now. C5 have annoyed so many fans that they just will not come back but the only way to see would be to put live feed on the website and see if it worked.
If C5 continue to put head in sand the only way for BB is further down.
So it's substantially down from the day before, rather than remaining steady.
It figures that it would be down, since it was a better episode.
The showmance crap the night before focusing mostly on dullard Danny & Trashleyne probably turned people off tuning in again the next night.
If Marc goes this week every episode will be as crap as that one.
He needs to stay in or the numbers will sink back down to the lows of the first few weeks again.
BB14 highest rated C5 series had live feed all be it 2 hours a night but it was there.
BB15 no live feed ratings down.
BB16 no live feed ratings down again.
None of the proves the live feed made any difference. To think it does is the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Besides, BB15 had essentially the same number of viewers as BBs 12 and 13. It was down compared to the unusually high bb14, but so what? Such shifts will happen anyway. There were bigger swings when BB was on C4 during the years that had 24/7 live coverage. The fall from bb9 to bb10 was the same as the fall from bb7 to bb9 when both 7 and 9 had live BB 24/7.
BB14 was higher than usual, but that doesn't mean the 2 hours live feed had anything to do with it. There was even a period during bb14 without the live feed, and the ratings didn't fall.
BB 16 started low, perhaps because of the baleful influence of the unpleasant bb15, and it struggled because too many viewers thought the HMs were dull -- it's unlikely that they'd have seemed any more exciting live -- but the numbers have been brought back up without a live feed.
UK BB the only BB in the world not to have 24/7 live feed.
Other countries don't show what would happen in the UK. No show in the UK has the sort of live feed BB used to have. "I'm a Celebrity" axed its live coverage and continued to do well in the ratings. BB lost millons while it still had live coverage 24/7.
None of the proves the live feed made any difference. To think it does is the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Besides, BB15 had essentially the same number of viewers as BBs 12 and 13. It was down compared to the unusually high bb14, but so what? Such shifts will happen anyway. There were bigger swings when BB was on C4 during the years that had 24/7 live coverage. The fall from bb9 to bb10 was the same as the fall from bb7 to bb9 when both 7 and 9 had live BB 24/7.
BB14 was higher than usual, but that doesn't mean the 2 hours live feed had anything to do with it. There was even a period during bb14 without the live feed, and the ratings didn't fall.
BB 16 started low, perhaps because of the baleful influence of the unpleasant bb15, and it struggled because too many viewers thought the HMs were dull -- it's unlikely that they'd have seemed any more exciting live -- but the numbers have been brought back up without a live feed.
Other countries don't show what would happen in the UK. No show in the UK has the sort of live feed BB used to have. "I'm a Celebrity" axed its live coverage and continued to do well in the ratings. BB lost millons while it still had live coverage 24/7.
I didn't say anywhere that live feed made any difference, if you inferred that then that's up to you.
I stated facts, being the lowest rated C4 series was the one without live feed and the highest rated C5 series is the one with live feed.
I didn't say anywhere that live feed made any difference, if you inferred that then that's up to you.
I stated facts, being the lowest rated C4 series was the one without live feed and the highest rated C5 series is the one with live feed.
In context, given the post you were answering, you seemed to be presenting an implicit argument that a live feed would increase viewing figures for highlight shows.
If that wasn't what you were doing, then why did you post those selected facts?
Do you think the lowest rated C4 series was lowest rated because it had reduced live feed?
Do you think the highest rated C5 series was highest rated because it had a short live feed?
the 'lead in' shows to big brother appear to be an odd choice on occasions
the other week there was a documentary about hitler preceding big brother
is that the sort of thing that would appeal to [channel 5 era] big brother fans
it's almost as if channel 5 have given up on the 'normal' series
hardly a scientific observation by me but it's the impression that i get
If people stuck to the rules we'd have higher ratings. It's because of the people who come in who have an empty rule book that encourages us to switch off. The two big bosses of bb should quit and admit they were wrong with civilian bb this year.
An average audience of 1.01 million (5.6%) tuned in to watch another regular and legendary housemate leave the compound. The show peaked with 1.17 million (6.1%).
A further 619k (5.2%) watched Big Brother's Bit on the Side, while 363k (5%) watched live footage from the house from 11.30pm.
Comments
the people who hold up the figures to back their equally fantasist negative BB claims still look to be in their own little playground of invention.
So it's substantially down from the day before, rather than remaining steady.
It figures that it would be down, since it was a better episode.
I don't know the exact basis of the other estimates for how much a live feed would add, but mine assumed HMs who can generate and sustain the interest in what the live feed showed.
I don't think this year's cast was usually poor, but of course the cast will make a difference, and other factors will too. That's one of the reasons why it's not clear how much (if any) difference a live feed would make.
However, suppose you're right that the live feed needs a decent cast before it can make a significant difference, and that this year's cast wasn't good enough. If so, then those who think a live feed would have made a big difference this year are wrong. What was needed was cast changes, and that's what BB's done.
Meanwhile, other people think this year's cast was ok, and that if things had been allowed to develop naturally, with a live feed, the ratings would have been good without needing the big, cast-changing twists.
There's no way to tell which side is right.
Some people may think the answer was cast changes + a live feed, but there's no way to tell whether that would have worked any better. The result could even have been worse, for all we know.
this is not c4 of the early 2000s... c4 when it started to get more business minded also dropped the live feed.. it has to pay the the economic rent of any space it fills.. and live feeds just dont do it. end of story.
C4 had considerably more viewers than C5 so that feed could be justified.
C4 were also brave enough to try the subscription based Live Feed model so that may have continued if the show had remained on C4,of course we'll never know that though.
I've seen many such discussions, and I agree with Hollie_Louise.
One of the problems is that when people argue for a live feed, it can sound like they think the live feed would make a huge difference. That's why I asked people to try to put a number on it. Three of us tried to do that. I said 100,000 to 200,000 with the right HMs, Salv* said 150,000, and oathy said "around the 150k + I would think hopefully pushing onto 200k". I explained my reasoning here.
However, my approach was to take a case where people thought the live feed made a difference (bb14) and then thinking: if it made a difference, how much difference did it plausibly make? The difference might actually have been entirely due to other factors.
I think joeysneddon made some good points about the "crap owners" idea in a recent post above.
Anyway, one of the main arguments is that a live feed will create "buzz" on social media and in newspapers, etc, and that will bring in viewers. That sounds plausible, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean it would actually happen, and there are reasons to think it wouldn't.
For a start, there are other things that already create "buzz". Even the highlights can create buzz that could bring more viewers to subsequent shows. It's not at all clear how much buzz a live feed would add to what already happens.
Also buzz and 'word of mouth' don't actually seem to bring in more viewers. Such things seem to have very limited power to help BB these days. The way they ought to work is that, as word spreads, more and more viewers come in. But that doesn't happen. The numbers don't go up and up, day by day, as more more viewers come in. Instead, they go up in one jump when there's a big twist or other big development, and then they stay at about the same level until the next big thing.
I suppose it's possible to believe that buzz created by a live feed is somehow different and would bring in more and more viewers in a way that other forms of buzz don't. I think that's pretty unlikely anyway, but I can say more than that. I can say, for instance, consider bb9. It had 24/7 live coverage, and almost everyone seemed to think it was much better than bb8. Surely word would spread, and it would have more viewers than bb8. Odd-numbered BBs had always had more viewers anyway. (Compare 3 to 2, 5 to 4, and even 7 to 6, though the difference between 6 and 7 wasn't great.) BB 9, though, had fewer viewers than bb8. It was the first time there'd been a fall two years in a row.
channel 5 were very coy from the start about why the live streaming was missing
i don't buy any of their explanation ,complete nonsense ,not much has changed on that front
one day endemol want it then they don't then it's channel 5's fault then it's viacom's fault or it's the viewers fault for not watching .. etc and so it goes on to this day
as for the present ,if it happened in the next series ,i'd say it would have minimal effect
the format was always too big for channel 5 too handle , their cut down version maybe plugging a hole in their schedules but that's all it's doing now
maybe just about ok for them ,not so good for me
this is as good as it's going to get in my opinion
BB10 lowest rated C4 series no 24/7 feed.
BB14 highest rated C5 series had live feed all be it 2 hours a night but it was there.
BB15 no live feed ratings down.
BB16 no live feed ratings down again.
UK BB the only BB in the world not to have 24/7 live feed. The only other country to try the C5 way was Australia, BB has been axed in Australia.
I don't believe the return of live feed will bring a load of viewers back because it's too late now. C5 have annoyed so many fans that they just will not come back but the only way to see would be to put live feed on the website and see if it worked.
If C5 continue to put head in sand the only way for BB is further down.
The showmance crap the night before focusing mostly on dullard Danny & Trashleyne probably turned people off tuning in again the next night.
If Marc goes this week every episode will be as crap as that one.
He needs to stay in or the numbers will sink back down to the lows of the first few weeks again.
Marc is the savior
None of the proves the live feed made any difference. To think it does is the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Besides, BB15 had essentially the same number of viewers as BBs 12 and 13. It was down compared to the unusually high bb14, but so what? Such shifts will happen anyway. There were bigger swings when BB was on C4 during the years that had 24/7 live coverage. The fall from bb9 to bb10 was the same as the fall from bb7 to bb9 when both 7 and 9 had live BB 24/7.
BB14 was higher than usual, but that doesn't mean the 2 hours live feed had anything to do with it. There was even a period during bb14 without the live feed, and the ratings didn't fall.
BB 16 started low, perhaps because of the baleful influence of the unpleasant bb15, and it struggled because too many viewers thought the HMs were dull -- it's unlikely that they'd have seemed any more exciting live -- but the numbers have been brought back up without a live feed.
Other countries don't show what would happen in the UK. No show in the UK has the sort of live feed BB used to have. "I'm a Celebrity" axed its live coverage and continued to do well in the ratings. BB lost millons while it still had live coverage 24/7.
That's not bad, right?
Thought TV in genera would be very low because of the weather when in fact everything held well.
I didn't say anywhere that live feed made any difference, if you inferred that then that's up to you.
I stated facts, being the lowest rated C4 series was the one without live feed and the highest rated C5 series is the one with live feed.
In context, given the post you were answering, you seemed to be presenting an implicit argument that a live feed would increase viewing figures for highlight shows.
If that wasn't what you were doing, then why did you post those selected facts?
Do you think the lowest rated C4 series was lowest rated because it had reduced live feed?
Do you think the highest rated C5 series was highest rated because it had a short live feed?
I don't, and I've given some reasons why.
Yep so it actually rose. It was just the 9pm show that was lower but +1 was higher.
the other week there was a documentary about hitler preceding big brother
is that the sort of thing that would appeal to [channel 5 era] big brother fans
it's almost as if channel 5 have given up on the 'normal' series
hardly a scientific observation by me but it's the impression that i get
An average audience of 1.01 million (5.6%) tuned in to watch another regular and legendary housemate leave the compound. The show peaked with 1.17 million (6.1%).
A further 619k (5.2%) watched Big Brother's Bit on the Side, while 363k (5%) watched live footage from the house from 11.30pm.