Originally Posted by gkabc:
“The ratings for BBUSA continue to get better and better, and they haven't changed anything for 10 years. That's an example of something that has done the same thing over and over, and people continue or increase watching.”
That's a very good point.
People do tire of some things, though, and BB UK seems to be among them.
BB USA is a very different show. The 'game' aspect is much more prominent, and there's no public vote.
If we consider some of the 'reality' shows that stay successful year after year, without changing very much, they seem to have something in common: they're about people showing / developing some talent or skill, accomplishing something difficult.
Strictly Come Dancing has dancing; X Factor and American Idol have singing; The Apprentice has the business challenges; "I'm a Celebrity" has the hardship of life in the jungle camp and tasks that make a real difference to how well they eat, as well as testing the contestants.
BB USA has playing the BB game. They can discuss nominations, and do. Tasks have rewards for the winner (Head of House, Power of Veto) that make a real difference in the game. Skill at playing that game is very important.
In those terms, BB UK is not nearly so well defined. Is it about the game? Well, only partly, and the HMs aren't quite allowed to play it: discussing nominations is against the rules, and they need to appeal to the viewers too -- when many viewers dislike gameplay and want HMs to behave naturally.
And if it's like the talent-based shows, it's like a talent show without the talent and skill: more a personality contest than a talent one -- and with very cynical viewers, ever alert for the slightest sign of a 'showmance', or playing to the cameras.
Or is it about trying to get the media's attention and become a minor celebrity? From a HM's point of view, sometimes it is; but that's not what viewers want to see.
There are tasks, but they don't give any advantage in the game. Being good at tasks doesn't even impress viewers vary much. Some tasks affect what food's available, but (especially in recent years), the consequences of failure don't seem very great.
There's little sense of progress, from week to week, towards a well-defined goal. And that makes it harder to follow the show, or see it as a continuing narrative. Indeed, many viewers are hostile to the narratives that do occur: any developing romances, any "journeys".
So I think BB UK was, in effect, more 'work' for viewers.