In the spirit of zolug’s earlier thread (Ten ways to improve Big Brother and win back the fans), here’s what I’d do if I were running Big Brother:

1. Do more to preserve the sanctity of the nominations process. I think nominations work best when they are conducted privately and are kept confidential. Housemates need to feel confident that they can be honest about their nominations without (say) nominations then being played to other housemates as part of a task. I’d limit the use of nominations gimmicks like face-to-face nominations, family nominations, etc.

2. I would retain the system in which a minimum of three housemates are up for eviction every week, as it helps reduce the formation of a power bloc that can consistently target non-members for elimination (as happened last year).

3. Vote to save or vote to evict? This question is fodder for seemingly endless conversations on Digital Spy. My sense is that where housemates are overwhelmingly popular or unpopular, the voting system is largely irrelevant. The issue is the treatment of controversial or “Marmite” housemates. And here the actual difficulty is that we, the audience, disagree on the qualities of a good housemate. Controversial housemates often score well on entertainment value and contribution to story arcs, but can be perceived as unlikeable / arrogant / rude etc. And both systems can generate controversial results, eg, compare Dan/Sam/Sophie (vote to evict - Dan goes) with Sam/Dexter/Gina (vote to win - Sam wins).

4. Have a more direct method of dealing with housemates going “under the radar”. I am sure that in old Australian Big Brother (when Gretel Killeen was host), there were some weeks when housemates were instructed to nominate on the basis of those who were contributing least to the dynamics of the house. Putting everyone up for eviction around the midpoint of the series might also help flush out the deadwood.

5. I would give Emma another chance as host, but my respect for her has diminished over the series. She is intelligent, charismatic and has the capacity to conduct very strong interviews, but she often came across as biased or trying to push a particular agenda. Big Brother has a spot for one-eyed commentary: the panellists and audience on BBBOTS. On the other hand Emma, Rylan, AJ etc should be as impartial as possible.

6. Housemates should not be given any indication of their standing amongst the public. This includes chanting on eviction night. In old Australian Big Brother, for instance, I’m sure Gretel used to tell the crowd when she was crossing to the house that they had to be “quiet as a mouse”. Hearing particular housemates get booed or cheered serves to distort the nominations process.

7. I found a lot of the tasks incredibly amusing, but felt that overall, the producers interfered a bit too much in the unfolding narratives. For instance, Michael was overused in Week 1, leading to suspicion that he was an actor – it was such a wasted opportunity. I also thought the number of nominations and evictions twists (done under the guise of secrets and lies) became a distraction from the process rather than facilitating it. At times the ad hoc interventions suggested the producers were trying to fix a result.

8. Rethink casting choices. I think this is one of the biggest challenges for civilian Big Brother. Overall, I was underwhelmed by the cast for this season. Housemates with a background in modelling, entertainment and media/PR seemed over-represented. There were only a couple of housemates over the age of 35. The physical aesthetic of the female cast was really monotonous (heavy makeup, overdone hair, tall shoes). It was sad that there were so many loud, brash female housemates who were easy targets for early eviction. To the extent there were some “normal” housemates (eg, Sam, Sophie, twins), they contributed little to the story arcs.

9. Schedule a longer finale show, so that eliminated housemates get proper exit interviews. Don’t split the finale show in two.

10. This has already been too long, so I don’t have a tenth suggestion.

Couldn't agree more with all of your suggestions. Let's hope somebody from C5 notices this thread.

The thing that has annoyed me the most this year is the crowd. One minute they cheer someone, the next they're booing them. Which leads me to believe that they are told who to boo and who to cheer. All this 'off off off...' crap needs to stop too, especially during an interview. They need to move the interview into a sound-proof studio again with an unbiased crowd.

They definitely need to find more...grounded housemates. It seems like most have had or still have high rolling careers and dress immaculately. I miss seeing normal people. Not normal as in boring, but normal is in they have been selected from people just turning up to auditions.

Nice list

Overall, I agree with it, except 8 because it's the hardest fix. They pretty much need to cast "media" people because who else is going to take 10 weeks off to do it (except dull people in the Sam/Sophie age bracket). 4's a bit vague too, as there's a fine line between getting rid of wallpaper and knocking out characters who could actually add variety and character to the series when they're out of their shell (like Callum did)

I think one of the challenges for recruiting housemates is that the success of Big Brother can become its own undoing, in that lots of people who might be attracted to come on the show do so to become famous or launch a career in the media. If you cast too many such people, the whole tone of the show can change. And this year, whilst they provided storylines, I found Gina and to a lesser extent Dexter ultimately left me dry because I experienced them as characters rather than people.

Fair point. My recollection (and this is a while ago now!) is that this was not used until at least Week 4/5, so people had been given a fair chance to get involved. They also used the tasks to ensure that people could not spend the entire 10 weeks asleep or lying in the Queensland sun ...

I respectfully disagree. The most 'normal' housemates this year were also the least interesting. Jack and Joe are weird, no doubt, but I'd be surprised if they were scouted; Sophie was a waste of everybody's time (they should have put her Nan in instead, I suppose, ghastly as she was) and Sam was more of a check list of winning traits than an actual human being. This year, the 'fakest' housemates (Gina and Dexter, but also Callum and Charlie) were the most entertaining, these people do have feelings, after all, so more of that, I think, even though it means the line between BB and CBB will become increasingly blurred.

Oops, thought you'd say 'slit my throat and AJ's LIVE on BBBOTS'. My Bad

Actually, your #3 point re: 'save' or 'evict' is crucial sometimes. I won't PAY to 'save' as it's too hopeless,but fork out to 'evict'=Hate is stronger than Like. That said, your point re: Dan was excellent--in a Vote To Save, he'd've WON & Sam would've been out; if the Final had been to Evict, SAM would've been out.....Dan should've been in the final 5; Sam & Sophie out earlier. But I'm happier to fork out to Evict than to Save as it's more fulfilling for the venting viewer. Nice Thread!!

Make the wrap party part of the show. It always seems to kick off at the after party when they all get together and we never see it

Make the last nite in the house wrap party night. Send in all the ex housemates and just see what happens.

Well said you put that much more eloquently than me .