There seems to be a perception that viewers are like sheep and will just vote for whoever appears the most in the highlights, regardless of whether they're voting to save or evict. I don't see why anyone would be that stupid. I vote for who I like most (or dislike least) if it's vote to save, and who I dislike most or like least if it's vote to evict. Simple!

I always use Caroline from BB13 as an example. She was a very noticeable and controversial Housemate, and she was evicted in an almost whole-house eviction when it was Vote to Save. I'd say that example largely proves wrong the whole vote to save vs vote to evict thing. Also I don't understand why it always seems to be the people who complain that Big Brother isn't as good as it was on Channel 4 who say it needs to go back to Vote to Save, when all of the most popular C4 series had Vote to Evict.

1. If that's supposed to mean she caused them to go up, it's the fallacy Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

2. Since Brian and Nikki entered at the same time, for all we know ratings would have been even higher if Helen hadn't been included. So it's not just what you said -- "May have been because of Brian (i doubt it), or even more likely Nicki, but we will never know." -- Helen might actually have made the ratings lower than they would have been without her.

3. If any of the ex-HMs seemed to individually bring increased ratings, it was Aisleyne.

4. There's an important difference between short-term and long-term effects. Something that increases ratings for one series (or seems to) can cost more viewers over a longer period, especially since the increase may not be from new viewers (rather than existing viewers watching more often).


She won with a lot of help from BB, and BB continued to favour her until C5 finally put a stop to it.

Things like that have always been the real argument for vote-to-save. The public don't vote the way some fans in forums think they should, so the voting system should be changed to try to stop them. It was even and often claimed that the 'public' was voting out the very HMs who entertained them, thus supposedly ruining the series for themselves. The possibility that the public might genuinely want those HMs out and enjoy the show more without them was ignored.

One of the problems with vote-to-save, imo, is that it's much harder to evict someone when it's vote-to-save (all the other HMs have to have more votes) than it is to save someone when it's vote-to-evict (only one other HM has to have more votes).

I think that's a good point. Indeed, I agree with a lot of the rest of that post too. (My main disagreement is what I posted earlier, because I don't think BB 16 was all that good a series at the start or had HMs who were all that interesting and diverse.)

But so far no one has ever been able to turn the fall in BB ratings around in a way that stuck and built to further success. The number of viewers may go up, but then it goes back down. For example, BB 14 had more viewers than BBs 12 or 13, but the number went back down again for BB 15 and lower still for BB 16.

However, perhaps the problem is that BB always tries the same sort of thing -- more twists, more extreme HMs -- and never gives enough of a chance to anything that might have someone thinking "another bb4".


I think the success of C4 series that used Vote to Evict shows that VtE isn't the series-ruiner that is often claimed. Whether and how much VtE helped them to be successful is not so clear. But they were popular and successful and were less manipulated too.

The Caroline example gets a bit muddy because of the vote freezes. After the first two freezes, Luke S had the fewest votes. It was only after the final freeze -- when it was just Caroline vs Luke S -- that Caroline lost. So some people argue that once there were only 2 HMs, it was the same as vote-to-evict. I don't think that's right, for three reasons. One is that even if in 2-HM case voters can treat it as VTE (by voting for the other HM), they can also treat it as VTS. So it's at most a case where the voting system doesn't matter, rather than one where it's reversed from VTS to VTE. Another reason is that the voting system still seems to matter even then. "Logically" the 2-HM case can be treated as to-save or to-evict, but psychologically, it doesn't seem to work that way. The third reason is that Caroline ended up in the bottom 2 because of the earlier votes which were undeniably to save.

It's like Marks & Spencer isn't it... [just bear with me]

Both (M&S and BB_CH5) are well aware they have problems... the forums are full of their customers/viewers telling them where they are going wrong and what they need to do ....

Do they listen?

do they hell.

Or for the wrestling fans, BB is very much like in the state TNA is now. Where TNA drove away its original hardcore fanbase by trying to appeal to casual fans. And now those casual fans are gone and the company is in trouble, they're once again trying to appeal to the original fanbase, but the original fanbase have been spurned and aren't just going to come back immediately.

"Big Changes?"

You mean it's finally getting taken off our screens for good?

Was this officially confirmed? When was it confirmed? I can remember Helen appearing on BOTS sometime after she left the BB16 house, but when exactly that was, I don't know.

EDIT: Sorry, never mind, I found an article about it.

I don't think that Vote to Evict and Vote to Save produce results that are hugely different most of the time, but my issue with Vote to Save is that it sometimes leaves very good Housemates out to dry, especially when there are a lot of people up. The best example of this is Hira from BB10. She was actually a very popular Housemate, a little bit quiet but a very pleasant woman and was amazing on the Alice in Wonderland task. She could have gone a lot further than she did. But when they had a whole House eviction and Vote to Save, I don't think think it occurred to anyone that Hira could be in danger, so very few people voted for her, meaning that she sadly had an early exit.

I think it's almost the other way around for BB. BB aimed too much at what the hard core fans wanted (or seemed to), and so lost the wider audience. Then BB had the problem that it couldn't try to regain the wider audience without annoying the hard core.

That is a prime example of why vote to save is not the answer its supporters believe .... She would never have gone in a vote to evict.

It's strange that there's been so little coverage of Ben Frow's decision in this forum. I knew about it only because oathy mentioned it in one of the live feed or ratings threads. I don't think there's ever been a thread devoted to it or much discussion anywhere in the forum.

Yet it's one of the few times when we know the broadcaster stepped in and made Endemol change course in what it was doing re housemates. (One of the others is when C4 required a stranger warning to Jade in CBB5.)

eh!? how the hell do you arrive at that conclusion.

Hard-core fans want LF - gone.
Hard-core fans want true BB with no contact with the outside - long gone

If Ben Frow is reading:

Dear Mr Ben Frow,

Please give them plenty to do that is CONSTRUCTIVE, cut OUT the meddling and the outside contact!!

BB was MUCH better when people bonded.

Give them tasks to occupy them and to keep them working as a team, not pitched against each other. Yes it's a contest, but it's us, the public who choose, so why have them fighting each other?

If there are conflicts let them arise naturally, not stirred by BB. It's SO annoying to watch BB producers deliberately goading them, making them say horrid things in a so-called task.

To mend the show the outside contact too should stop; the WHOLE point of BB is that the people are cut off from the outside world. It changes the dynamics too much when you let them know what the public are thinking. Please stop that.

So teamwork, no nasty stirring from BB and no outside contact...... that will help! Massively.

thank you

Actually one more thing. You need vote to evict and vote to save lines for every nominee. Then you add and subtract their total votes and the one with the least leaves. This allows people to 'save' those they like or 'evict' those they dislike. it's the ONLY fair and equal way of voting. Think about it,, for even 1 minute... it works!

The LF issue was down to the broadcaster.
The outside contact issue is purely BB's choice. They seem to think viewers want it (or the fall-out that results from it).

By looking at how BB has changed over the years and comparing it to that that what "hard-core" fans seemed to want: things such as avoid at all costs "another bb4" and keep the "big characters" who are supposedly "providing the entertainment" in.

And also by looking at changes in the viewing figures. It's in the nature of a "hard core" that it's a core, not the majority of the audience; and it's in the nature of a hard core that it sticks with the show: it doesn't quit because the show isn't catering to their every whim. BB has lost millions of viewers over the years. That's not the core; it's the wider audience. Over a million were lost when BB moved to C5. A core doesn't quit just because the broadcaster changed.

However, hard-core fans often disagree with each other, and when they largely agree in one case, they may largely think the opposite in another similar case. When it comes to twists and 'showmances', for example, it seems to depend a lot on which HMs are involved and, in the case of twists, on which HMs benefit.

This makes it hard for BB to keep the hard core happy, or to know what would satisfy them. I think Big Brother also suffers from the Big Breakfast problem: fans who seem to be unhappy with so much that it's hard to figure out what they actually like about the show, and a negative fan reaction to almost every change.

BB is stuck with an extreme-housemate, high-conflict, high-"drama" show because as soon as it seems to be anything else, there's a wave of complaint as happened in bb16 before BB brought in some "big characters" such as Marc.


The LF is the main exception to what I said, but it doesn't fit your point either.

Remember that your assertion was that BB (like TNA wrestling) "drove away its original hardcore fanbase by trying to appeal to casual fans." What do you think BB has done that both tried to appeal to casual fans and drove away the hard-code fans?

Do you think reduced LF or increased outside contact were trying to appeal to casual fans? I don't.

Besides, the LF is a special case because (as CLL Dodge pointed out), it's down to the broadcaster. If it were up to Endemol, they at least talk like they'd like to have it.

I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, and I wouldn't mind showmances, rows, big characters or any of these other 'groan' things, provided that they occurred naturally and not as a result of deliberate producer interference. I don't even mind twists, provided that they are not put in to produce a deliberately intended result. That's the only thing I ask for, anything else is fine.

One things for sure...not everyone will ever be happy. We have...

The New Generation- These are people who turn into Big Brother as new viewers. Even with ratings tumbling for the new series, I saw quite a few people on social media saying "This is the first time watching", so not only does it lose viewers, it also gains new ones, and these new ones could want or expect a BB which is very different to what either the "casuals", "the hardcores" or "the social media" generation want. They want carnage most likely after hearing of BB's history.

The Social Media Generation- These are the people who despite getting frosty reaction on here and by older fans, are more likely spreading word of mouth of the show by writing about it. They may want the young good looking lads of glamour models to win, despite them having no substance. They could be the ones that vote more because they see campaigns on Twitter, "Get someone out", "Save this person". They'd probably want engineered arguments

The Casuals- People who watch to pass time, or when they can. A majority may tune in to a more hyped up episode compared to other episodes. They probably don't take notice of manipulation as much. They just watch for some escapist TV.

The Hardcores- Probably more of this forum. A large chunk want what BB1 had, stricter rules, no outside contact whatsoever, 2 up only, Live Feed, no nom discussion, not many twist. Want to see better punishments and just to see friendships fall or tear apart (if it happens naturally). Some hardcores may like the twisting BB does. I know quite a few who watched since the beginning but think "back in the day" would be too dull to hold people's attention in 2015.

The thick of it is that there will always be a large chunk disappointed by something. So it is hard to even revert BB to its former glory because if it does, it would disappoint the younger fans (who help word of mouth) or it will continue to go further into the bizzare and manipulated which would be bad for the longer term fans.