#1 - No More Manipulation
Sticking to a core format and not deviating from it will add stability to the show. This means any twists should be devised before the series without particular housemates in mind AND without messing with the format. No more favourites, no more editing tricks, more authenticity. It would be hard for the production team to do, and seem like a huge risk to them, but the pay off would be enormous as the housemates themselves would have the power to make the excitement naturally and organically. The viewers would also be really responsive and happy at a totally transparent BB - it would be a radical shift back to what made the show so damn successful in the early days.

#2 - 24/7 Online Live Feed
Yes it would be difficult for the current team to stomach as they like to manipulate the show. But #1 necessitates the format is fixed before the show, and so there would not be grounds to only show a packaged amount of content. It would possibly be more expensive to do, and cause some legal teething problems, but it was possible back in the day and it should be again now. If I were C5 I'd go out on a limb and make it free but ad-supported, showing 3 minutes of ads every 15-30 minutes. Fans could pay a subscription for 2-3 camera views and no ads. It would create more of a buzz, particularly on Twitter, and get people invested in the show and caring a lot more about the characters from their observations of them doing ordinary things that might not make the highlights.

#3 - Zero Contact With The Outside World
No new housemates. No ex-housemates. No Tweets from the public in tasks. No celebrity guests. The new BB would be a real isolation chamber like in the early days, where there is absolutely no way to know what the public think of them beyond who is voted out each week. It would enhance authenticity and overall strengthen the trajectory of the series, and also throw the housemates who would be expecting the amount of outside content we've experienced in recent years.

#4 - Outdoor Crowd Abolished
The outdoor crowd with its baying mob mentality has really muddied the show for years, making it overly negative and leaving a bitter taste in the mouth. It has become custom for 9 out of 10 housemates to be booed by the crowd despite often providing us with a lot of entertainment. No other entertainment show operates like this, instead having supportive crowds. The Evictions would be held in a new indoor studio with an indoor crowd who are prepped to support the housemates, like a bigger version of the current crowd they use when the housemate has gone through the crowd to interview. This technique would also allow for more evictions on other days of the week due to the noise restrictions in the area not being relevant. It would increase positivity.

#5 - New Voting System
The debate over Vote to Evict or Vote to Save rumbles on, with both having benefits. Vote to Evict keeps the core format going but Vote to Save keeps more entertaining housemates in longer. Therefore I would implement "Evict Votes" and "Save Votes" via phone and the app. Viewers could either Vote to Save OR Evict. Nominated housemates would have 0 votes when the lines opened, and a Vote to Save would be +1, a Vote to Evict would be -1. The housemate with the lowest number would therefore have received the least positive reaction and be evicted. For exemple Housemate A could receive 5220 "Save Votes" and 4221 "Evict Votes" while Housemate B could receive 3400 "Save Votes" and 4500 "Evict Votes". Housemate A would therefore have 979 while Housemate B would have -1100. Housemate B would therefore be evicted.

#6 - New Nominations System
Like the public voting, Nominations would also be overhauled. Housemates would have one "Evict Nomination" and one "Save Nomination", giving reasons for their nominations. This would use the same +1/-1 system as the voting system. The two or more housemates with the most nominations would face the public vote. Unlike in recent years, the number of housemates being up for eviction would be standardised and we would return to more weeks with just 2 people up, as apposed to anyone who received a vote. Face to Face nominations would be scrapped, as would any other nominations twists, including immunity (except the Head of House, see #7 below). All as part of the show being back in the hands of the viewers, not the producers.

#7 - Head of House / Task Overhauls
The new series would have a weekly Head of House who would be decided by an endurance or physical task of some sort every week. The Head of House would have to fight to win the task to become Head of House. Upon becoming Head of House, the winning housemate would be immune from nomination and eviction that week, and would also have an additional nomination (they can choose to use an "Evict" Vote or a "Save" Vote.) In addition, the Head of House would have their own luxury bedroom which they could invite people to, and other treats. They would also have the luxury shopping by default. The weekly shopping tasks would also be overhauled to split the house into two groups, Rich and Poor (see #9).

#8 - The House and Rich / Poor
In order to encourage housemates to compete and participate for themselves, as well as for the group, the house would be split into Rich/Poor from Day 1 - determined by a massive task. There would be 2 bedrooms in the house for Rich/Poor housemates, one luxurious and the other more like an Army Base / Hostel. As determined by a group task, the Rich Housemates would not only have the luxury bedroom but access to the luxury bathroom including steam room, hot tub and hot showers. They would also have a luxury budget to spend on food. Rich Housemates would have a daily "income" to spend on additional food supplies, treats or parties for the house (see #9). Poor Housemates would have to use shower cubicles outside with limited hot water, requiring them to share and be sparse before it runs out. Their toilet would also be outside in a cubicle. The Poor Housemates would have a shopping budget (akin to benefits) but it would be low and require them to budget very carefully and live within their means. There would be 2 kitchens, one for Rich and one for Poor Housemates. The communal areas would be the garden, the living area and the dining area. If Poor Housemates entered areas forbidden to them such as the luxury bathroom, bedroom or kitchen, they would be sent to jail (see #9). About two-thirds of the way through the series, the divide would be abolished and those who had survived to this point (or earned it) would live together in the luxury parts of the house.

#9 - Jail
The new house would feature two separate jail cells which are similar to a real prison cell and can house up to 2 housemates at once. Each would have a sink and toilet and a hatch for food to be delivered, meaning it could be possible for housemates to be incarcerated for days at a time depending on the severity of their rule break. The sentences for common rule breaks would be disclosed early on - for example discussing nominations could land a stay of 24 hours in the jail, while entering a forbidden area or eating forbidden food could land a stay of 36 hours. The jail would be a real deterrent to rule breaking, as a clamp down on rule breaking would be implemented.

#10 - Income, Parties and Other Fun
Unlike in previous years, parties and alcohol wouldn't be a given but need to be earned. As the housemates with the only guaranteed "income", it would be the responsibility of Rich Housemates to spend their additional money (after food) on alcohol and parties. Poor Housemates would also have the opportunity to 'work' for additional goods from the shopping list. This would involve labour tasks like bricklaying or other menial work for "minimum wage", and would be paid daily. If they decided to take this route in their spare time in the house, they could earn more for themselves and the house. Collectively, the poor housemates could choose to work to earn enough money for a party, for example. The housemates would make their own fun and it would feel more like "their house", and a microcosmic version of society with incomes and so on.

—

So these are my ideas for BB 2016. I think a combination of the 24/7 live feed creating social media buzz and increased transparency, the shift to a positive indoor eviction crowd, a new voting system which is a balance of positive/negative, a rich/poor system including house currency and working and a back to basics no-contact approach, would really revitalise the show on all fronts.

Conflicts would still happen but be natural; the evictions would be more positive; the housemates would naturally fight hard to be Rich each week in the shopping tasks, and bond in their groups as well as a whole; the addition of currency/income to the house would mean housemates were more in control of when to throw a party or buy alcohol for themselves, it would be more of a microcosm of real life and a real social experiment again.

Be nice to hear people's thoughts on the ideas and indeed ideas of their own.

Ben Frow, take some bloody note!

The phone vote system you mention woukd be too confusing for many folk. But I like your ideas.

I'd like a mix of the American version and ours.

HOH. Votes 1 person up
SAVE AND REPLACE . winner of a comp can change 1 nomination and swap another housemate.
1 NOMINATION PER HOUSEMATE.
NO REPEAT NOMINATIONS.


OR

THE PUBLIC VOTE WHO IS UP.
Housemates choose who is to be evicted, HOH would choose to veto 1 nomination or add 1 person to the eviction list.

Thanks but you really can't insult people's intelligence over something so simple. It's not confusing in the slightest.

To SAVE Shabnam, call 84011
To EVICT Shabnam, call 84012

"Remember, you can vote to Save OR Evict this year, so if you want someone out, vote them out, but if you want someone to stay, you can save them too!"

It's not exactly quantum physics, is it? I mean if viewers can't understand that there's no hope for anyone and they may as well keep the show as dumbed down as it is.

3) No outside contact is a must, once the last hm enters on launch night no one else should ever enter, and no video messages or pics either, nothing and the only voices they should hear are BB and Emma/

5) In the example you give it wouldn't produce any dfferent result whether that was used or vote to evict or cote to save ! Though i know in reality it might be different but it would never be used as it would be to confusing for the viewers and lead to inevitable complaints of people dialing the wrong number !

6) There is an inherent flaw in this, if someone only gets saves then all those votes are wasted ? I would prefer something similar to BB Aus, a poimt system where hms have 3 points,i.e can give one hm 2 and another 1, i would extend that with a third option to give 3 hms a point each

7) What i don't like about HOH is it gives one hm too much power and also immunity is further meddling with noms.

8) Splitting the house from day 1 is a terrible idea, need to give them a chance to get to know one anotther on equal terms and for us viewers to see them alll interacting.

9) A jail is a waste of time already been tried and didn't stop the rule breaking - the only way is to crack down hard - first breach - banned from noms, second breach automatically face the vote - 3rd time - removal - i guarantee if someone is removed after that the hms will undersrand how serious bb takes rule breaking and won't risk it again!

I have an interesting nominations idea, which I don't think has ever been done before...

I think it should go back to private Diary Room nominations, with a minimum of two people up each week. However, I would keep the results of the nominations secret from the Housemates themselves. They'd go and nominate, and then lines would open without them ever being told who was up. On eviction night the host* would just say, 'Big Brother House, the Housemate who has been evicted is...' without ever mentioning the others who are up. So from the Housemates' perspective it could literally be anyone.

I know this slightly decreases the paranoia of 'Who nominated me? I thought I got on with everyone!' but it would bring in a new kind of paranoia instead. If no one had any idea who was up, the tension coming towards eviction night would increase tenfold. And towards the end of the series, those left would have no idea whether or not they were popular. Even with no outside contact, if someone survives an eviction four times they know they're doing something right. This way, they wouldn't know if the public like them, or if they have just never had a chance to be voted out.

*The reason I have an asterisk next to 'the host' is because I'm sick of Emma. She looks like she's trying very hard to look excited about very trivial things, and it's not convincing anyone, plus she's not a very good interviewer. First change for BB16: Replace her!

Would be great if our show incorporated the Australian way of nominating as in the points system and most definitely in private either in the DR or a soundproof booth

Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EymS0Lk7L9A

You have to tell them who's up so they can pack their cases and get ready, plus it is part of the fun to see the reactions when they find out who is up (and one of the main events of the week for hms and viewers).

I always wonder if those who complained about Davina are now complaining about Emma - not saying you are - but always better the devil you know !!

I mentioned about BB AUs points system in my first reply and added an extra alternatve whereby they could give 3 hms 1 pt each

They just need more diverse casting, both ethnically and age-wise, as well as going back to Vote to Save. I'd be happy with that since we're never gonna get the old BB back.

I never did complain about Davina, but I was 16 when C4 BB ended, so I was possibly a little too young to completely appreciate her good points and faults. I wasn't the biggest fan of Brian, but in hindsight I think that possibly he was slightly better than I thought at the time. He had the advantage that he'd been there himself, so he was able to empathise with the Housemates on a level that Emma and Davina can't.

I don't agree with 'better the devil you know' really. If you have a presenter who isn't very good, you replace them. Hopefully you replace them with someone better.


The old BB didn't have Vote to Save. It has mostly been Vote to Evict from BB1, with just the odd exception like the start of the C5 era.

A xhm being able to empathise, isnt enough on its own as Brian proved, he was nowhere near as good as Davina, regardless how many times he was in the house and Emma is much better then him since.

The better the devil you know comment was a general comment given that all 3 of the above have been slagged on this forum (sometimes by the same people!) so its clearly impossible to please this forum !

No, Brian wasn't as good as Davina, though I didn't think he was bad enough to be shunted the way that he was. His exit was quite unceremonious, he's been very loyal to the series. Davina was easily the best out of the three - she has been criticised for favouring certain Housemates and I kind of get that, but she was on it for eleven years and generally did very well.

I did like Emma in her first two series (I don't watch CBB) but this year I thought she was awful. I think it was the fake excitement. If she was genuinely interested in what she was saying that excitement would be endearing, but she didn't look to be, she looked like she was trying very hard to look excited at utterly silly things, and it was cringeworthy. Of course, she can't be openly disparaging, but if something is done that she doesn't care for she should just be friendly and professional about it, not shriek like a three-year-old. And as I said, the way she handles the interviews really isn't very good. She doesn't seem to ask decent questions, she just sort of hangs on to what they say and makes comments that are clearly fed to her. (I realise that quite a lot of this is probably fed to her by the producers so I can't blame her entirely, but I think a really good TV presenter would be able to make it less blatantly obvious.)

When did I mention the old era? We're never gonna get that back. Plus, Vote to Save is better than Vote to Evict imo.

Our points system has always evolved and what was popular in Australia was a live nomination show. Which was extra from the daily show and there was also a catch up of HM's during the week before they were called to the diary room.

The booth was a new addition but I always liked the 2 minutes to nominate from series 4-8 and BB had to accept your nominations. If the HM failed to nominate in the time their nominations were not accepted, and the HM's would be awarded 2 nomination points. I remember Michael in BB6 was awarded 2 nomination points for failing the insiders secret task where if he passed would be immune, and because he complained about it BB gave him another 2 resulting in 4 nomination points.

BBAU could also give you 2 nomination points for breaking the rules about talking about nominations during the week, could also discount your nominations and give you a strike. For serious offences BB could also give you 2 strikes or remove you from the house. Getting a 3rd strike in BBAU you are removed from the house.

Can't believe people are still banging on about 24/7 live feed. It's not profitable or necessary. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can move on.

I explained reasons why it would boost the show and increase fandom and social media discussion in the first post.

Not to mention bringing back the social experiment part. Which is the ability to study individuals as much as you like. if that means spending 12 hours a day studying their movements to get a deep insight into human psychology, well that's what you could do in the early series.

Get a grip and stop patronising people.

Sorry if I came off a little brash but you hear it a lot on this forum and it just gets so boring. I appreciate threads like this and your ideas though. They should take note.

Likewise - probably didn't need to whip out the 'get a grip' line .

I never watched the live feed and I wouldn't if it was brought back - not because I'm not interested, just because I don't really have time.

But I do completely understand why the forum wants it, and I realise that for many it's a fundamental part of Big Brother. That's why I have no issue with people mentioning it. If you don't ask, you don't get!

Simply I just want it back to basics. No manipulation, no twists every single week etc.

Oh and vote to save.

I like the idea of BB giving nom points for rule breaks ! I wish our BB was as brutal as Aus !

Greatest post I've seen on here in the last 5 years. Channel 5 take note, seriously.