Originally Posted by
An Thropologist:
“No I don't think so. I was truthful about my viewing habits, which is why it was lucky BB hadn't been invented, because it would have been a dilemma! 
But I am sure they wanted an accurate view. The figures were compiled by a really respected organisation and my name came up initially having completed a survey for a very respectable market research company ( MORI or similar).
But also the driver behind the 'ratings' is the advertisers. These are big players with deep pockets - Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, Reckitt Colman etc. They make their advertising spend decisions based on ratings. If they had anything less thean complete confidence abotu the ratings it would be made very clear.”
Thanks again! The thing is, that was then, things have moved on A LOT since in terms of media manipulation. And the' to your face' folk of these organisations are often lovely. The guy who comes round to chat about your broadband/TV box may be a great chap but I bet the guy who owns the company and is a billionaire is a right ****

(The same is true of many charities alas

The volunteers and on the ground staff often work their arses off helping people, yet there is some prick at the top being paid quarter of a mill to move some money and objective tick boxes on a TV screen in a plush office once or twice a day and is otherwise off playing golf and waiting for a knighthood).
Again, call me cynical, but I somewhat doubt we get the same, true viewing figures as the real movers and shakers behind the scenes...certainly the reported figures for this CBB have done nothing to shake that nagging suspicion! BB could just be a way to try to hook a certain type of viewer (i.e. formerly, me!) in to watch a trashy channel I otherwise
never would have (CH5) and hope we watch the utter carp they sometimes put in between (never, ever have).
I.e. the equivalent of a supermarket loss leader.