When a bigger audience doesn't help
So the first of the bullies is out on her ear and Big Brother has attained its highest ratings of the series. Two stunningly unsurprising interim results. Other lacks of surprise we can expect in the future include some weak chiding from Ofcom by the time we've all forgotten about the issue.
Meanwhile, what's the impact on Channel Four? You would think they're all rubbing their hands with glee over there. After all, eight million viewers last night for a tired format charging downhill (if there is any farther to go) at a rate of knots? What else could a commercial broadcaster want?
Does it matter that Carphone Warehouse, sponsor of the series, has pulled out? Does it matter that advertisers in spots either side of the show have asked to be removed from those slots? Yes, it probably does.
The point of commercial broadcasting is not to maximise the number of viewers. It is to maximise advertising revenue. That means maximising advertising. Of course, usually these go hand in hand. But in this case, they probably don't.
Where are the new viewers for the show coming from? Last night, no doubt from the enormous ranks of people who wish to oppose what they perceive to be going on - whether they regard it as racism or bullying or both - all tuning in to get the opportunity to open their wallets to pay for the "democratic" right to "vote" someone off the show as a protest against their behaviour.
They're also coming from the "bread and circuses" crowd who tune in to see nasty things happening to people - the same people who attended the gladiatorial games in ancient times and public hangings rather more recently. I suppose these people buy stuff like anyone else, but...
To my mind the real question hangs over what all this does to Channel Four's image in the long term. As an exercise in television branding, this whole affair does not appear to be having a helpful outcome. Not only is there the taste left in the mouths of the public, viewing or non-viewing (which will probably last moments) and potential advertisers (which might last rather longer), but there is also the increasing belief in the world at large that underhand things are happening here: that the contestants are manipulated (for example, as one former contestant noted in an interview, the programme-makers taking their discussions with the show's psychologist about problems they were having and doing their best to exacerbate them rather than helping them) to increase the outrageousness of their performances and thus improve ratings - and now we hear that Goody was tipped off about the outside world's attitude to her behaviour so as to modify her performance in perhaps a different direction. None of this, I would suggest, helps the channel's image, and while the public probably has an extremely short memory, the memory of people in the industry, including advertisers, may be rather longer.
Do I think the programme should be taken off the air? No, I don't believe in censorship. Do I think there should be a code of practice that limits behaviour on reality shows? Actually no - we have laws to do that. BB is not outside the law - and there cannot really be any excuse now for contestants not knowing what might happen on such a show. If you wish to participate in this show - or watch it - you deserve everything you get.
Do I think Channel Four and Endemol should be criticised for producing such crap? Of course - feel free. Do I think that Channel Four has improved its image as a result of this debacle and helped to secure its ongoing commercial future? Absolutely not.
