The United Kingdom in a Stiffly Competitive Television Industry - Case Study Example

Big Brother”: A Successful Reality Show 2008 Introduction The first version of the reality television show “Big Brother” was telecast in the Netherlands in 1999 (Sparks, 2007). Thereafter seven rounds of the show have been aired in the United Kingdom since 2000, after the show’s success in Germany and Spain as well as series in many other countries including the United States, Australia, Mexico and so on (Schiffman 2000). The show itself was initially found to be shocking, as the would-be British producer, Peter Bazalgette, wrote to the Dutch producer: “The rats-in-a-cage-who’ll-do-anything-for-money is something that I doubt we could sell on to commercial television…as currently constituted, we feel the show has a narrow market in the UK” (quoted in Sparks, 2007). The show essentially involved locking a set of contestants, unknown to each other, in a house for a period of time and watching them through surveillance camera installed inside. The contestants would be ‘evicted’ from the house on the basis of audience votes till the last ‘survivor’ remained. The show is one of various types of reality shows telecast by television companies across the world, ranging from game shows like Big Brother, Survivor and American Idol docu-soaps like Airport and ‘true crime’ shows like Crimewatch UK. Big Brother, produced by Endemol and telecast by Channel 4, has been one of the most popular as well as controversial. Storms like charges of racism, that raged in January 2007 when, in Celebrity Big Brother, Indian actress Shilpa Shetty complained of racist slur by fellow inmates, and when the Advertising Standard Authority charged Nestle for distributing 100 golden tickets with Kit Kat packets without sufficient disclosures for the lottery draw, have increased the ratings for the show by giving it free publicity. Besides, the huge popularity of the show has drawn immense advertising revenues for the television channel. In this paper, I will discuss the key success factors of reality shows with particular reference to Big Brother, the longest-running one, and the type of advertising campaigns that it has used. Key Success Factors Saturated with shows like soap operas, situation comedies and variety shows, reality shows are the latest of the tricks that television companies employ to draw mass audience. In the United Kingdom, in particular, ITV had maintained a near monopoly in commercial programs till the early 1990s as BBC concentrated mostly on public service broadcasting. With increasing penetration of cable and satellite television, ITV began to face real competition. All broadcasters then vied with each other to draw mass audience, particularly the youth who contributed a major share of the market. Various techniques have been used to attract audience, from subcontracting programming to independent producers, re-use old ideas by making new programs on traditional formats, innovate new formats and pushing related merchandise like books and DVD with programs (Sparks, 2007). Reality shows emerged as a result of the constant drive towards innovation since these could be made with little investment – actors and writers had to be paid minimum fees, at all; there were no need for rehearsals and elaborate sets; and there were no need for rights acquisitions. These were projected as an alternative to the traditional drama and soap operas. After a series of docu-shows like driving tests, working in the aviation, pet care and makeover of wardrobes and houses, reality game shows like Big Brother, American Idol and Survivor were produced. These shows became immediate hits in the United States and the United Kingdom, after being test-marketed in other countries. Since these programs have been produced by independent companies after being tried in smaller markets, producers could bargain hard with the broadcasters. As a result, these are relatively more expensive than the previous types of reality shows. For example, the Big Brother employs a production team of 200 people, including 50 cameramen and 13 producers. Celebrity Big Brother had the additional fee costs although the celebrities were not as expensive as the A-list ones. It was reported that Shilpa Shetty was paid a fee in the range of GBP 200,000 – 300,000. The huge expenses were paid back in advertising revenues. Channel 4 earned its highest ratings in 2000 because of this show. The 2000 show attracted 10 million viewers; the second series attracted 4.5 million viewers, which was a 70 percent increase on the broadcaster’s average viewership. Big Brother 3 in 2003 attracted 10 million viewers and 10 million text messages and a 30 second advertising spot cost GBP 40,000, three times higher than any other show that year (Hill, quoted in Sparks, 2007). There has been a huge debate whether the reality shows are actually ‘real’. To the extent that the shows include non-actors and are in the genre of ‘observational documentary’, they are real. However, there are usually various types of manipulation, beginning with selection of candidates. Some of the shows, like Celebrity Big Brother, actually took in professional actors. Even for the other Big Brother shows, the contestants are usually prospective actors, many of whom like Jane Goody, who was accused of racism against Shilpa Shetty, saw their lives change after the show. Many of the contestants entered the Big Brother game to use it as a footboard for an acting profession. The contestants of the first series did not realize that participating in the game show would transform their lives but their experience became a precedence for the contestants in the next rounds. The selection procedure is elaborate, with applications being called along with video tapes, long interviews and psychotherapic tests. Although the producers for the initial shows did not cast the troupe in a deliberate manner to provoke conflicts, the later shows have been accused of such measures. Since the contestants have no work to do in the house and no distractions like television or books, contestants are pushed to situations of conflict if they have to spend time together with people who have conflicting nature and background, often in terms of race and gender. Also, despite the claims to reality, producers do edit raw footage before telecasting in order to dramatize the narrative and to eliminate provocative language and actions. Even the ‘live’ shows are broadcast and the voting results inevitable arrive after the commercial breaks. The early three Big Brother shows that were more dramatic in terms of provocations and conflicts had a higher viewer rating and attracted on an average 4.6 to 5.9 million viewers while the next series, which had less drama, had a reduced viewer number at 4.9 million, inducing a reversal of policy. A producer of a Big Brother has been quoted to say, “The levels of intervention from us increase as the show progresses—we have to find creative ways of making the experience different” (quoted in Sparks, 2007). Big Brother shows are telecast in the late evenings, when there is usually less number of viewers for other shows. The audience number increases as the week progresses and peaks in the weekends and as the evictions progress. Big Brother shows attract an audience rate of 25 percent across all social circles. These series are much wider than the observational documentaries like Airport. Although the audience in not unique in terms of social strata and incomes, which attracts advertisers who can target all types of consumers through this program, young female audience is typically more in number. Surprisingly, students and highly educated people number significantly among the Big Brother audience. The perception of reality and non-actors contesting in the show attract the large number of viewers who view the rival documentary shows more critically. Viewers relate to the contestants more than they do with characters of soap operas or docu-soaps that claim to depict reality in a more indirect manner. While reality shows like Big Brother are judged on the basis of what the contestants are like, the characters of other shows are judged on the basis of their performance. Besides, the viwers have a sense a belonging with the show as they have a voting right. Promotion Campaigns The Big Brother series has used the Internet extensively. For example, episode show inevitable ends for the day when the drama picks up and one of the contestants are about to be evicted from the house. The audience then is directed to the Big Brother website on which the show continues through webcast. According to a Nielson / NetRatings, the traffic to the site increased 215 percent with 574,000 unique visitors on one such night in 2000 (Schiffman, 2000). Thus, cross promotions have played a major role in making Big Brother so phenomenally popular. Nestle, one of the key sponsors for the program in the United Kingdom, used a mix of promotional strategies using the press, point-of-sale advertising, outdoor media and the website. In 2006, the confectionary company distributed gold tickets with Kit Kat packets that would be drawn in a lottery for taking in participants. However, the advertisement created more controversy than success. The Advertising Standard Authority charged Nestle for not disclosing the full terms and conditions in its advertisement material. The entire application procedure, including the stipulation that the contestants had to be over 18 years of age, was put up only on the webcast (Sweney, 2006). The huge success of Big Brother earned Channel 4 huge profits and in 2007, it expected to earn annual revenues of GBP 15-20 million annually for the next 10 years. As a result, it agreed to pay Endemol, the original creators of the Dutch show which has sold it to 37 countries, to pay GBP 180 million for three years in a 10-year contract. The Big Brother has associate shows like the Celebrity Big Brother and Big Mouth. About 90 percent of the revenues for Channel 4 comes from advertising and sponsorships while revenues from viewer votes are only GBP 1 million (Osborne, 2007). Conclusion The Big Brother reality show has enabled Channel 4 grab market share from BBC and ITV in the United Kingdom in a stiffly competitive television industry. The success of reality game shows like the Big Brother has hinged on the perception that these are actually real and that the participants are ordinary folk. The show has drawn huge viewer response despite limited promotions. The show was test marketed in the Netherlands and has hence been sold to 37 countries. It has earned huge advertising revenues and sponsorships which has enabled it to increase production budgets and to launch related shows. Works Cited Hill, Annette, Reality TV, London, 2005 Sparks, Colin, Reality TV: the Big Brother phenomenon, International Socialism Journal, Issue 114, April 9, 2007, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=314&issue=114 Schiffman, Betsy, Big Brother Bridges Gap Between Television And Internet, Forbes, 2000, http://www.forbes.com/2000/07/18/feat.html Sweney, Mark, The Guardian, October 4, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/oct/04/advertising.bigbrother Osborne, Alistair, Channel 4 cashes in on Big Brother row, The Telegraph, January 20, 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/20/cnc420.xml Read More