Big Brother: what can we learn?

I used to be a massive fan of the TV show "Big Brother". Such a big fan that I even bought in auction items like one of the diary room chairs used in the UK season 1 and 2.

The show has been running for 8 years in most markets to falling ratings. Australia has been the first to announce that the current season will be the last. Expectations are that other markets will do the same, though as some (like the UK Channel 4) have contracts committing to a few more years.

But the format is pretty much done. The problem is that viewers and house mates know the format inside out and there is little to surprise and little to engage. The format survived by courting controversy and heavy arguments, but it backfired in the UK in one of the celebrity versions which caused a racial stir and ruined the careers of some of the celebrities.

The problem is a classic marketing and brand issue. "Big Brother" has not been evolving its product to meet changing tastes and competition. In its day it had uniqueness on its side as there was little reality TV. Viewers and house mates did not know the format and how it would unfold. The "good guys" shone out.

But the world and tastes have changed. The winning reality shows tend to be ones that pitch people with some talent against each other (such as American Idol, X-factor, Britain's Got Talent). And while laughing at no-hopers trying out, the real intrigue is seeing talent growing and emerging. In Big Brother the cast are all no-hopers and stay that way.

Of course, the whole telephone vote scandals in the UK has not helped as so many fewer people get as involved in the show as they doubt if their vote really counts. This means that people are less likely to get engaged and committed to the format.

In other markets and categories you need to keep evolving and changing. This is the mistake Big Brother has made. It all is like a case of deja-vu. Adapt or die if you want your brand to survive. And it looks like the latter.