Big Brother and the British Media
(selling you birthright for mess of pottage)
This essay looks at the phenomenal success of Big Brother. It describes Endemol, Big Brothers creator/orchestrator, outlining its role in world media. This essay assents to the traditions that have spawned the hybrid text of the Big Brother format (Mathijs and Jones 2004:96), however, it does not chronicle the development of the genre that some have defined as Reality TV. The essay looks at why Big Brother has been so successful, and discusses the contemporary British media in the mirror image of Big Brother’s presented reality. It discusses the complex conflicts and interrelationships present in the contemporary British media, as it enters a converging media landscape. This takes us to the question of whether ‘the writing is on the wall’ for the contemporary British media.This year Endemol announced a half year turnover, in excess of €516,000,000. With a stock market value of €1,894,999,936, it describes itself as a leading global company that creates entertainment ideas, selling these branded ideas to the world's broadcasters, and exploiting its brands through multiple media, such as mobile phones, and the Internet (Endemol 2006). 78.6% of Endemol’s value is fixed in real people narratives. The value of this virtual real estate is approximately €1.4 billion (Euronext 2006). A further 11.4% of its business relates to the internet and mobile phone market, and it targets a media industry, seeking to gain maximum revenue from minimal cost (Endemol 2006). In 1999 Endemol launched Big Brother in the Netherlands and launched onto the world stage in 2000. Having been successful in Germany, Spain and the USA, it was incarnated in the UK, and is now franchised to more than 20 countries (Wikipedia 2006). The writer would assert that Big Brother’s structure utilises the fairy tale narrative, as investigated by Vladimir Propp, whose work outlined the fundamental operations that form the structure of folklore narratives. In his analysis he defined 5 story elements, 8 potential character types, and 31 plot operant factors (Propp 1968, cited by Berger 1982:24), making the orchestration of a plot-line, easier. This fairytale allusion mirrors a British media mindset of defined polarities of black and white, and fairy tale plot-lines – evidenced in such media coverage as Charle’s and Diana’s wedding, and the fixation with the prince and princess relationships that follow every Big Brother conclusion. The simple formula provides the audience with an understandable narrative, where there are good guys, bad guys, forces to overcome, a maid to be won, and a prize to secure. This fairy tale imperative was demonstrated in the 2006 story line, when the media labelled princess, Nicky, had been evicted. Endemol, under the guise of Channel 4, intervened and facilitated her readmission, and reacquaintance with the media labelled hero, Pete. However, this violation of the democratic premise of the vote, and indignation over the money invested in the original evictions, led to the biggest volley of complaints in the show’s history, with over 600 official complaints filed with Ofcom and over 2500 referred to ICSTIS, the premium rate regulator (BBC News 2006). Curran and Seaton (2002:181) state that commercial television does not create programmes, it encapsulates audiences. Big Brother’s greatest strength is its ability to reach multiple audiences, due to the layers built onto its narrative format. This enables more product to be squeezed out of the developing narrative. The media effectively farms the contestants like aphids in a dairy ant colony. The ants hold the aphids captive, fulfilling their needs, so the ants can live off their products. Stimulating their willing captives, when they choose to, they cause them to produce the secretions they need. Mathijs and Jones (2004:96) suggest that although seemingly complicated, the layers are very simple, and are as follows: The Docu-Soap, the background to the tale, incorporating plot twists such as controversial readmissions, revelations of villainy, discovery of the lovers, all enabling further mediated products.The Popularity Contest provides material for gossip merchants, such as chat magazines, talk shows, tabloids, blog sites and the internet chat forums. It also generates further income for the channel, through featured text comments that are streamed below screen action, becoming mediated content. The Competition, where votes generate huge revenues, also provides for an additional programme to interview the newly emerged celebrity creation. Additional programmes follow where selected audiences discuss their feelings and further predictions. The Fly-on-the-wall Documentary, filling the gaps between adverts, provides a contrast to the highly edited, high octane, less real, Reality TV. The Game Show, where contestants seek to win the game through sets tasks and competitions, and their own ability to win favour, marks the players out as winners or losers.The Investigative Documentary exists where the lives of the contestants are plundered for friends, relatives, and/or ex’s with saleable history. Biressi and Nunn (2005:145) comment that the individual development of characters, is a commodity that will be used or discarded based on its continuing utility, revealing a media industry that is amorally blinded by the saleability of present popularity (Thomson 2002). The success of Big Brother’s hybrid format reveals a media machine, interacting via multiple technologies. Interactions that follow traditional exchange models, such as the press reporting happenings, and less traditional, informally structured interactions occurring via new technology, such as websites and blogs. Big Brother has emerged into a media convergence that has seen radio stations stream live presenters on web video, provide chat forums, use text for votes and requests, and prefer email to ‘snail-mail’. Big Brother highlights the central role played by the convergent agency of telecoms, specifically mobile and the Internet, which explains Endemol’s investment in this area.Big Brothers populist approach has been greeted differently by the media community, and reveals the power that remains in the constraints of it’s culture and norms, notably the inherent social conflict within the British media, where identity is defined by opposition (Berger 1982:30). This constraint is not evident in the unstructured media, the virtual communities of personal websites, blogs, chat rooms, sms and text, where criteria of education, background, class, or location is less evident, and ages are notably lower (O’Sullivan et al 2003:228). These communities threaten the established commercial media, presenting a growing audience that is already beginning to attract advertisers. Channel 4 has also experienced regulatory constraint and mild censure at the hand of Ofcom, in their role to protect the interests of the viewer and the State. There are those who suspect Ofcom of leaning toward competition and open trade, rather than toward quality and a control agenda, due to it’s stated light touch policy (Clerke 2005:3). This light touch could be read as confirmation of a continuing assent to the liberal theories of the freedom of the press, and the promotion of a free market (Curran and Seaton 2002:287) - a touch further lightened by the recent lifting of sponsorship regulations for commercial channels (Ofcom 2006a). The constraints of the law are evident throughout the presentation of the show, as live dialogue is continually interrupted to censor contestants private opinions of others. This reflects the British media’s fear of a litigious society. There remain constraints of access, with significant, though diminishing, numbers of people unable to access all media channels, and 43% not yet on the web (Ofcom 2006b). Restraint remains in regard to the significant investment in traditional media generation hardware, and the need to gain return through it. The profit imperative is by far the most significant constraint. It has led to the massive rise in the low-cost, high-return narratives epitomised by Big Brother. This profit imperative has led to exploitative plotlines, and a financing structure reliant on premium rate numbers. Within the media there is a condescending philosophy of ‘give them what they want’, a packaged reality where good is good, and bad is bad, and there is an ‘and finally’ with an ‘Ahhh!’ (Cummings et al 2003:14). Behind this condescension lies a polarisation within the structured media, where a high-brow institution defines itself in opposition to the vulgarity that is the tabloid obsession with Big Brother culture.It could be asserted that the British media is conquered. There has been a risk aversive culture within the British media, where profit and ratings are the only indication of success (Curran and Seaton 2002:165). Cummings et al (2003:xii) assert that it is understood within the industry that programmes need to have a first person narrative to have a chance of being commissioned. Endemol offer this proven package, including the necessary icons and structures. Big Brother has greatly profited Channel 4, who hold the contract for Big Brother until the end of 2007 (Endemol 2006). However, ITV have declared interest, and that would seem to be in Endemol’s interests. The contemporary British media seems more than willing to enter into any Faustian pact, as long as it gives them the audiences, who, the writer believes, are unlikely to love them enough to save their souls!In conclusion, Germain Greer proclaimed that Big Brother was not the end of civilisation as we know it, but, in fact, civilisation as we know it (Cummings et al. 2003:xii). This essay has demonstrated that Big Brother bears a striking resemblance to the media that seeks to feed from it. The media’s complicity has been key to Big Brother’s prominence in a synergistic transfer of hype and type. We see a reliance on new and developing technologies, diverse money streams and hybrid formats that are set against a reliance on the traditional narrative of the fairytale. Big Brother’s success may be but one more step away from the Riethian dogma of "inform, educate and entertain" (O’Sullivan et al. 2003:204). When the government set up Channel 4 in the 1980’s it was to set public service standards for commercial TV, however the standard set would seem to be predominantly commercial, rather than public service (Curran and Seaton 2002:165). The contemporary British media is both convergent and divergent. All media formats are converging through the agency of new technologies and the pursuit of ratings. The technology is also creating a divergent media of informal networks, where content is driven by opinion and perspective, no longer waiting for the media industry to notice a contribution. This has not been missed by the politicians, who are encouraged to create websites/blogs (Capell 2006). Ofcom reports that there were over 35 million blogs worldwide in April 2006 and a new one is created every second (Ofcom 2006b), and all accessible from the UK by fixed line, and increasingly mobile phones.The government has sought to create restraints, walls, around the British media, through various authorities until 2003, and subsequently its consolidation in Ofcom. This would seem to have little effect on the new emerging, globally accessible media.The writing is on the wall, it says ‘ there is no wall’. Word count: 1,729Reading list:BBC News (2006) “Watchdog checks Big Brother vote.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4782595.stm Accessed on 24th October 2006.Berger A. (1982) Media Analysis Techniques. SAGE Publications, London.Biressi A. Nunn H. (2005). Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. Wallflower Press. London.Capell K. (2006) “Europe’s politicians embrace web 2.0” http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061024_653130.htm Accessed on 22nd October 2006Clerke S. (2005) “80 years on: the impact of TV in a new media age.” http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Our_Society_Today/Spotlights_2005/tv_3.aspx?ComponentId=12986&SourcePageId=12988 Accessed on 25th October 2006Cummings D. Clark B. Mapplebeck V. Dunkley C. Barnfield G. (2003) Reality TV: How Real is Real. Hodder & Stoughton, London.Curran J. Seaton J. (2002) Power Without Responsibility (5th Edition). Routledge, London.Endemol (2006) “First half year results: analyst call” http://www.companywebcast.nl/webcast//player/v1_0/player.asp?id=645 Accessed on 20th October 2006 Euronext (2006) “Fact sheet: Endemol” http://www.euronext.com/trader/factsheet/0,5372,1732_6834,00.html?quotes=stock&selectedMep=2&idInstrument=139128&shareprice=ENDEMOL&isinCode=NL0000345692 Accessed on 21st October 2006.Mathijs E. Jones J. (2004) Big Brother international: formats, critics and publics. Wallflower Press, London.Ofcom (2006a) “Channel sponsorship” http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/sponsorship/statement/. Accessed on 24th October 2006.Ofcom (2006b) The Communications Market: Ofcom report. Ofcom, London.O’Sullivan T. Dutton B. Rayner P. (2003). Studying the Media. (Third Edition) Hodder Arnold, London.Thomson K S. (2002) Dinosaurs, the Media and Andy Warhol. American Scientist 90 (3) 222Wikipedia (2006) “Reality television” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television Accessed on 25th October 2006.