August | 2011 | Jocelyn's Blog

Fact – sauna rooms always improve ratings

August 26, 2011 Jocelyn Rose Harris 1 comment

While spending the past week recovering from my fifth bout of tonsillitis since June (it’s been, needless to say, painfully repetitive) and being guiltily coerced into a family camping holiday in Cornwall, I had a break from a lot of things. Now I am not opposed to the idea of camping, far from it. I am and always have been accustom to the idea as my family (of parents and two sisters) and I have attended various music festivals since I was four (if you care it was the very last Phoenix Festival and of which I remember nothing quite frankly). Not surprisingly I could never class my childhood as typical among my peers…

Anyway aside from that tangent, on Thursday night I found myself walking past the room along from the shower block on the campsite that I guess could be described as a small 21st century-friendly room – with a bar and a television. Admittedly we were camping in luxury what with electrical hook-ups, flushable toilets (unlike festival ones) and the basic but still fully functioning and fully appreciated showers – but a television? In my opinion it is the most unnecessary seeming necessity we as a society have been engorged by. Sure, I felt a bit lost without my phone and made sure it was charged but to be honest since we were camping in want for a better phrase, the arse-end of nowhere, there was seemingly no point with the complete lack of signal. Refreshingly, I sometimes find the idea of being non-contactable an enjoyable state of mind. The idea that nobody can reach me wherever I go is, well, peaceful… but I’m very aware this outlook is part of a minority that seemingly only consists of my mum and me. How depressing…

Either way, I would’ve and could’ve accepted these teenage and young adult television viewers if they were watching the news I mean I probably would’ve joined – but no. To my dismay and my appalling memory, Big Brother had begun. How could I have let this important date slip my mind? Quite easily it seems and even with seemingly a week away from the ‘normal’ world of houses with over-comfy sofas and an unnecessary copious amount of over-sized TV screens I could not avoid it. Camping use to be so simple… (Sigh). So despite having a severe dislike for this programme as you may already know (see June 24th entry) I am specifically interested in what Channel 5 have done to (I imagine the producers would describe as) ‘improve’ and ‘enhance’ the programme this time around. To uncover this there is sadly and regrettably one way to find out properly and that is to witness it first-hand… to watch it (cue dramatic sound bite). So, having been back from holiday I have since watched the first episode of this hellish excuse for entertainment (biased, me?). There I have analysed things I find interesting from the music down to the chosen décor. The plan was to thereafter watch a couple more episodes to analyse it further but I actually couldn’t bring myself to do it so I apologise.

.
Thursday 18th August – The Launch (over 5 million viewers)
The programme begins with epic music and equally epic playbacks that the celebrities going into the house have been recorded saying. All of which are incredibly ambiguous phrases and all of which make them sound like they will start up arguments with each other – no surprise there then. Follow this with the new shiny beginning that, putting aside different furniture, is fundamentally the same as the last series. This should be expected however as everything establishing Big Brother as the famous Channel 4 brand it once was (the beginning, the logo, the voiceover etc.) is vital. By doing this it aims to act as reminders and maintain the viewers from Channel 4 as well as them potentially attempting ‘nostalgia’ marketing. The structure of this reality television show is so simple, but it has a lot of competition as currently the reality hybrid that has mass-produced programmes like Made in Chelsea, The Only Way is Essex and Geordie Shore etc. are proving successful with today’s audiences.

Then and I never thought I’d say this, but this series has actually made me harbour a liking for Davina McCall. Although given Brian Dowling’s annoyance factor this comes as no surprise. I get his whole image; you know, the stereotypical overly camp homosexual with characteristics that resemble femininity despite this not even being representative of the society at all… Either way his persona and thereafter mannerisms made me cringe if I’m honest, at least McCall had some sort of charismatic and remotely entertaining personality to accompany her auto cue!

The next few minutes are covered by Dowling giving his overview of the new house. To quote verbatim it includes ‘designer furniture’ a ‘state of the art gym’, ‘deluxe pool’ and even a ‘steamy garden sauna’. The former two make for advertising revenue with produce placement (The Truman Show parallels continue), but even the gym’s presence has more than just that as a motive. All of them in one way or another are to generate more views and I’m fairly sure it’s not just a coincidence they can all be associated with sexual visual stimulates. This, as seen in the previous series typically results in some sort of defamation between housemates and thereafter unrestrained slander from the tabloids. Of course this gains the producers sufficient interest in the programme when footage is shown of the arguments and promiscuous behaviour from the housemates, thus making watchable and entertaining television for viewers.

I know I’m critical, but every decision the producers make has been thought out extensively with particular situations in mind – they just want a profit. A swimming pool is obvious in its sexual nature with housemates in their most revealing swimwear – I mean, it’s been done before. But a sauna room is new for this series and is obviously there to appeal to viewers with the various model and actor/actress housemates that have been chosen by the producers no doubt with their appearance as one of the main reasons they’re in there in the first place. As well as this, whether they deny it and claim they have other motives, the celebrities on this programme are on it to raise their profile in the media. Some do this by instigating certain behaviour in the house to end up in tabloids; this has been done before by glorified quarrels, unchaste acts and arguably racism. Well, they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity…

These additions to the house are guaranteed to raise and probably significantly increase Channel 5’s ratings because they are giving viewers what they want – God-like entertainment on the television. They are just hoping for ‘bad’ behaviour and drama; I mean, why else would they have Amy Child’s strutting down Big Brother’s runway to Britney’s suggestively ambiguous If You Seek Amy? Why else put a self-proclaimed violent gypsy in the house? Why else would paparazzi Darryn Lyons be put in there with celebrities he’s tarnished in the papers? And why else leave Kerry Katona on her own in the house with bottles of wine (given her history) and consequently have Dowling announcing it? I imagine secretly they want her to crash and burn and, let’s face it, viewers do too.

Bibliography

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54638000/jpg/_54638304_brother.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/19/celebrity-big-brother

Categories: Digressions

Where the people are, advertisers (and riots) must follow

August 9, 2011 Jocelyn Rose Harris Leave a comment

So, is the internet making us as a society more socially adept? For most the obvious answer is simply no because it seems like an obvious contradiction is being made. However, research has recently shown that ‘social networks and access to information bring people together and keep us sociable’. Presumably some of this would be in the form of Facebook ‘events’ that I seem to receive invitations to all the time. Not in an I’m-so-popular way more in a most-of it-is-rubbish-that-I-would-never-attend way. Now I understand how these Facebook events could help heighten the amount of real life socialising, but then my friend informed me they were invited to a funeral on a social networking site I feel there is or at least should be a limit to this method. I mean an online invitation to a funeral? That just seems insensitively perverse, even to the likes of me who appreciates some of the humour on Sikipedia (emphasis on the word ‘some’ I might add).

Stefan Bauernschuster (Ifo Institute in Munich) explains that their study revealed ‘a broadband connection at home positively influences the social activities of adults as well as children’. Their findings also showed that once adults had access to broadband there was a significant increase in the amount of theatre, cinema, bar and restaurant outings made. I can see and comprehend this correlation, but surely it’s just elements like the availability of information such as phone numbers and the ability to book tickets online that is making these statistics what there are. Yes, this is the internet’s doing but I only feel to an extent. For example, if we hadn’t created the marvel that is branded Web 2.0 then no doubt the information found on the internet would be elsewhere; be it newspaper or television. We would make do with what we have like how we did before we had the internet. I know this is my opinion, but what if there’s just been an increase in social activities? I agree the correlation exists but I feel it is just the ease to which we can acquire information online as well as the subjection to more online advertisements for activities etc. aiding the parallel. Literally being able to find out anything whenever with the click of a mouse and touch of a few keys is bound to change society’s way of functioning socially, but does that justify the amount of hours people spend wrapped up in technology? With a reported 57% of UK households having access to broadband by the end of June 2011 and on average users spending around 50 hours at their computer in April 2011 (equivalent to 1 hour and 40 minutes a day), maybe Britain’s constantly increasing love affair with technology is becoming increasingly unhealthy? Recently and on a less positive nod towards the internet, social networking sites are now being blamed in aiding the London riots that have spread across the Country this week. With Blackberry Messenger reported to be the most ‘covert’ method of rallying the violence as well as Twitter users encouraging the riots, social media is shown not necessarily to have positive or remotely constructive consequences. If this is true and judging by the evidence given on the news it is, these companies are going to have a lot to answer for when (hopefully soon) this all blows over. It just shows the extent of how powerful and influential this social media can make individual’s opinions which, clearly, is not always a good thing as we and David Cameron are finding out.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the internet (be it on a smartphone or computer) can aid non-cyber social interactions but what if this changes? With the steady increase of dating websites there seems to be a pretty significant market that are relying on the internet for a lot of elements in
their life. It seems that the internet is useful and amazing etc. but the problem now arising is the obvious reliance for the internet we have and no doubt are going to continue to maintain. With elements of the reported ‘Web 3.0’ (aka The Semantic Web) being observed and realised, it is obvious the internet has come a long way. See below a diagram explaining the differences, further illustrating the success this platform will have if it fully reaches Web 3.0 (which no doubt it will). Some say it has already begun while continuing to pursue existing memes as well as creating new ones to develop and change the fabric of our internet culture. As a philosopher once observed ‘fish are probably not very curious about water’, therefore why should I or anyone be curious and questioning the web at all?