I assume it is an attempt to try and increase ratings and save the network. They seem to have completely gone through to reality tv and game show formats. Even with everything BB is cheap to produce and provide compared to scripted drama.
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Big Brother Australia 2026 rumours
- Thread starter minerva
- Start date
It also generates A LOT of content for airing across the week too.
It was 60 episodes over 16 broadcast weeks
Definitely some wriggle room there for BB to gain 4-6 more weeks if they want to. IF.
Excellent point. It creates many forms of content that brings in dollars. Live streams of the Hisense washer and dryer for example. Lol.
Definitely, amazing race doesn’t need 15 episodes either. And with those extra survivor weeks this year probably going towards the traitors instead then there’s no reason why ten can’t make room for an 8 week season at least. Given that they cut MasterChef back to 12-13
imsocold
Vinnie's Fleshlight
You call it speculation, I call it prescribing logic based on known truths. Like I said, the budget issues don't justify the issues with this season which were almost entirely editorial.
I think everyone on social media who keeps justifying how shit this season was by saying it’s a trial is in for a rude shock next year. The duration may be slightly longer, sure, and the budget might get a small injection, but something tells me the quality/format won’t improve.
It’s then that the ratings will nosedive, and we’ll once again be in the same place we’ve already been three times already.
kamui
Well-Known Member
And since it have been editorial choices, it's hard to justify them as a "trial run". It's true that you can try things, but once you do something repeatedly, it's not a trial anymore. The right phrase will either be "incompetence" or "on purpose".
They showed people on Tailspin talking to the housemates. And then had Bruce's family talking to them. And they showed it yet again. How's that a trial? If they would have said something like "yeah, we've got more outside noise than we expected, it didn't work out, we won't do it again" after the first screamers, you could say that was trial and error. But showing interaction with the outside world twice? Can't sell that as a trial anymore.
Looking for their second showmance after the first one was torn apart? Being done on purpose. Somebody must have said during (and not just before) the production "yeah, the first one worked well, we need more of this, let's push for it".
The issue is the attitude they have towards the show, which guides poor editorial choices without the intent of learning something from it.
I’m thinking Traitors will be a non issue because it can be a Wed/Thur show like Bachelor used to be (eg Survivor Sun-Tue, Traitors Wed/Thur)
imsocold
Vinnie's Fleshlight
I doubt they'll want to stack tentpoles, especially against BB which is a huge time commitment.
Two issues are being conflated here. Like I said, being trial run has next to nothing to do with editorial choices. Both things can be true.
I'm willing to hold some faith that things can be course corrected. They did listen to feedback and tweak in the early weeks, even if it wasn't everything we wanted. Some of the issues could be resolved with proper revenue streams next season (better live shows, graphics, etc), but there are foundational issues that are very much leadership based. But this next season really will be make or break, they really do need to appeal to the little goodwill that OG fans have left.
I'm sure for at least one series the FNL Winner was referred to as the Head of House.
kamui
Well-Known Member
Then what else were trying for their trial? Would you use the word "trial" for the first season of Masterchef, Survivor, The Traitors, etc. as well?
Yeah, the winner of the 2008 season had like that gold ribbon on their upper arm that said "Head of House"
imsocold
Vinnie's Fleshlight
None of these franchises that you're citing have been burned and churned by every other major FTA network. Seven - only two years ago - nailed Big Brother's brand capital to the cross. It performed abysmally. Ratings and audience sentiment are critical for a network to be able to turn around sponsorship and advertising revenue - this is true of any show.
Reviving BB was a risk that Ten needed to mitigate, especially with a three-year commitment. How are shows funded? Not by hopes and prayers. It's sponsorships and ad revenue that determine budgets. Having a "trial" season (i.e. made on the cheap) allows them to gauge market interest and reset revenue expectations before committing to any long-term spend (infrastructure, staffing, etc).
Maybe "trial" isn't the right word. Perhaps "re-pilot" is closer to the mark. But the sentiment is the same. This show is a business, and businesses need to be proven as viable before backers go all-in on investment, especially when we're talking about a business that was effectively mismanaged into administration not that long ago.
kamui
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the history of the show and how a TV show is financed. And it's not the first Big Brother franchise that got passed around like a hot potato. None of them treated their fourth or fifth reboot as a trial run. They might have had less budget but they had it because of budget cuts across the board.
With a three-year commitment, I'd rather believe that they might have thrown more money at it than they would have done for any other show. Because it is in their interest that the audience comes back in the second and third year. I would compare it to a business like OpenAI.. but not like this:
OpenAI hasn't proven that their business is viable long-term and backers go all-in on their investment all the times. They invest the money because they believe in the business and will make their investment back later. The only thing they can go by right now is interest. (As a side note/question.. I've cited the first seasons of shows that haven't existed in Australia before and thus couldn't proof if they are viable either. Why are they not falling under your definition of trial/pilot? If they would, it'd be easier for me to understand your point.)
As for the interest in 10's first new series. I don't think they were worried that audience wouldn't come back for the first one. We have enough evidence that the Big Brother audience comes back. They came back after 10 screwed up their final year. They came back after 9 screwed up their final year. Why wouldn't they come back after 7 screwed up their final year. They only leave once it turns bad.
And I wouldn't believe that 10 will be throwing more money at it next year just because of the love for their show. If anything, they will throw more money at the things were money is needed. But everywhere were cutting costs worked out for them, they won't provide more money. Why would they? It's a business, business wants to make money.
Also, if anything, I'd consider next years season a trial run aka the one that needs to proof that the show is viable. Since 2007, Big Brother has always lost at least 17% of the audience that they've had in the previous year. The only time the show gained an audience was when there was no previous year, e.g when it came back from a hiatus. And with TV and streaming ad revenue expected to decline even further in 2026, I would be a lot less optimistic that 10 will throw with money left and right.
They will spend more money on the things where money is absolutely needed and keep the rest for themselves, e.g. if they finally decide to hate having Tailspin riders talking to the house, the house will be somewhere else. Otherwise, the house will be exactly where it is right now and they won't spend an extra dime on building their own shed for no extra benefit.
With a three-year commitment, I'd rather believe that they might have thrown more money at it than they would have done for any other show. Because it is in their interest that the audience comes back in the second and third year. I would compare it to a business like OpenAI.. but not like this:
OpenAI hasn't proven that their business is viable long-term and backers go all-in on their investment all the times. They invest the money because they believe in the business and will make their investment back later. The only thing they can go by right now is interest. (As a side note/question.. I've cited the first seasons of shows that haven't existed in Australia before and thus couldn't proof if they are viable either. Why are they not falling under your definition of trial/pilot? If they would, it'd be easier for me to understand your point.)
As for the interest in 10's first new series. I don't think they were worried that audience wouldn't come back for the first one. We have enough evidence that the Big Brother audience comes back. They came back after 10 screwed up their final year. They came back after 9 screwed up their final year. Why wouldn't they come back after 7 screwed up their final year. They only leave once it turns bad.
And I wouldn't believe that 10 will be throwing more money at it next year just because of the love for their show. If anything, they will throw more money at the things were money is needed. But everywhere were cutting costs worked out for them, they won't provide more money. Why would they? It's a business, business wants to make money.
Also, if anything, I'd consider next years season a trial run aka the one that needs to proof that the show is viable. Since 2007, Big Brother has always lost at least 17% of the audience that they've had in the previous year. The only time the show gained an audience was when there was no previous year, e.g when it came back from a hiatus. And with TV and streaming ad revenue expected to decline even further in 2026, I would be a lot less optimistic that 10 will throw with money left and right.
They will spend more money on the things where money is absolutely needed and keep the rest for themselves, e.g. if they finally decide to hate having Tailspin riders talking to the house, the house will be somewhere else. Otherwise, the house will be exactly where it is right now and they won't spend an extra dime on building their own shed for no extra benefit.
imsocold
Vinnie's Fleshlight
In TV parlance, OpenAI is a brand new format with mass demo appeal. Big Brother, as I said, is the equivalent of a business that's been sent into administration three times over. It's apples vs oranges. But there you go, conflating arguments once again to try and prove a point based on armchair presumptions.
Your arrogance is astounding. All the best with that!
Whilst I want to be optimistic I'm sure you are right.
kamui
Well-Known Member
So it's like Hostess that went bankrupt a couple of times and always found a buyer because people saw the potential? Got it.
Your arrogance is astounding. All the best with that!
Thanks. See you next year when we get the best season ever because of money pouring in from left and right.
Aleisha can shut up. She never deserves to win.