EY2013
Well-Known Member
Why vote to evict will never return:
LOL LOVE IT, so true
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Bring back vote to evict!
- Thread starter Peverell
- Start date
LOL LOVE IT, so true
Shackles
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Why vote to evict will never return:
True.
Don't forget 06' Jamie and the boring dummy like Rory being the runner-up in '08.
I hope vote to evict NEVER returns!
S
stevey
Guest
The fairest way to do it in my opinion is by having two housemates up for eviction and having a vote to save. They did this on big brother 2009 in the UK except with a vote to evict. This format allows you to save your favorite of the two housemates and if you hate one of the two housemates, you can evict them by saving the other one. Its simple and fair.
T
The Menace
Guest
If they've gotten anything right this season, it was definitely "Vote to Save".
Too often in the past, the most entertaining personalities left far too early!
– The Menace
B
babyblueeyes
Guest
Vote to save makes them a lot more money.... Housemates are 'hated' a lot more than they are 'loved' so when a hated housemate is up people spend more money to save the others.....Tullys eviction was proof of that, how many votes did the sugar sisters get just to get rid of Tully ? How many people who would have normally thrown a couple of votes in for one housemate to be evicted have thrown in multiple votes for multiple housemates just to try to get rid of one?
G
Gregarious
Guest
The "vote to save" system is too easily rorted by groups like Ed's family. When there are 6 people nominated, having 15% of the votes easily ensures the safety of a HM. So even if 85% of the country want someone out, it's not going to happen if the other 15% are supporting them.
A better system is having the option to evict OR save. I'm sure we had this system in some of the past BB's. On eviction night, each HM's votes to save were subtracted from their votes to evict, and the HM with the most votes to evict left. This gives the best of both worlds, as you have the option to support (save) a liked HM, or get rid (evict) the annoying ones.
I'm sure channel 9 calculate that voting to save will rake them in more money. In most nomination weeks, there are generally a lot more HM's that the public wants to stay, than to leave. However, people aren't going to spend money on every HM they want to save. This can be seen in all the unhealthy interest in the betting odds this year - because people are desperately looking for some way to pseudo-evict the unworthy & annoying HM's out. And what often happens is that "innocent bystanders" like Caleb. Matt etc. get evicted instead.
Voting to evict is the logical system, as it best matches the public's desire for most of the nominees to stay - and one or two to go. Better still, give us the option of voting to evict or stay. That would allow our votes to do what we intend them to. With the current system, a lot of people's votes are just a frustrated attempt to work around a restrictive system. The best example of this was all the votes for the sisters (49%) when Tully was evicted.
A better system is having the option to evict OR save. I'm sure we had this system in some of the past BB's. On eviction night, each HM's votes to save were subtracted from their votes to evict, and the HM with the most votes to evict left. This gives the best of both worlds, as you have the option to support (save) a liked HM, or get rid (evict) the annoying ones.
I'm sure channel 9 calculate that voting to save will rake them in more money. In most nomination weeks, there are generally a lot more HM's that the public wants to stay, than to leave. However, people aren't going to spend money on every HM they want to save. This can be seen in all the unhealthy interest in the betting odds this year - because people are desperately looking for some way to pseudo-evict the unworthy & annoying HM's out. And what often happens is that "innocent bystanders" like Caleb. Matt etc. get evicted instead.
Voting to evict is the logical system, as it best matches the public's desire for most of the nominees to stay - and one or two to go. Better still, give us the option of voting to evict or stay. That would allow our votes to do what we intend them to. With the current system, a lot of people's votes are just a frustrated attempt to work around a restrictive system. The best example of this was all the votes for the sisters (49%) when Tully was evicted.
G
Gregarious
Guest
If you ever needed proof that "vote to save" is an intinsically flawed system, then look no further than tonight's eviction. What an absolute travesty! And it could have just as easily been Tim who left, with how close the voting was. This result does not reflect the public sentiment, and it never would have happened under a "vote to evict" system. Most people were voting to save or evict Ed (via votes for Drew & Tahan). Ben and Tim were just caught up in the crossfire and the obscene bidding war waged by Ed's desperate family. Add yet another casualty to Channel 9's greedy and dodgy voting system.
E
estelle4ever
Guest
mikkayla, tahan & tully would have been first 3 to go under vote to evict, with maybe only rohan challenging that trio
very good chance the final SIX housemates would have all been guys with vote to evict this year as well - tell me which female HM goes further than matt, caleb, ed, drew, xavier and ben under a vote to evict system?
6 up per week and vote to evict have made this season. saved BB from being very boring.
very good chance the final SIX housemates would have all been guys with vote to evict this year as well - tell me which female HM goes further than matt, caleb, ed, drew, xavier and ben under a vote to evict system?
6 up per week and vote to evict have made this season. saved BB from being very boring.
This pretty much.
It's so silly for people to cry foul about vote to save just when one of their favorites goes home. Was it working for you until now?
mikidiki
Well-Known Member
Hallelujah! Amen sister!
G
Gregarious
Guest
With a "vote to save OR evict" system, I could see Tahan, Jade or Mikkayla going through to the last 6. Their fan bases would be a match for those wanting to evict them. Tully & Ed on the other hand would have gone earlier - and would have saved a few HM's (like Ben) who were victims of the vote to save system.
Facts are this years BB is the lowest ratings in history, and it has been steadily declining ever since they changed to vote to save in 08.
BBUK had the same problem so this year went back to vote to evict and got the best ratings in channel 5 history. The thing is all you BB fanatics will watch the show regardless of who is on, the problem is the rest of the TV audience which aren't addicted to BB. For every fan that watches the show because they love a certain housemate there will be a lot more that don't watch the show because they can't stand a certain housemate.
Eg. at my work all my workmates (mostly guys) stopped watching BB weeks ago, many were fans of BB in the past but just couldn't stand certain housemates, mostly Tim, Ben and Tullys childish attention seeking behavior, and since they can't vote to evict to get rid of them they just stopped watching the shot altogether. You won't ever hear these people complain about it on twitter or facebook but these people are the crucial audience BB needs to capture to get back to the ratings of the old BB days, or even just to compete with the other reality shows on right now.
BBUK had the same problem so this year went back to vote to evict and got the best ratings in channel 5 history. The thing is all you BB fanatics will watch the show regardless of who is on, the problem is the rest of the TV audience which aren't addicted to BB. For every fan that watches the show because they love a certain housemate there will be a lot more that don't watch the show because they can't stand a certain housemate.
Eg. at my work all my workmates (mostly guys) stopped watching BB weeks ago, many were fans of BB in the past but just couldn't stand certain housemates, mostly Tim, Ben and Tullys childish attention seeking behavior, and since they can't vote to evict to get rid of them they just stopped watching the shot altogether. You won't ever hear these people complain about it on twitter or facebook but these people are the crucial audience BB needs to capture to get back to the ratings of the old BB days, or even just to compete with the other reality shows on right now.
keke
New Member
A far more significant change would be to implement one vote per person per eviction.
mikidiki
Well-Known Member
Amen! Could not have said it better myself! Well said! But remember, in Australia we now don't care about ratings, we care about demos and BB is #1 most nights, so sadly vote to save will continue for at least another year.
S
Sweet_Geek
Guest
They could alternate between the vote to save and vote to evict systems.
LOL. These two things are not connected in the slightest. And you failed to mention that BBUK reverted back to vote to save for their celebrity series (which comes after) because of the public outcry (on their own sister show BBBOTS even) that the best housemates i.e. the biggest personalities went home early and due to having what many considered the worst winner in the history of BBUK.
For a lot of countries, UK and Australia included the show relies just as much on the income from voting numbers as they do ratings. Those workmates of yours are casual fans. The vast majority of casual fans don't vote at all and have sporadic viewing to begin with. It's not a discernible loss. BB AU is a niche series which is why no matter what changes are made, you'll never see X-Factor ratings. There is a reason this show isn't airing on Channel 7.
Hate inspires more votes than love. Had this been vote to evict, Tahan probably would have left. Tahan would have been long gone. Tully would be gone week 2. Tim could have been gone the first week because many viewers had a rather visceral reaction to him from the start. And what happens when "big characters" like the aforementioned leave? The house is harmonious and the director struggles to paste together 3 minutes of interesting show let alone 45 minutes worth. And viewers stop watching anyway because they no longer have anyone to bash or praise. And the show gets no media coverage because none of the housemates are doing anything controversial. It's an adverse effect all around.
Peverell
Not so well known Member
I can't even imagine what could happen there, people would be voting through pay phones?
starry
Well-Known Member
Vote to save has got nothing to do with declining viewing figures. The problem was simply bad presenters, lack of live stream, bad website, less footage and manipulated edits, just a cheaper production all round.
