Skip to main content

Will “wanting to win” be more acceptable in 2025 than 2000-2008?

Charity00

New Member
One aspect about the Channel 10 seasons was the mentality that “wanting to win the money” or “playing strategically” were the worst things imaginable. Housemates were shunned at any signs of “fakery”, trying to win, or playing strategically. Viewers also turned on those sort of housemates. “Wanting to win the money” was also frowned upon and so many housemates were going on about “I don’t care about the money” BS and housemates were nominated because they were “only here for the money”. That season when it was announced that there was no prize money, a lot of the housemates cheered and were saying how relieved they were - they’d be a mass walkout if that was announced in the Channel 7 seasons.

So assuming Channel 10 is going back to the older voting format, do you think this mentality will return or have contestants and viewers changed over the years? Will we see more housemates nominating people because “they’re a threat to win”? This happened sometimes in the old era but not often because housemates were too scared to appear strategic. Even that season where Big Brother was really strict about nominations with the timer…voting strategically was the easy way out yet most still refused to take this path and risked Big Brother not accepting it and getting a vote themselves. Will viewers care as much now? Will we see more housemates comfortable admitting that they’d like to win the money for whatever reason? Will housemates tell Big Brother that “everyone should watch out, cause I’m winning this thing”…which was unheard of in 2000-2008. Even if it’s a “no discussing nominations” rule, will there be a relaxed “everyone is playing the game” mentality or “OMG that 1 person is playing the game, what a crime” mentality?
 
I think the reason why the concept of 'wanting to win' was so frowned upon in the old seasons is because people going into the house didn't think strategically and also did not understand the fundementals of big brother being a 'game'. They saw it as a house to chill in with like minded people. The producers also intentionally cast laid back people instead of intense and strategic people. As the show went on it was far more acceptable to be strategic and to be unapologetic about winning because let's face it, the honeymoon period of the show had ended and the idea of it as a competition for money and prizes had been pushed as the years went on. More people who went on had seen it and understood what to expect. There's only so many ways to reinvent the wheel and big brother had been well and truly figured out.

So I think the new season will succeed in bringing the old format back but will fail with the housemates being laid back and just enjoying living in a house like they used to. As a lot of them will probably be fan boys and fan girls who will have at least some idea of what to expect from the show and will (in lamens terms); play 'the game'...

Just my opinion.
 
From memory it seemed like every 2000-2008 season had the anti-money and anti-strategy mentality. I know seasons 6 and 7 were very anti-strategy because I remember The Biggest Loser premiere around this time and I found it jarring because the Loser contestants were surprisingly far more competitive and actually “wanted to win”. In fact the trainers yelled at contestants who were blasé or didn’t care enough about winning. I was also a fan of US Survivor too at this time. It was actually an element that irked me in the classic Big Brother era - I wasn’t necessarily asking for them to make it a strategy game like Channel 7, but I wanted them to stop with the whole “that person only wants the money, so they’re the worst person ever” and “I don’t care about winning” constantly. The season with Aleisha and Travis was really annoying in that aspect.

I didn’t watch the channel 9 seasons that closely but I think Tim was a bit more respected for “wanting to win”. Not sure if the “wanting the money” mentality was different in the Channel 9 era.
 
In the channel 10 days when you got evicted there was a big celebration and a live interview on stage and you were made to feel special so even if you didn't win you still went out on a high. Channel seven if you didn't get to the end you may as well have caught the bus home. At least you would have seen more people. Seven did not incentivise being there for the experience but hopefully Channel Ten will again.

Reality TV strategy has matured a lot since BB started so I think audiences accept that people are there to win - I think what is more interesting to watch is what strategy a person will use to make their threats to win look bad and them look better to the public (assuming it is public vote)
 
You have a good point that the channel 10 seasons were actually an authentic experience - they were completely isolated and had extremely little contact with outside humans/producers, and then had the big live show that celebrated them after each eviction.

Channel 7 didn’t seem authentic at all. I feel like they were surrounded by producers, had people telling them what to do, and probably did retakes. Contestants weren’t staying there for the “experience”. And I’m sure there was rigging, and contestants signed things where they weren’t allowed to question it. EVERY SINGLE fake eviction was a big character, and there had to be some rule that said they weren’t allowed to vote off Reggie or Luke Toki at the end…because you could see they’d win a public vote a mile away.
 
I feel like Tim’s win kind of answered the question 11 years ago. The Australian audience is open to it albeit conditionally. Reggie returning to BB will also emphasise the reverse. Reggie and Tim are IMO objectively the shows most popular winners, but both for different reason.

The audience has shown to being open to housemates like Tim who do want to win, but at the same time tall poppy syndrome is indeed a factor to consider as it very much is part of Australian culture. The viewers will still most of the time want to reward people like Reggie because she’s relatable.

Even in Australian Survivor Luke is considered by many fans as one of the best players ever, and a lot of popularity would come from his underdog story of being a hard working dad to his children with disabilities. The Australian public are open to it but they don’t want it to be the focus of the whole show.

In relation to this I started watching BBAU 2001 and I started with the auditions special. Which includes appearances from Peter Abbott, Chris Blackburn and Carmel Hill. It does make me wonder what direction TEN are going to take with this reboot. And since the promo could somewhat suggest Peter Abbott could be in involved in some way, it will be so cool to see what he has to suggest.

 
I think also on the otherhand people are sceptical of the people who insist they are just there for the experience and don't buy it.
 
In some of the latter 10 seasons a few people would be pretty open about being on there to launch a media career, something which came in many forms and not always successful. This was before social media so no one had visions of being an influencer or launching an only fans account, and also back when any celebrity no matter how small was quite inaccessible. Viewers didn’t love when a HM took this angle but since there was no secret about it I guess it was considered ok? It didn’t preclude them from being a great HM.

I would say when I would watch when I was in high school I would only consider going on for the experience, but now as an adult who has to spend my own money I see no shame in someone wanting to win the prize money! I would probably even leave early if offered enough cash, something I couldn’t comprehend as a younger viewer.
 
I think if anything the changing media climate makes wanting to win the money even more acceptable as chances are you're not going to get a significant media career out of it. A few may be able to do something with their socials but ideally they'd be in the minority.
 
I think it's come full circle again. Around the mid 2010s, you could probably get away more with the "I'm here to win" mentality. This time was also peak influencer / girlboss / grind and hustle culture. Audiences expected reality TV contestants to have a fame agenda.

But hustle culture is now cringe, people are burnt out from that era of reality TV and are seeking authenticity in their media. Channel 7 failed to see this coming. Australia continues to have tall poppy syndrome and we're all exhausted from covid and capitalism. As a few people have said above, only a handful of housemates have been successful in having the win attitude and they always needed a socially acceptable reason to do so - eg. I need the money for my children.

I guess one outlier is MAFS which remains fake as fuck. But no one watches this show to get to know the contestants. They watch for drama and because heterosexual people have a weird obsession with pitting men vs. women. The Block just scrapes through with enough authenticity because at the end of the day they are still building real houses.

If Channel 10 are serious about going back to the original experience I suspect they'll be weary of casting housemates who are looking for influencer fame but may cast one or two "underdogs" who have an acceptable narrative for wanting to win money.

After decades of watching Big Brother, I believe the whole anti-strategy, "flying under the radar" narratives that we saw back in the 2004-2008 era were complete fabrications by production to drum up audience chatter. Michael (2006) was on to this before we all realised we were being played. In the AU and UK BB formats, there is just too much outside of the housemates's own control that it's impossible to try and strategically make yourself win, even if you were a master manipulator. (The US format on the other hand, yes you could probably do that).
 
Last edited:
If Channel 10 are serious about going back to the original experience
I'll add that I hope Channel 10 don't completely overcorrect and end up casting endless AFL players and surfer chicks because they think they are "authentic aussies".

2008 casting was ahead of its time and we are actually ready for it in 2025.
 
I'll add that I hope Channel 10 don't completely overcorrect and end up casting endless AFL players and surfer chicks because they think they are "authentic aussies".

2008 casting was ahead of its time and we are actually ready for it in 2025.
Think of Bree, Fitzy, Trevor, Marty, Jess, Sara Marie, Reggie along those lines they’ll be looking for.
 
I always found the accusations of "playing the game" tended to be by people who were trying to play the game, weren't very good and annoyed someone else was better liked in the house by them.

I get that people are more media savey now, I think we just need people who are authentic and aren't dickheads or mean. People playing the game can be interesting. Just don't be a Ben Norris about it.
 
I always found the accusations of "playing the game" tended to be by people who were trying to play the game, weren't very good and annoyed someone else was better liked in the house by them.

I get that people are more media savey now, I think we just need people who are authentic and aren't dickheads or mean. People playing the game can be interesting. Just don't be a Ben Norris about it.
I think a perfect example is Jake from 2014 - He just tried way to hard to put on a character rather than be himself and it saw him be ousted pretty quickly. Some people can seem like a character but that is actually a fairly authentic version of them eg Skye, Penny, and it gets them a lot further. (I cannot believe I managed to remember three people from 2014!)
 
I think a perfect example is Jake from 2014 - He just tried way to hard to put on a character rather than be himself and it saw him be ousted pretty quickly. Some people can seem like a character but that is actually a fairly authentic version of them eg Skye, Penny, and it gets them a lot further. (I cannot believe I managed to remember three people from 2014!)
You can't forget Queen Prisus :P
 
I think it's come full circle again. Around the mid 2010s, you could probably get away more with the "I'm here to win" mentality. This time was also peak influencer / girlboss / grind and hustle culture. Audiences expected reality TV contestants to have a fame agenda.

But hustle culture is now cringe, people are burnt out from that era of reality TV and are seeking authenticity in their media. Channel 7 failed to see this coming. Australia continues to have tall poppy syndrome and we're all exhausted from covid and capitalism. As a few people have said above, only a handful of housemates have been successful in having the win attitude and they always needed a socially acceptable reason to do so - eg. I need the money for my children.

I guess one outlier is MAFS which remains fake as fuck. But no one watches this show to get to know the contestants. They watch for drama and because heterosexual people have a weird obsession with pitting men vs. women. The Block just scrapes through with enough authenticity because at the end of the day they are still building real houses.

If Channel 10 are serious about going back to the original experience I suspect they'll be weary of casting housemates who are looking for influencer fame but may cast one or two "underdogs" who have an acceptable narrative for wanting to win money.

After decades of watching Big Brother, I believe the whole anti-strategy, "flying under the radar" narratives that we saw back in the 2004-2008 era were complete fabrications by production to drum up audience chatter. Michael (2006) was on to this before we all realised we were being played. In the AU and UK BB formats, there is just too much outside of the housemates's own control that it's impossible to try and strategically make yourself win, even if you were a master manipulator. (The US format on the other hand, yes you could probably do that).
Ryan winning BBAU in 2014 was a classic "fly under the radar" strategy.
 
Back
Top