I’ve not had a great deal to do this week in EIS, mainly because the bulk of all the work I was undertaking last week has been done and all that remains is to keep chasing people up to hassle them to acquiesce to our requests. There have been a few other bits of work for an insurance and business client which comprised of compiling potential sites who may link to them, or more precisely; sites that we can ask to put a link on and who may or may not oblige! Fingers crossed, though. I’ve also been involved in work for a futuristic health-based client which involved analysing existing health related websites, seeing how they promoted themselves both in terms of style and substance and then out together a presentation on it. Powerpoint, natch. It’s been a bit slow but after the rest of the team had a….heated discussion during a conference call, I should have quite a bit more to do by the sounds of it.

Right, on to the meat of this.

Following an email by the local EIS wünderkind, Stephen Davies, I’ve decided to have a foray into looking at something or someone from a PR perspective. Realistically in this week’s edition, this is mainly going to consist of me spewing vitriol, broadly, about the state of TV these days but more pointedly, at the tea-time tragedy that is Deal or No Deal(DOND) and it’s uniquely attired presenter, Noel Edmonds. However, I will at least try to give my opinion on reputation management, such as it is, and maybe offer some very small, nay miniscule insight into my knowledge of PR in this area. Really built it up for you now, haven’t I!?

***warning – this is not so much a blog and more of an essay this week, i’m confident you’ll find it entertaining and a good read but stop here if you’re not interested***

Now, I’m pretty sure I’m going to divide audiences here as I know 3 people (my housemates, who for their own dignity’s sake [or what little remains, being, as they are, fans of this derivative drivel] shall remain nameless) who will watch this show at any possible opportunity and have, on occasion, been known to chant “blue, blue blue” along with the audience. They claim it’s tongue in cheek and ‘Shoreditch ironic’ (irony in itself since Shoreditchian ideas of irony tend to be the very opposite) but I suspect otherwise. Just to comfort you; they’re in their fourth year studying medicine at Guys Kings & St Thomas’ Hospital, London so could be playing around with your insides in a few years!

Notwithstanding this inexplicable interest in what is essentially, a game involving opening boxes and not a lot else; how has this programme become so bloody, annoyingly, irritatingly successful? Let us take it down ‘to brass tacks’, as they say. It is ultimately a game of chance and anyone who argues otherwise has already been lost to the allure of the show. I’m not going to explain the very basic elements of the game, mainly because it’s so simplistic but also because I’d like to share my pain and tease you into watching at least one episode of this pap. A problem shared is a problem halved.

Incidentally – it has occurred to me that the very fact that I am writing so extensively about this programme means it has somehow hooked it’s tendrils into me and is drawing me like an Octopus to it’s beak. Clever girl.

Endemol are a very successful production company having sold the Big Brother franchise to countless countries and developed winning programmes such as ‘Fear Factor’ and obviously; ‘Deal or no Deal’. Before talking about why I think DOND is a success, I’d like to write about why Endemol is successful and significantly; about the rise and rise of Big Brother from a PR perspective (up until its ‘difficult’ seventh season).

Endemol are successful for several reasons. Firstly and probably most importantly, they are clearly aware of what makes the human mind tick and what will entertain and conversely; what will bore. The Big Brother concept is essentially based upon two principles. In the first instance; there is the concept of imprisonment and the alterations in behaviour this brings about. This combined with the primal fear and paranoia of being watched creates a boiling pot of human emotion which should make compelling viewing, given the right, liberal-minded circumstances.

Secondly, Endemol brought about the right circumstances in effectively making voyeurism acceptable by broadcasting it to the mass media. Had something of exactly the same ilk been shown on a XXX style pay per view channel, the positive attention and audience numbers would be significantly reduced. By recognizing and capitalising upon changing social attitudes – a more liberal approach to sexuality, ‘metrosexualism’, the technology minded IPOD generation, ‘Kidults’ and the like – Endemol brought about a seachange in what was acceptable and pushed the boundaries of broadcast TV. In us all there is some element that enjoys people watching to a varying degree, whether we admit it or not. Some may simply enjoy watching from a café whilst people stroll idly along the riverside, others, however, would rather watch something rather different such as sexuality, suffering and interpersonal conflict. In effect Endemol, through the Big Brother concept, created a situation where everything and anything that your imagination could envisage, may just happen. Of course, it rarely did but the possibility was always there and that was what people kept watching for.

So that was broadly why the programme as a concept was successful, even into it’s seventh series, but why was it so successful in the first. The PR campaign surrounding the launch of the show included faux – subliminal advertising on Channel 4, mysterious pieces in the press, tantalizing glimpses of a new and challenging show soon to appear on Channel 4; a channel famed for its radical approach to broadcasting. It seems, with an ample budget, whipping up a media storm around very little is relatively simple. Creating interest for the programme required little but what kept it successful and fresh, at least from a PR perspective, were the choices of presenters, how they were sold to the media and the way in which the media handled each ‘eviction’.

Before we can look at these presenters, in terms of PR and positioning – where did the show stand, audience-wise? In a word; everywhere.

The show was targeted primarily at a ‘mature teenage’ audience but Endemol, whether openly or otherwise, were clearly aware that it would be watched by audiences of all ages and from across the social spectrum. Clearly the appeal was different for different people and it’s not possible to fully stratify exactly what each person watched it for. However, for arguments (and cynicism’s) sake we can look at it this way.

For the strict, educated adults there was the false appeal of watching ‘challenging TV’ where psychological intricacies were analysed by the in-house psychiatrist every week with the slight possibility of risqué naughtiness which they would be able to surreptitiously giggle at but not in any way openly condone or demonstrate enjoyment of.

Then there are the more liberal-minded, educated adults and young professionals who embrace sexuality, openness and ‘people’ generally. Modern day hippies and the boho-chic clique would watch Big Brother, delighting in the concept of the freedom of a basic existence juxtaposed with the irony of total imprisonment. They could also scoff at some of the drivel that poured from contestants mouths, be brought to oxymoronic polite, but apoplectic rage debating over the questions raised by some (race, sexuality, education etc) over a glass of Sancerre in their closeted flat in Angel, safe in the knowledge that they were ‘down with the kids’ but also elevated above the poverty line, both educationally, financially and culturally.

Thirdly we have the less/uneducated working class. Supposedly indulging in and enjoying simple pleasures, they enjoyed the gossip that sprang from the show, the sexual dalliances, arguments and spats, fashion faux pas and the mockery and adulation that filled the tabloids for the weeks surrounding the show.

Teenagers watched the show for a variety of reasons, perhaps because they were the sons and daughters of the educated or bohemians, participating in family-time, perhaps because they enjoyed watching in case there was some nudity, violence, gossip or argument of any sort, perhaps out of apathy and perhaps (as was the case for me during my AS-Levels all those years ago), because you were avoiding doing any more French Revolutionary history revision! For whatever reason, teenagers flocked to watch the microcosmic social science experiment and the show was a rip-roaring success.

Put simply, what the last few paragraphs have tried to demonstrate is that the show was targeted to appeal to everyone and given this, there needed to be a presenter who would appeal in the same way. A character both media savvy and friendly, not too old and not too young, culturally aware and relatively easy on the eye would be necessary to keep the BB boat afloat.

Step in Dermot O’Leary and Davina McCall. In terms of reputation and media presence they were both relatively well-known but would become more so as the series’ progressed. They were both old enough to garner respect from the older audience, young enough and ‘hip’ enough to appeal to the ‘yoof’ of the day and generally quite chirpy and likeable. They also didn’t have the potentially alienating accent of a well spoken or ‘too posh’ presenter such as Brian Sewell or Stephen Fry, but had the drawl of you, me – everybody. Mass appeal was guaranteed and they created a media bubble around the show; defending it from attacks, garnering support for their views and the views of the show’s producers, liaising with the media and ensuring continued and positive coverage. Dermot and Davina were both ‘celebrity’ enough to be popular but no too much so as to steal the thunder of the show. Where they were photographed, spotted or spoken about; it was nearly always in the context of Big brother, associated with the show or somehow linked so the show was given publicity by proxy. Both have also (it is said) been pivotal in the continued successes of the show; helping in production, content etc.

More recently, Endemol UK took a bold move in taking on the services of one Russell Brand. Famed for his heroin habit, Victorian-caddish fop stylings and sexual consequences, he brought an edge to the show and it was again, receiving publicity by proxy as his public antics brought the spotlight to shine at least partly on the more recent series. Although his publicity was often tinged with a hint of negativity; he maintained a ‘jack – the – lad’ style reputation which helped the show’s image. Perhaps, in bringing some controversy to what was becoming a somewhat stagnant concept, Endemol prolonged the life of the programme and helped it’s star rise, once again, back into the ascendant.

I think, given the now ridiculous length of this particular ‘blog-cum-essay’ I shall move on from big brother. I summarise by saying that, from a PR perspective, the show was successful because it managed to delicately position its posterior on the fences of the social spectrum so as to pick fruit from every garden, whilst wisely employing age and cultural stereotype-defying presenters and producers who helped keep the show’s balance and reputation whilst ensuring publicity. To my mind, without the services of McCall and O’Leary et al, the show would not have made it so easily to it’s seventh season.

And so, talking of presenters bringing success and prosperity to a show, we glide effortlessly on to the man behind the deal (or no deal); Noel Edmonds.

The guy is ridiculous. Cosmic Ordering is possibly the most self indulgent piffle I’ve heard of since John Travolta started championing the case of Ron Hubbard’s Scientologists and we all know where that ended – Battlefield Earth – Hollywood’s biggest ever movie flop (after John Travolta’s belly, obviously)

Noel Edmonds basically said, in an interview with the Guardian, that if you write to the Cosmos, being very vague in your request, that it will grant you your wish. This is all very well but he neglects to explain how one goes about drafting such a letter, nor where to mail it to. He also says that there’s no need to define what the ‘Cosmos’ is and that it can be anything (and I quote: “…MFI or Ikea, could be the Cosmos” …words, cannot, express.

So basically, Noel is saying that he believes in something, he’s not entirely sure what, maybe a home goods store, maybe something higher – he’s a little unclear. He also believes passionately in the idea that if he writes to this something at some address (again, he’s not sure to whom, where they are nor what exactly to say) requesting whatever it is that he wants; he’ll get it delivered by ‘The Cosmos’. He helpfully points out that you can’t be too specific otherwise it won’t come. Now, I don’t know about you, but that basically sounds to me as though he went to Ikea, ordered a table and got a bench and it turned up roughly when he asked for it. Not an exact science, nor something I think we should place too much stock in.

Incidentally, this is also the man that has just been signed to a multi million deal to present a show where people open, purely by luck, boxes, for an hour on TV. And they call this entertainment. In the name of all that is holy.

Sounds to me as though he wrote to the cosmos requesting a ridiculous work opportunity that would pay him lots of money…the Cosmos delivers Endemol. Touché, Noel.

Again, we find what is a relatively short-term concept that really ought not to last that long becoming a ridiculously successful and profitable enterprise. At least BB had the potential to change, morph and become more radical with every series. But opening boxes can only be made so different. So again, despite my, admittedly more-or-less unfounded dislike of the guy, DOND is successful because of it’s presenter.

Noel, along with the production team, manages to create atmosphere, tension, engage with the audience and each contestant and create an air of positivity amidst poor odds and an incredibly simplistic concept. Perhaps Noel was chosen as an unlikely resurgent; coming back from the pits of failure, having fallen from grace at the hands of the House Party, to be juxtaposed with the contestants – overcoming statistical improbability – to reach financial heights deemed impossible mere respective years and days previously. The PR machine surrounding Noel seems to be uncertain of how to take the man. They are in no doubt that the show is a success and this is largely down to Noel – but why!?

This is a man so easily ridiculed for his beliefs but also, who must also receive respect for his returning success and domination of what was Richard and Judy territory. Through his quirky beliefs and the shows mind boggling attraction, he has created a cult around both himself, and the show that some may say is akin to the almost cultish cosmic ordering. Watching interviews with Noel is quite bizarre – I’m not entirely sure what I think of him, as he sits, serene, Buddha-like in his trailer (bigger than Les Dennis’, he is quick to point out). He seems so level headed, so sure of himself and positive in outlook – something he focuses a lot on and yet, he has the overhanging dichotomy in cosmic ordering. I think, from a PR perspective, his reputation is restored because of his ‘man-of-the-people’ style in presenting, combined with the quirkiness but bolstered by his continued positivity in the media and demonstration that we can change our stars.

Everyone likes an underdog, even one that believes in Cosmic Ordering. It remains to be seen how high in the cosmos Noel’s star will remain but if he can stay latched on to this wave of popularity – we may be seeing more and more of Noel on our screens over the festive period. Despite my basically unfounded dislike for the man, I have to say, I wish him good luck. I’m just cynical and rather pettily pick on him because he has a ridiculous belief. However; is it any different from my belief that I’ll one-day make a million and be able to retire to sunnier climes with a hut in Mui-Ne, Vietnam? Not really. It’s better to have a belief of some sort; to possess a motivating factor – no matter what others may think of it.

Given that we are fast approaching one of the biggest Christian festivals of the year, perhaps now would not be the time to start criticizing what one may see as an unfounded and patently ridiculous belief and in fact, open our eyes a bit more. Noël indeed.

That’s it for this week Kids.

P.S – Cosmos, if you’re reading this, I’d like several millions of pounds to miraculously appear in my bank account for no apparent reason and with no questions asked. I’m not too fussed about how many millions – after all; I wouldn’t want to be too specific with you. Give me as much as you like! *holds breath*

• No Related Post