So the Big Brother experiment is set to finally close. For years an institution – holding a mirror up to society and asking what we thought will air its final misdemeanors in 2010. Whilst it is impossible to argue that the programme was anything other than a resounding success for makers Endemol, viewing figures have been on the decline, dropping below 2 million on eviction nights for the first time in its UK history. So with the nation’s most notorious reality TV programme set to be pulled next year what (if anything) does this tell us about changes in viewing habits or media consumption?

I would argue probably very little.

For as long as I can remember the British media have loved to demonize imperfect reflections of their culture and in a fixation with Big Brother we were given a weekly opportunity to revel in exactly that. I would compare it to what will happen when our cricketers return from Australia next year after surrendering the Ashes. The recent fanfare will be quickly forgotten in a blitz of demonization and degradation. The ability to accentuate the negative in all around us is a favourite pastime of the British Media and I doubt that this will change with the passing of Big Brother. In fact, there have been recent suggestions that as viewing figures have trailed off so has press coverage in the Red-Tops. With a lack of media support, a tired format and the early adopters of the groundbreaking series moving on it’s no wonder BB has struggled.

Another reason put forward as partly accountable for the demise and of interest from a brand perspective is that the BB brand was casting a darker and darker shadow over Channel 4. Reportedly C4 felt that BB had become the equivalent of a rogue sub-brand whose worst features were polluting the vision, image and reputation of its master. This is an example of what we would call the ‘halo effect’ in reverse – rather than endorsing the quality of the Masterbrand of C4 the BB sub-brand was, through the associations with faux-celebrity and scandal, in fact doing the absolute opposite.

Watch this space for some Channel 4 post-Big Brother repositioning – although I’m not sure how they are going to pay for it because they are supposed to be skint.

As for the rest of us, I’m sure we have already found something else to watch.

Probably The Wire.

Every discipline has its rudiments. Drummers have to pull off the paradiddle, trainspotters probably have outstanding binocular technique, and among the basic foundations of a competent marketer is an understanding of how to craft a good proposition.

The usual rules are: keep it compelling, unique (or at least different) as well as focused and single-minded. Ultimately, the point of being focused and single-minded is to ensure that when you talk to consumers about your proposition, you know they’ll walk away with a really clear view of what you’re offering. But the drawback of the single-minded proposition is that it forces you to narrow down to a single benefit. Yes it’s clear but it means that you only really target the group of people to whom that benefit is particularly relevant. So what if you want to talk to more than that group, and the two groups you’re after pick out fundamentally different benefits in what you’re offering?

An advert I recently saw on the tram in Finland came up with a shrewd answer: talk to your two groups in their own language, literally. The Helsinki Times, a local English-language paper, used one piece of communication to put across two benefits, each targeted at a different audience: firstly the English-speaking expats and secondly the native Finnish readership.

The English text on the left hand side reads: “Knowledge of what goes on around you is essential to your success. Helsinki Times is your weekly English-language overview of Finnish society”.

While the Finnish one on the right reads: “How do you say ‘Minister of the Treasury’ in English? And ‘budget deficit’? Give yourself a language immersion class every week for the price of this tram ride”.

Admittedly, being able to target two audiences with different languages is an unusual luxury. But next time the rudiments are being hammered home and you’re being forced to make compromises, it might be worth thinking again and asking yourself if there’s a clever way to break the rules and supersize your proposition.

Would you buy a Which? washing machine? Would you want a Which? credit card?

Over the weekend it was reported that Peter Vicary-Smith (Which?’s Chief Executive) wants to extend the brand into products and services. James Ashton in The Sunday Times said, “It is considering capital raising for acquisitions, striking joint ventures with commercial partners or pooling equity to raise funds”.

Now, as Peter Vicary-Smith said, “Which? is a phenomenally well-trusted brand” - it is undoubtedly true that consumer trust is an important and valuable brand characteristic. However I would urge caution; just because a brand could extend it doesn’t mean it should extend.

What concerns me is that fundamental to the phenomenal trust that Which has is a belief that its testing is independent and that it has no vested interest in the results of the products and services it trials.

I for one would have to say that I would be a touch more sceptical of a Which? report on washing  machines that rated their own washing machine at No 1, and my trust in the brand might be questioned if the best anti-wrinkle cream happened to be that offered by Which?.

As many brands have learnt to their cost, trust can take a long time to earn but can be lost very quickly. What’s more in the case of Which? it is not just that it is a trusted brand that is important but the fact that the trust it has is based on its impartiality. A move into products and services undermines that impartiality and when it comes to Which?, I like many consumers am partial to its impartiality.