Having thought very carefully, I think the key to any successful Big Brother is about having the correct mix of people. In the year 2000, they chose a farmer, a builder, a marketing worker, a tour guide, a city broker (me, clearly), a single father, a mortgage broker, an unemployed person, and an office worker.
Nobody extraordinary, no wannabes, just normal people with something about them that the producers liked. It was the same for Big Brother 2 and Big Brother 3, then it all changed. This was probably because Big Brother 4 was so dull, which was purely down to bad luck/chemistry.
Then the producers thought that by having more extreme contestants that Big Brother would again be a success. Instead we hated some of the contestants (not all) in the next few series, as some behaved like thugs , a few were wannabes and the show became predictably inane. This inertia lasted until series 11, where the funny tasks and normal contestants made the show worth watching again.
It is simple to get this right: get ten normal people, no hairdryers, no watches, hot water once a day and give them hard tasks where they are more likely to fail which will give them a small food budget, which in turn causes strains and arguments and then you have a show. To try and force situations in Big Brother never works.
The new contestants are revealing far too much about themselves. Come on, it is the first 24 hours - have some mystery about you...although Pammie doing the washing up is classic BB. I think she is heavily under utilised by Big Brother.
Aaron is playing a very good game by making sure he talks to everyone on a one to one basis. Rebekah and Harry last night and Tashie and Louise today. Clever.
Maisy is a classic example of a huge wannabe who should have a tee shirt with desperado printed across the front.
This years housemates seem to have the intellectual capacity of badly beaten badgers, apart from Harry and Aaron who have quickly identified that their fellow housemates are thick, maybe they are right.