Representation and Audience Positioning in a Reality Format Pitch
A Year 12 group is pitching a 6-episode online reality series called 'Flat Share' to a youth streaming platform. The concept: 5 strangers aged 18-22 share a house for 4 weeks; cameras run 24/7; one housemate is voted out each week. The pitch deck describes the cast as 'diverse' but the shortlist of 5 is: 4 able-bodied university students and 1 part-time model, all from the same inner-city suburb. The group's audience research (a survey of 40 classmates) found viewers aged 16-20 wanted 'relatable conflict' and 'people like us'. The platform's content guidelines say: 'Programming must not exploit participants' vulnerabilities or present stereotypes as entertainment.' One group member argues that casting only 'relatable' people is just good audience targeting.
1. Evaluate the group's casting shortlist against the platform's content guidelines and the concept of representation. Is 'relatable' a defensible casting rationale here?
Read the worked answer
Representation analysis:
- 'Relatable' is doing hidden work. The shortlist is homogeneous (same suburb, similar age, similar occupational status, mostly able-bodied), so 'relatable' here means 'like the survey respondents', not 'representative of the audience'. A survey of 40 classmates is not a valid basis for claiming audience-wide relatability.
- The deck's claim of diversity is contradicted by the actual cast list. That is a credibility problem in the pitch and a representation problem in the product.
Guideline analysis:
- The guideline targets exploitation of vulnerabilities and stereotypes as entertainment. A 24/7 format with weekly elimination creates pressure to manufacture conflict. Casting people with fewer resources or less media experience increases the risk that conflict becomes exploitation.
- The shortlist itself is not exploitative, but the format plus homogeneous casting tends toward stereotype: 'young people from X suburb behave like Y'.
Judgement: 'Relatable' is defensible only as a starting point, not a justification for homogeneity. A stronger rationale is: cast for genuine variety of experience and background, then design the format so conflict arises from situations rather than from exposing individuals. The group should widen the shortlist, add a duty-of-care protocol, and rewrite the diversity claim to match reality.
2. The group wants to keep the 24/7 filming and weekly vote. Propose two concrete format changes that reduce the risk of exploitation while preserving the audience appeal the survey identified.
Read the worked answer
Change 1 - Replace the elimination vote with a task-based 'stay or swap' mechanic.
- Instead of viewers or housemates voting someone out (which rewards piling on and turns vulnerability into spectacle), housemates complete weekly challenges and choose whether to swap roles or rooms. Conflict comes from tasks, not from targeting a person.
- This preserves 'relatable conflict' because the drama is situational: budgets, chores, group decisions.
Change 2 - Build consent and care into the format, not around it.
- No filming in bedrooms or bathrooms; a daily off-camera hour; participants can request a clip be withheld before broadcast; an on-set welfare contact independent of the producers.
- This directly answers the guideline on exploiting vulnerabilities.
Why this works:
- The survey said viewers wanted 'relatable conflict' and 'people like us'. Neither requires humiliation. Task-based conflict is more relatable than manufactured eviction drama.
- A transparent care protocol is also a selling point to the platform, which has to justify the show against its own guidelines.
Judgement: the group should not simply drop the vote to appear ethical. It should redesign the mechanic so the appeal survives. That is the exam's real test: balancing creative intent, audience, and ethical responsibility.