Of course he has never actually said anything like that whatsoever. That said, approx 6m per week do and did; and it was the most-watched show every week.
Except that on at least one occasion he basically did
After it was panned by viewers first series out he was questioned at length as to why it was being recommissioned
He got VERY defensive of the show and looked at times rattled
He said it was something different and viewers WOULD warm to it
As with many Beeb staff he can come over as very condescending
And while 6m isn't a bad figure it is still nothing like what they hoped for
If people don't like it they will not watch end of story
The corporation very seldom admit to being wrong and as in the case of Jamaica inn just bleat that they will do better next time
And they wonder why people won't pay the licence!!
As many have already said POV is only there for decoration
It has no teeth and in the great scheme of things achieves nothing
Pointless it being on
Except that on at least one occasion he basically did
After it was panned by viewers first series out he was questioned at length as to why it was being recommissioned
He got VERY defensive of the show and looked at times rattled
He said it was something different and viewers WOULD warm to it
As with many Beeb staff he can come over as very condescending
And while 6m isn't a bad figure it is still nothing like what they hoped for
If people don't like it they will not watch end of story
The corporation very seldom admit to being wrong and as in the case of Jamaica inn just bleat that they will do better next time
And they wonder why people won't pay the licence!!
As many have already said POV is only there for decoration
It has no teeth and in the great scheme of things achieves nothing
Pointless it being on
It always amuses me that some who profess to know about "broadcasting" haven't the perception to understand that the reason why POV exists, is so the BBC can say it, "demonstrates that they listen to viewers," (but only to the points of the Corporation's choosing), whilst at the same time it can be a vehicle to plug a running series, that could do with a few more viewers, or generate a bit of "positive spin."
The number of producers who have been "closely questioned" on the programme by the host, only to be given a condescending pre-prepared answer, mostly to say, "we're right and the viewers wrong" is legion.
The number of producers who have been "closely questioned" on the programme by the host, only to be given a condescending pre-prepared answer, mostly to say, "we're right and the viewers wrong" is legion.
That's just your perception.
Very few complaints are a matter of being right or wrong. They're mostly just the complainant's opinion - they might say they don't like the format, or the presenter, or the choice of music, or any number of other factors. OK, so they think the producer has made the wrong decision and they're entitled to say so, but that's just their "point of view".
The producer will inevitably come on the programme and explain why they made the decision they did. Are you seriously suggesting that every time a viewer says they don't like something about a programme, the producer should be forced to "admit" they got it wrong and change their original decision?
Very few complaints are a matter of being right or wrong. They're mostly just the complainant's opinion - they might say they don't like the format, or the presenter, or the choice of music, or any number of other factors. OK, so they think the producer has made the wrong decision and they're entitled to say so, but that's just their "point of view".
The producer will inevitably come on the programme and explain why they made the decision they did. Are you seriously suggesting that every time a viewer says they don't like something about a programme, the producer should be forced to "admit" they got it wrong and change their original decision?
I think you're totally mis-understanding the nature of the programme.
It's just a bit of entertaining nonsense.
So many people don't appreciate that it's the producer's choice of letters.
They aren't going to select anything that would cause them any real embarrassment.
Many of the complaints chosen, I consider are trivial.
But the BBC will air them, (often using the voice of an actor pretending to be in their dotage), just to show "how tolerant they are."
The BBC aren't going to include any serious or damaging topic for which they haven't got a plausible answer.
It's as well to remember the "Lawyer's code." "Never ask a question you aren't already aware of the answer."
So when an "expert" is brought on to the programme then it is usually to say the BBC is right and the viewer wrong," because it's a fact.
If they weren't "right" the topic wouldn't be included.
As I said, they will admit to being "wrong" over something they consider trivial, to make the programme seem less of the mockery it really is.
Even the serious and continuing complaints, like "over-loud, inappropriate, or unnecessary music in some programmes," gets an annual mention.
The BBC apologise, say "they'll address the problem" or "we've learned some lessons," the complainant feels vindicated and the BBC just carry on in their own sweet way, confident in the fact that they've included it in a programme and can forget about it for another year.
There will still be people complaining about the same problems with other programmes for the ensuing twelve months, but they will be ignored.
"We've dealt with that, haven't we?"
Nothing's changed in forty years. I've never been able to take it seriously.
Its just a box ticking thing, Not really listening to viewers. Snooker fans are better off complaining to Barry Hearn. Only thing is the boss of the Snooker wonders why everyone complains to him on Twitter instead of the BBC. Think its because the BBC never listen.
That's exactly what I've done, for all the good it's made. He never bothers replying, even to acknowledge that the BBC have an issue. Some public figures never do, though.
Of course he has never actually said anything like that whatsoever. That said, approx 6m per week do and did; and it was the most-watched show every week.
Correct. What Carl doesn't get is that the ratings are pitiful compared to BGT/X-Factor, and the Voice final was down on previous years. Plus, Kylie's jumped ship.
Made me laugh when Ricky Wilson was asked on Sunday Brunch if he'd stay on for another series. Yeah, like it's coming back(!)
I've a feeling they were comparing the resurrection of the pup with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That's precisely what I gathered. Looked a pile of cack as well. Typical Eastenders shite. They make a big thing about "Who killed Lucy?", yet (a) they'll take almost a year to reveal the killer and (b) No-one will care, anyway.
Very few complaints are a matter of being right or wrong. They're mostly just the complainant's opinion - they might say they don't like the format, or the presenter, or the choice of music, or any number of other factors. OK, so they think the producer has made the wrong decision and they're entitled to say so, but that's just their "point of view".
The producer will inevitably come on the programme and explain why they made the decision they did. Are you seriously suggesting that every time a viewer says they don't like something about a programme, the producer should be forced to "admit" they got it wrong and change their original decision?
Quite correct. The show does what it says on the tin, it's for viewers points of view.
Its just a box ticking thing, Not really listening to viewers. Snooker fans are better off complaining to Barry Hearn. Only thing is the boss of the Snooker wonders why everyone complains to him on Twitter instead of the BBC. Think its because the BBC never listen.
That's exactly what I've done, for all the good it's made. He never bothers replying, even to acknowledge that the BBC have an issue. Some public figures never do, though.
Correct. What Carl doesn't get is that the ratings are pitiful compared to BGT/X-Factor, and the Voice final was down on previous years.
What have the ratings for any other programme got to do with it? The comparison is irrelevant to this dicussion.
Plus, Kylie's jumped ship.
No. She's simply concentrating on her already planned next tour.
Made me laugh when Ricky Wilson was asked on Sunday Brunch if he'd stay on for another series. Yeah, like it's coming back(!)
You see. There you go again, acting like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't have a clue. (No change there then!)
Correct. What Carl doesn't get is that the ratings are pitiful compared to BGT/X-Factor, and the Voice final was down on previous years.
What have the ratings for any other programme got to do with it? The comparison is irrelevant to this dicussion.
When it comes to announcements like "The Voice has been renewed for another two years," it begs a question.
As I understand it, this show wasn't devised BBC the BBC. it was originally being shown on the Continent?
They would have had to have bought the licence to stage it.
Now what the terms were, we'll never know, but it may be that the BBC are actually committed to another two series, as part of the original contract.
I'd certainly bet they paid a lot for it, which may be another reason it'll be tying up Saturday nights with more duff performances.
When it comes to announcements like "The Voice has been renewed for another two years," it begs a question.
As I understand it, this show wasn't devised BBC the BBC. it was originally being shown on the Continent?
They would have had to have bought the licence to stage it.
Now what the terms were, we'll never know, but it may be that the BBC are actually committed to another two series, as part of the original contract.
I'd certainly bet they paid a lot for it, which may be another reason it'll be tying up Saturday nights with more duff performances.
It started in the US I think, where they had Adam Levine (from Maroon 5) as one of the judges. I guess they bought the rights to it from whichever company broadcast it there (Endemol? NBC?). Maybe they signed a 5 series deal, since I guess if you include another 2 series it must be at around about 5 series by then?. I'm not sure.
It started in the US I think, where they had Adam Levine (from Maroon 5) as one of the judges. I guess they bought the rights to it from whichever company broadcast it there (Endemol? NBC?). Maybe they signed a 5 series deal, since I guess if you include another 2 series it must be at around about 5 series by then?. I'm not sure.
You may well be right.
Trust the BBC to try to include a bit of positive "top spin" in any of their announcements
When it comes to announcements like "The Voice has been renewed for another two years," it begs a question.
As I understand it, this show wasn't devised BBC the BBC. it was originally being shown on the Continent?
They would have had to have bought the licence to stage it.
Now what the terms were, we'll never know, but it may be that the BBC are actually committed to another two series, as part of the original contract.
No. I believe they were contracted for the first two and now are contracted for two more.
Unless anyone else knows different?
I'd certainly bet they paid a lot for it, which may be another reason it'll be tying up Saturday nights with more duff performances.
And yet 6-8m people are actually enjoying it. It's not all about you
None of the winners are ever remembered. Same with most of the X-Factor lot, but then The Voice isn't getting the ratings, either.
Why do people state things that are clearly nonsense that can be proved so so easily?!
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1902) 8,877
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1903) 8,858
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1916) 9,375
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1912) 9,407
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1911) 8,770
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,329
6 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,064
5 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 7,652
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1926) 7,558
7 THE VOICE UK RESULTS (SAT 2049) 6,650
The show was the most-watched programme on the night every week.
Why do people state things that are clearly nonsense that can be proved so so easily?!
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1902) 8,877
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1903) 8,858
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1916) 9,375
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1912) 9,407
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1911) 8,770
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,329
6 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,064
5 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 7,652
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1926) 7,558
7 THE VOICE UK RESULTS (SAT 2049) 6,650
The show was the most-watched programme on the night every week.
And you've actually proved my point, because those ratings are well down compared to the amount they spent on it. They wanted 10-12 million regularly, like X-Factor, but when they got to the final, it barely scraped 6 million, and the winner's single has flopped.
Threats to Boycott TV Licence if more ethinic minorities are not shown on TV.
British TV doesn't represent UKs Diversity.
Lenny Henry part of the campaign.
Portrayal are one dimensional and bland.
Unlawful boycott of the TV licence if their demands are not met. rolleyes
BBC response 'We doing our best.'
Hinterland.
Praise Great storyline and wonderful scenery.
Why not on BBC1? Subtitles put people off?
Good acting and camera work.
2 Versions made, one in Welsh shown in Wales, One bi-lingle.
Sound Issues in Drama still happening.
Actors not speaking properly. Been an issue for a number of years.
Still going on even though it was an issue in last series of POV.
BBC Investigating what went wrong. Actors or sound?
Sound technicians unfairly blamed. Actors to blame.
RADA blame both actors and the sound mix. rolleyes
RADA welcomes an investigation into this issue.
ABOUT TIME. rolleyes
BBC STILL looking into the issue.
Coverage of Snooker being ruined by commentary.
Inane comments ruined enjoyment.
Generation War.
Thought provoking look at war from the German viewpoint.
Praise.
Happy Valley.
Brilliantly written and captivating.
Praise.
Young Musician 2014
Series a treat. Viewers enjoyed.
Yet more praise.
Rev
More praise.
The comment about Easter was out of context and was about REV. LOL
So yet again we have more items that praise things than criticise them.
Threats to Boycott TV Licence if more ethinic minorities are not shown on TV.
British TV doesn't represent UKs Diversity.
Lenny Henry part of the campaign.
Portrayal are one dimensional and bland.
Unlawful boycott of the TV licence if their demands are not met. rolleyes
BBC response 'We doing our best.'
Hinterland.
Praise Great storyline and wonderful scenery.
Why not on BBC1? Subtitles put people off?
Good acting and camera work.
2 Versions made, one in Welsh shown in Wales, One bi-lingle.
Sound Issues in Drama still happening.
Actors not speaking properly. Been an issue for a number of years.
Still going on even though it was an issue in last series of POV.
BBC Investigating what went wrong. Actors or sound?
Sound technicians unfairly blamed. Actors to blame.
RADA blame both actors and the sound mix. rolleyes
RADA welcomes an investigation into this issue.
ABOUT TIME. rolleyes
BBC STILL looking into the issue.
Coverage of Snooker being ruined by commentary.
Inane comments ruined enjoyment.
Generation War.
Thought provoking look at war from the German viewpoint.
Praise.
Happy Valley.
Brilliantly written and captivating.
Praise.
Young Musician 2014
Series a treat. Viewers enjoyed.
Yet more praise.
Rev
More praise.
The comment about Easter was out of context and was about REV. LOL
So yet again we have more items that praise things than criticise them.
ROLLEYES
I cannot stand snooker so do not watch it but from the clip shown, I agree with the complaint. There was no need for that waffle.
I cannot stand snooker so do not watch it but from the clip shown, I agree with the complaint. There was no need for that waffle.
The BBC constantly deny a lot of viewers complete enjoyment of a sporting event, by having so much rabbit gong on. They are convinced that if they don't have someone banging on at them all the time, the viewers will lose interest and switch to another channel. When more likely as do I, some grab the remote and mute the sound for a bit of respite.
The commentators in the snooker are so up themselves, that they insist on trying to be funny.
They must be aware that half the spectators have earpieces which pick up the commentary and frequently there's some laughter after such remarks, which can put off the competitors.
It's a bit childish and they should refrain from it.
John Virgo is the worst.
I'm sick of hearing "e's 'ampered!! or "Where's the white goin'?!"
The numpty fails to appreciate, we can see exactly what's happening and don't need his two penn'oth.
Threats to Boycott TV Licence if more ethinic minorities are not shown on TV.
British TV doesn't represent UKs Diversity.
Lenny Henry part of the campaign.
Portrayal are one dimensional and bland.
Unlawful boycott of the TV licence if their demands are not met. rolleyes
BBC response 'We doing our best.'
My response: Get the best person for the job. Their ethnicity is irrelevant.
Hinterland.
Praise Great storyline and wonderful scenery.
Why not on BBC1? Subtitles put people off?
If they put it on BBC1, where would they put whatever should have been on BBC1 and they'd only have to find something else to put on BBC4. Pretty-much everyone now have BBC4 anyway. So another irrelevant "viewer opinion".
Sound Issues in Drama still happening.
Actors not speaking properly. Been an issue for a number of years.
Still going on even though it was an issue in last series of POV.
BBC Investigating what went wrong. Actors or sound?
Sound technicians unfairly blamed. Actors to blame.
RADA blame both actors and the sound mix. rolleyes
RADA welcomes an investigation into this issue.
ABOUT TIME. rolleyes
BBC STILL looking into the issue.
Listening to the clips (don't watch the show myself) the other problem is accents. There are some that I simply cannot understand.
Coverage of Snooker being ruined by commentary.
Inane comments ruined enjoyment.
Kind-of agree with this actually; but then it's also nice to know the back-ground stuff too. Six of one... then:)
So yet again we have more items that praise things than criticise them.
ROLLEYES
Of course you could just stop watching it, then you'd get 15 mins back, plus the forum posting time
Comments
It always amuses me that some who profess to know about "broadcasting" haven't the perception to understand that the reason why POV exists, is so the BBC can say it, "demonstrates that they listen to viewers," (but only to the points of the Corporation's choosing), whilst at the same time it can be a vehicle to plug a running series, that could do with a few more viewers, or generate a bit of "positive spin."
The number of producers who have been "closely questioned" on the programme by the host, only to be given a condescending pre-prepared answer, mostly to say, "we're right and the viewers wrong" is legion.
Very few complaints are a matter of being right or wrong. They're mostly just the complainant's opinion - they might say they don't like the format, or the presenter, or the choice of music, or any number of other factors. OK, so they think the producer has made the wrong decision and they're entitled to say so, but that's just their "point of view".
The producer will inevitably come on the programme and explain why they made the decision they did. Are you seriously suggesting that every time a viewer says they don't like something about a programme, the producer should be forced to "admit" they got it wrong and change their original decision?
I think you're totally mis-understanding the nature of the programme.
It's just a bit of entertaining nonsense.
So many people don't appreciate that it's the producer's choice of letters.
They aren't going to select anything that would cause them any real embarrassment.
Many of the complaints chosen, I consider are trivial.
But the BBC will air them, (often using the voice of an actor pretending to be in their dotage), just to show "how tolerant they are."
The BBC aren't going to include any serious or damaging topic for which they haven't got a plausible answer.
It's as well to remember the "Lawyer's code." "Never ask a question you aren't already aware of the answer."
So when an "expert" is brought on to the programme then it is usually to say the BBC is right and the viewer wrong," because it's a fact.
If they weren't "right" the topic wouldn't be included.
As I said, they will admit to being "wrong" over something they consider trivial, to make the programme seem less of the mockery it really is.
Even the serious and continuing complaints, like "over-loud, inappropriate, or unnecessary music in some programmes," gets an annual mention.
The BBC apologise, say "they'll address the problem" or "we've learned some lessons," the complainant feels vindicated and the BBC just carry on in their own sweet way, confident in the fact that they've included it in a programme and can forget about it for another year.
There will still be people complaining about the same problems with other programmes for the ensuing twelve months, but they will be ignored.
"We've dealt with that, haven't we?"
Nothing's changed in forty years. I've never been able to take it seriously.
Maybe some do, that's fine by me.
That's exactly what I've done, for all the good it's made. He never bothers replying, even to acknowledge that the BBC have an issue. Some public figures never do, though.
Correct. What Carl doesn't get is that the ratings are pitiful compared to BGT/X-Factor, and the Voice final was down on previous years. Plus, Kylie's jumped ship.
Made me laugh when Ricky Wilson was asked on Sunday Brunch if he'd stay on for another series. Yeah, like it's coming back(!)
That's precisely what I gathered. Looked a pile of cack as well. Typical Eastenders shite. They make a big thing about "Who killed Lucy?", yet (a) they'll take almost a year to reveal the killer and (b) No-one will care, anyway.
My money's on Roly!
Quite correct. The show does what it says on the tin, it's for viewers points of view.
It's not called "grant my wishes"....
Oh dear!
I didn't think you that naive.
It only "does what it says on the tin" as the the producer "chooses what's in it."
It's the producer's choices of the viewers' point of view.
Always has been, always will.
Shouldn't be taken too seriously.
http://www.inside-snooker.com/snooker/2014/5/1/hearn-to-meet-bbc-over-crucible-coverage
As I understand it, this show wasn't devised BBC the BBC. it was originally being shown on the Continent?
They would have had to have bought the licence to stage it.
Now what the terms were, we'll never know, but it may be that the BBC are actually committed to another two series, as part of the original contract.
I'd certainly bet they paid a lot for it, which may be another reason it'll be tying up Saturday nights with more duff performances.
It started in the US I think, where they had Adam Levine (from Maroon 5) as one of the judges. I guess they bought the rights to it from whichever company broadcast it there (Endemol? NBC?). Maybe they signed a 5 series deal, since I guess if you include another 2 series it must be at around about 5 series by then?. I'm not sure.
You may well be right.
Trust the BBC to try to include a bit of positive "top spin" in any of their announcements
Yep, it certainly smacks of contractual obligation.
None of the winners are ever remembered. Same with most of the X-Factor lot, but then The Voice isn't getting the ratings, either.
Unless anyone else knows different?
And yet 6-8m people are actually enjoying it. It's not all about you
Why do people state things that are clearly nonsense that can be proved so so easily?!
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1902) 8,877
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1903) 8,858
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1916) 9,375
2 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1912) 9,407
3 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1911) 8,770
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,329
6 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 8,064
5 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1859) 7,652
4 THE VOICE UK (SAT 1926) 7,558
7 THE VOICE UK RESULTS (SAT 2049) 6,650
The show was the most-watched programme on the night every week.
So you don't know one way or another?
Thanks for telling us.
Try not to give the impression that you do. It doesn't convince anyone.
It's not all about you either.
Just shows that some people watch anything and then complain if someone else says this show includes a lot of duff acts.
And you've actually proved my point, because those ratings are well down compared to the amount they spent on it. They wanted 10-12 million regularly, like X-Factor, but when they got to the final, it barely scraped 6 million, and the winner's single has flopped.
http://tellymix.co.uk/ratings/180685-the-voice-uk-ratings-show-format-still-has-a-big-problem.html
The X-Factor's in trouble, too. They managed 9.7m for the 2013 final, way down on what they were expecting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/x-factor-2013-ratings-for-sam-baileys-final-lowest-since-2005-9007363.html
British TV doesn't represent UKs Diversity.
Lenny Henry part of the campaign.
Portrayal are one dimensional and bland.
Unlawful boycott of the TV licence if their demands are not met. rolleyes
BBC response 'We doing our best.'
Hinterland.
Praise Great storyline and wonderful scenery.
Why not on BBC1? Subtitles put people off?
Good acting and camera work.
2 Versions made, one in Welsh shown in Wales, One bi-lingle.
Sound Issues in Drama still happening.
Actors not speaking properly. Been an issue for a number of years.
Still going on even though it was an issue in last series of POV.
BBC Investigating what went wrong. Actors or sound?
Sound technicians unfairly blamed. Actors to blame.
RADA blame both actors and the sound mix. rolleyes
RADA welcomes an investigation into this issue.
ABOUT TIME. rolleyes
BBC STILL looking into the issue.
Coverage of Snooker being ruined by commentary.
Inane comments ruined enjoyment.
Generation War.
Thought provoking look at war from the German viewpoint.
Praise.
Happy Valley.
Brilliantly written and captivating.
Praise.
Young Musician 2014
Series a treat. Viewers enjoyed.
Yet more praise.
Rev
More praise.
The comment about Easter was out of context and was about REV. LOL
So yet again we have more items that praise things than criticise them.
ROLLEYES
I cannot stand snooker so do not watch it but from the clip shown, I agree with the complaint. There was no need for that waffle.
The BBC constantly deny a lot of viewers complete enjoyment of a sporting event, by having so much rabbit gong on. They are convinced that if they don't have someone banging on at them all the time, the viewers will lose interest and switch to another channel. When more likely as do I, some grab the remote and mute the sound for a bit of respite.
The commentators in the snooker are so up themselves, that they insist on trying to be funny.
They must be aware that half the spectators have earpieces which pick up the commentary and frequently there's some laughter after such remarks, which can put off the competitors.
It's a bit childish and they should refrain from it.
John Virgo is the worst.
I'm sick of hearing "e's 'ampered!! or "Where's the white goin'?!"
The numpty fails to appreciate, we can see exactly what's happening and don't need his two penn'oth.
(Yes, I thought that's where you might be going!)
Did they? Where did they state this, exactly? Please cite your source.
If they put it on BBC1, where would they put whatever should have been on BBC1 and they'd only have to find something else to put on BBC4. Pretty-much everyone now have BBC4 anyway. So another irrelevant "viewer opinion".
Listening to the clips (don't watch the show myself) the other problem is accents. There are some that I simply cannot understand.
Kind-of agree with this actually; but then it's also nice to know the back-ground stuff too. Six of one... then:)
Of course you could just stop watching it, then you'd get 15 mins back, plus the forum posting time
Indeed. We get enough of that on here
As there should be.