Sky cynically sponsors 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies' ?
i4u
Posts: 54,937 Forum Member
✭
Apart from the money what were ITV thinking when they allowed Sky to be the sponsors of this programmes and was it a cynical decision by Sky to make money out of the distress caused to Christopher Jefferies by the media in particular The Sun?
This was a serious drama regularly interrupted by irrelevant and inappropriate sponsors messages. There was a scene were a black lawyer consulted with Jefferies over his series situation and the scene cut to a black guy sucking on a long string of spaghetti, in a supposedly comical sponsor's message.
I hope their sponsorship backfires big team and costs them more than The Sun's contempt of court fine and substantial damages the paper had to pay Jefferies.
This was a serious drama regularly interrupted by irrelevant and inappropriate sponsors messages. There was a scene were a black lawyer consulted with Jefferies over his series situation and the scene cut to a black guy sucking on a long string of spaghetti, in a supposedly comical sponsor's message.
I hope their sponsorship backfires big team and costs them more than The Sun's contempt of court fine and substantial damages the paper had to pay Jefferies.
0
Comments
But sponsors in general destroy serious drama, they cut from a serious issue to some bit of ad-men tackiness.
As the sponsor is directly connected to the programme you'd think ITV or the director would insist the contents of the sponsors message didn't detract from the drama.
You do have to wonder why Sky are sponsoring programmes on one of their main competitors though. I'm sure it makes commercial sense to somebody.
The Sponsor was Sky, not The Sun. They may have a common parent company, but they are separate businesses. Had The Sun run ads during the programme, that would have been noteworthy.
As for the content and timing of the Sky ads, are you seriously suggesting that News International had seen the programme in advance, and decided to create an advert for Sky featuring a black guy eating spaghetti, and that advert would run immediately after a scene featuring a black lawyer in the programme, for comedic effect? Even if they had all that planned, what's the connection? Or is it just so unusual to have a black lawyer in a TV programme followed by an advert featuring a black person eating spaghetti that this jumped out and you dreamt up a ludicruous conspiracy theory?
If ITV had decided to seek another sponsor for this drama, then a) they would be breaking the contract and b) sky would argue that the link between Sky Broadband and The Sun's involvement in the case is tenuous at best.
ITV aren't competitors to Sky at all, certainly not Sky Broadband.
And of course Sky News was very much more responsible over this matter than was BBC News, which I watched when Joanna Y. was murdered and the BBC absolutely had me utterly convinced that the funny hair man was a killer. Of course the BBC has the state behind them so they are untouchable.
I am a BBC supporter, but I am sure that they should support the people, who pay for them, and not the Establishment or state which is what they do now. The BBC should be independent.
So, BBC feeling guilty and launching an obfuscation attack on a rival? Yes, seems right. BBC stooges strike again.
Why would they do that? Is that going to earn them more money?
They are but only in terms of ratings and the add revenue that brings.
Saving carry over time for big audience (high money) shows.
Well if its all about money then don't make dramas (which are extremely expensive to make) and stick on another re-run of 'You've Been Framed'.
And James Murdoch never knew nothing about phone hacking and why he was asked to sign large cheques to an individual....
It's shame he was forced to resign as chairman of BSkyB in the wake of the on-going phone-hacking scandal....to be continued....:)
You seem to be the only person suggesting a conspiracy....it's beyond the wit of broadcasters to view sponsors messages and their placing in relation to the content of the programme.
Such as not doing a programme about the death of Whitney Houston and cutting to "She looks good in a body bag" from a puppet in a sponsors message.
Its ITV that play out the sponser bumpers, dont suppose they even bother to see what is on them, just play out at random, the content has nothing to do with the content of the programme, was wtaching somethig the other day was sponsered by specsavers, featured someone going blind in an accident !
Dramas having far higher ratings than those shows, are you suggesting ITV has another motive?
The three ad breaks I saw during the drama last night only had promotions for ITV programmes and channels no commercials.
To assume bigger ratings mean bigger profits doesn't always work out as I indicated drama is extremely expensive and the first night ratings I believe was less than 4m.
Does ITV still make these types of dramas or merely buy the right to broadcast them, the writer of Broadchurch took the idea to ITV who told him to go and get the finance in place first, and that's probably there is a US & UK version.
So if there motive isn't profit, what is it?
So perhaps you can explain the supposed link between the content of the programme and the advert with the guy eating spaghetti which made it "inappopriate".
That was good of Rupert to get his chequebook out then, as we wouldn't have got one of the best dramas of the year.
At least being a 'Mystery' and not a 'Showcase' drama a 21st Century Fox programme won't be sponsored by Sky Broadband!!