I spotted something in this weeks Apprentice (Shopping Channel Episode) and its been annoying me...

When they arrive at the building (6:38 on iPlayer) the building clearly shows "Ideal Home House" above the door.

But later on (21:37) the logo is gone.. The 'colour' of the building where that lettering was originally shown is a slightly differnt shade.. It looks like it was either painted over, or has been removed using "CGI"..

Before anyone suggests this, it WAS the same building/entrance.. I went back and forth an compared the building and based on the placement of the windows, flags, lights, roof, etc.. Its the same!

This begs a number of questions:

1. If BBC don't want the name of the Channel being shown, why was it not removed from BOTH scenes (mistake?)

2. Could it be that there is some kind of legislastion which BBC adhere too, where they can only advertise something once in a given show/period

3. By some co-incidence, the bulding name was actually removed between the scenes? Perhaps the period between filming these 2 scenes was longer than shown in the show? Or perhaps there was some kind of 'maintenance' going on...

I know its not important, but this kind of continuity error keeps me awake at night

Anyone notice this? Anyone got any theories??

Jon

PS. Also, those chips where NOT done in an Actifry.. I know.. I have one.. They make great chips, but they are 'different' to normal deep fryed chips.. Those chips came from a chip shop!! I wonder if this is what "Ideal Homes" use to demonstrate the Actifry when they normally sell it??

They could own more than one building on the lot and the second time may have been going in a different building.

I worked for a place like that they had two buildings the same one behind the other, there was no point putting their logo on the second building.

Maybe.. But the buildings would have to be IDENTICAL as I have all over the scene and things like Lights.. Flags.. Windows are EXACTLY the same....

Jon

Yeah just been watching it and it is rather strange.

I have captures the 2 frames and am looking at them and I am not sure.

There are startling similarities (i.e there is a box in one of the upstairs windows) in both shots.. But because of the reflections its impossible to find the "smoking gun"..

There appear to be an 'entrace' cut into the middle windows, but in boths scenes the car blocks it!!

The only other thing is the pavement/grass outside.. I to be honest, that looks different.. In one shot it appears to be 'slabs' in another tarmack.

But the angles make it impossible... I am starting to sway towards the possiblity that its TWO buildings...

I wonder if Microsofts aerial maps might help.. I wonder if I could find an address.. Something tells me I need to get out more

So near, yet so far.. I have tracked down their address to Newark Road, Peterborough.. And I am looking at the maps now:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...ough&encType=1

But I can't find anything which looks remotely like that building.. Its there.. it must be.. I just can't find it.. Perhaps it was built AFTER those photos were taken?

Jon

Found it:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...ough&encType=1

Clearly there is just one building, so for some reason the signage was removed!!

I think the BBC is only allowed one 'product placement' plug per product ... ( ITV may be allowed more ) so the channel would have got their plug from that one image and later visual plugs would have been removed with graphics ( prob when SA was watching the show on TV they removed any corner logo's etc . They may have been allowed a verbal plug too ... but again only one, so that's why they called it 'the shopping channel' etc rather than mentioning it by name. Was prob the same for the baby show last week and any other organisations or products ...

I didn't think the BBC could plug anything, once or otherwise.

Hence the big Lush cover-up on Soap Task. You could make out part of the Lush sign on that building. Now don't get too excited about that Jon W!

I'm pretty sure they are allowed one verbal or one visual ... esp if editorially justified. Maybe Lush didn't insist on it or ask for it or it wasn't editorally justified ... ie didn't matter so much what soap company it was ... Or maybe the Lush logo was obvious in another shot.

I don't think the BBC have any problem with product placement.

There have been several series where, for example, Budweiser (the one like pee, not the real, Czech, one) featured with great prominence.

On one episode of Hamish McBeth if you didn't know what you were watching you would have thought it was an actual advert.

Any you knew these were deliberate because there would be (relatively) lingering shots with the label always directly to camera.

Well, they're not meant to, but perhaps it's one of those things, where they can bend the rules to get around it. I guess the problem with the Apprentice is that too much product placement, or any, when these companies are receiving payments/services in receipt for allowing the show to use their own services and products &c. comes too close to crossing the line. Hence the stilted attempts to cover up Lush, and IdealWorld. I suppose you can afford to be more subtle in dramas &c.

(Was Hamish McBeth that show with the funny little dog who had his own tartan? I'd completely forgotten about it).

I'm sorry, but this really made me chuckle!!

Yes.

If you liked it it's well worth a revisit - nice and quirky.

Anyone watching the Masters this year was treated to no end of the "the masters from Augusta sponsored by ...." first time I've seen that and all seemed very incongruous but it was obviously a condition of the contract renewal
It wouldn't have been nearly so jarring on Sky of course - and I'd rather have that than actual adverts - just seems wrong on the BBC

They do it at many sports events including snooker, the marathon and horse racing

Ideal World do only have one building and one main entrance. I know the building and company VERY well. I too noticed that the sign had been removed. The lettering was not removed by Ideal World, and so the BBC did it in PP.

Also, chips are cooked in a kitchen using a standard fryer most of the time. They were definitely not bought from a chip shop. As budget wouldnt allow this.