I see the BBC have finally updated their website....barely! We now know which pro dancer each celeb is dancing with, but all we seem to have is a small thumbnail image right at the bottom of each age and no further information. Have they always been so poorly featured on the website?
Have the pros been demoted this year?
Certainly the amount of info on the Pros is woeful.
Maybe the Beeb are trying to ensure that they don't become bigger than the programme
Maybe the Beeb are trying to ensure that they don't become bigger than the programme
Apparently the web team are working on getting bios of the pros and dance troupe pros on the website. People have been asking them all week and still nothing though 
Originally Posted by mimi dlc:
“Certainly the amount of info on the Pros is woeful.
Maybe the Beeb are trying to ensure that they don't become bigger than the programme”
“Certainly the amount of info on the Pros is woeful.
Maybe the Beeb are trying to ensure that they don't become bigger than the programme”
I think for many of us loyalty to the pros outstripped loyalty to the programme a long time ago!
I mentioned this on another thread.
My own view has been that the BBC are well aware that the pros have been steadily becoming more "high profile" as the quality of the celebrities continues to decrease. It's inevitable.
They must be aware that many viewers now are more interested in their favourite pro dancer and less in the contestants, this in their minds will be devaluing the competition and if more people don't care who wins the last few programmes will no longer be "must see." So the ratings will fall, after all "this what it's all about isn't it?"
I suggest that apart from "natural wastage" the BBC will continue to "pick them off a few at a time" and their replacements won't be featured as much as those before.
This serve two purposes I think they hope; The contestants will seem not so "C list" as they really are and they'll be able to substantiate paying the replacement dancers less, than those who've departed.
My own view has been that the BBC are well aware that the pros have been steadily becoming more "high profile" as the quality of the celebrities continues to decrease. It's inevitable.
They must be aware that many viewers now are more interested in their favourite pro dancer and less in the contestants, this in their minds will be devaluing the competition and if more people don't care who wins the last few programmes will no longer be "must see." So the ratings will fall, after all "this what it's all about isn't it?"
I suggest that apart from "natural wastage" the BBC will continue to "pick them off a few at a time" and their replacements won't be featured as much as those before.
This serve two purposes I think they hope; The contestants will seem not so "C list" as they really are and they'll be able to substantiate paying the replacement dancers less, than those who've departed.
My view is taht, as a general rule, no one person should be bigger than the programme in which they appear. That rule should apply to any TV programme, any channel, any broadcaster.
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“My view is taht, as a general rule, no one person should be bigger than the programme in which they appear. That rule should apply to any TV programme, any channel, any broadcaster.
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).”
“My view is taht, as a general rule, no one person should be bigger than the programme in which they appear. That rule should apply to any TV programme, any channel, any broadcaster.
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).”
Valid point re web presence, but asking each pro for a three line resume wouldn't take up much of a researcher's time.
I do think they are trying to make the pros' role very much secondary to the zlebs.
Originally Posted by mimi dlc:
“Valid point re web presence, but asking each pro for a three line resume wouldn't take up much of a researcher's time.”
“Valid point re web presence, but asking each pro for a three line resume wouldn't take up much of a researcher's time.”
It's not just teh researcher's time though. The information would have to be passed to the relevant web team in order for the information to be added, and before it goes live it would quite possibly have to be signed off via some form of change control process. If those web teams have been scaled back, then this process might take a bit longer to complete.
Quote:
“I do think they are trying to make the pros' role very much secondary to the zlebs.”
“I do think they are trying to make the pros' role very much secondary to the zlebs.”
Maybe. and maybe becuase it's the celebs who are the main focus of the programme, as it is their "journey" (sorry, don't know how that word got there
) that most people will be likely to follow. My opinion of course.
I guess we have got so used to the web "extras" that it is easy to forget that that is what they are.
Extras.
Extras.
Originally Posted by mimi dlc:
“I guess we have got so used to the web "extras" that it is easy to forget that that is what they are.
Extras.”
“I guess we have got so used to the web "extras" that it is easy to forget that that is what they are.
Extras.”
Very true. And in truth, when budgets generally are being squeezed, the money is better spent on the programming itself rather than those extras, and the manpower used to produce and maintain those extras is better-allocated to the programming to make it better (even if that is a bit of a "rose-tinted" moment
)
Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?
Originally Posted by Jan2555*GG*:
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
Stop undermining my conspiracy theory with your facts!
Originally Posted by Jan2555*GG*:
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
Just my opinion, but I think that the Pro Tour was what came back to bite the BBC. I think the PT was pretty much a sell-out and it probably shocked the BBC how popular they had become.
I heard rumour yesterday that there won't be another Pro Tour anyway.
Originally Posted by Jan2555*GG*:
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
“Just to throw a thought out there.........if the BBC want the pros to be less popular then why did they have a pro only tour for the first time this summer ?”
I'd argue that this is because the BBC saw how successful the professionals' own shows and tours have been in the off-season, and wanted a piece of that pie.
In other words, it's not so much that they wanted to promote the professionals, but that they wanted to continue to make a buck off what the pros do when the show isn't on the telly.
Originally Posted by faye10910:
“I'd argue that this is because the BBC saw how successful the professionals' own shows and tours have been in the off-season, and wanted a piece of that pie.
In other words, it's not so much that they wanted to promote the professionals, but that they wanted to continue to make a buck off what the pros do when the show isn't on the telly.”
“I'd argue that this is because the BBC saw how successful the professionals' own shows and tours have been in the off-season, and wanted a piece of that pie.
In other words, it's not so much that they wanted to promote the professionals, but that they wanted to continue to make a buck off what the pros do when the show isn't on the telly.”
Yes the BBC "suits" behind all this will be patting themselves on the back crowing how much money they were malking for the BBC and hoping that the obscene money some of these "public servants" take home won't be noticed.
Originally Posted by faye10910:
“I'd argue that this is because the BBC saw how successful the professionals' own shows and tours have been in the off-season, and wanted a piece of that pie.
In other words, it's not so much that they wanted to promote the professionals, but that they wanted to continue to make a buck off what the pros do when the show isn't on the telly.”
“I'd argue that this is because the BBC saw how successful the professionals' own shows and tours have been in the off-season, and wanted a piece of that pie.
In other words, it's not so much that they wanted to promote the professionals, but that they wanted to continue to make a buck off what the pros do when the show isn't on the telly.”
Strictly speaking (sorry about that pun), it would have been organised with BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm of the BBC, the arm that sells merchandise, and BBC shows around the world), and therefore any profits that are contributed to BBC WW by way of this tour are fed back to the BBC and back into programme production.
As the Strictly format is the BBC's, then the BBC has every right to be involved if the tour carries the Strictly name or logo.
Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley:
“My own view has been that the BBC are well aware that the pros have been steadily becoming more "high profile" as the quality of the celebrities continues to decrease. It's inevitable.
...............
I suggest that apart from "natural wastage" the BBC will continue to "pick them off a few at a time" and their replacements won't be featured as much as those before.
This serve two purposes I think they hope; The contestants will seem not so "C list" as they really are and they'll be able to substantiate paying the replacement dancers less, than those who've departed.”
“My own view has been that the BBC are well aware that the pros have been steadily becoming more "high profile" as the quality of the celebrities continues to decrease. It's inevitable.
...............
I suggest that apart from "natural wastage" the BBC will continue to "pick them off a few at a time" and their replacements won't be featured as much as those before.
This serve two purposes I think they hope; The contestants will seem not so "C list" as they really are and they'll be able to substantiate paying the replacement dancers less, than those who've departed.”
I'd agree with this.
What also annoys me is that the pro dancers, who work so hard, and whose skills underpin the whole programme, are not even mentioned on the "The Team" section of the SCD website, and yet we have lengthy write ups about all of the judges and presenters, who only have to turn up one day a week, as Alesha so charminingly put it.
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).”
“
As for updating the website - remember that the BBC has come under rather intense pressure to scale back some of its web presence and its web spending. So it might be a reflection of that when some sites are slower to update (due to the lower level of resource allocated to the websites overall).”
The BBC has a multi billion pound annual income. I hardly think adding a short biography of the pro dancers would stretch their financial resources.
Originally Posted by StrictlyRed:
“I'd agree with this.
What also annoys me is that the pro dancers, who work so hard, and whose skills underpin the whole programme, are not even mentioned on the "The Team" section of the SCD website, and yet we have lengthy write ups about all of the judges and presenters, who only have to turn up one day a week, as Alesha so charminingly put it.”
“I'd agree with this.
What also annoys me is that the pro dancers, who work so hard, and whose skills underpin the whole programme, are not even mentioned on the "The Team" section of the SCD website, and yet we have lengthy write ups about all of the judges and presenters, who only have to turn up one day a week, as Alesha so charminingly put it.”
The Team? Do they really call the judges and presenters that? It's times like this I wish there was a mooning smilie available...
'Team' my a**e!
Originally Posted by BeethovensPiano:
“The BBC has a multi billion pound annual income. I hardly think adding a short biography of the pro dancers would stretch their financial resources.”
“The BBC has a multi billion pound annual income. I hardly think adding a short biography of the pro dancers would stretch their financial resources.”
It might not, but there have been some reductions in their web activities, with more to come (as part of a refocussing on core areas of programme creation and delivery), and programme budgets are also being squeezed.
I am not saying that this is the reason, but it could be a likely one. And I would expect to see more scaling back over the coming year.
