• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BBC Loses Great British Bakeoff
<<
<
10 of 89
>>
>
MysteriousOz
13-09-2016
Haha I'm actually not fussed by the news

The BBC obvs isn't as almighty and powerful as it thinks it is

I'm glad Channel 4 got it, will be a nice change. It was getting a bit bit boring
FusionFury
13-09-2016
Paul and Mary are posh, middle-class luvvies so I doubt they care much.
Salcy
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“Love also produce "Junior Bake off" for CBBC - cannot imagine Channel 4 will be showing that - they stopped targetting children decades ago.

Can also imagine - as previous posters have said - that "Sewing Bee" and the Pottery thing will get shunted around the schedules by the BBC, then quietly binned ASAP.

So Love Productions have got an extra £10 million per year for Bake off, but they will lose the revenue of the Junior Bake Off / Sewing Bee/ Pottery throwdown plus the "Extra Slice" show
It is not inconceivable if they want to keep the "Talent" for Bake-off they will have to have really deep pockets.

BBC Worldwide was also the International distributor, so if that relationship terminates they will have to find another partner to market and manage the format overseas.

It was rumoured that Channel bid 4X what the BBC offered for "old" episodes of the Simpsons some years ago.”

When you point out all those things, the massive price rise makes no sense. Unless you take into account Love Productions being owned by Sky. I don't think they really care as much about the long term future of Bakeoff as much as they care about the damage it will do to the BBC if they keep losing their most popular programmes. They must have known that their demands were unlikely to be met by anyone other than commercial TV.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Sluger:
“Never understood people that watch channels, not programmes. A very old fashioned idea.”

Why when we know what programmes to expect on some channels. Anything moved to ITV becomes trashier as well as lots of interruptions for adverts. Similar applies to Channel 4, I can't think of any programme that has improved when it moved from BBC to ITV or Channel 4.

Isn't Digital Spy effectively a 'channel'? Would people prefer coming to Digital Spy and looking on the forum or spending hours looking around the web for different aspects in different locations?
Belligerence
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Hamlet77:
“So the BBC couldn't afford their most popular show on tv. The most popular show on any channel in the UK. Just WTF does that say about the attitude of the BBC?”

Why should the BBC be held to ransom by a production company?
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Bake Off will lose three quarters of it's viewers. Why? Ads and Channel 4 is the fourth most popular channel.

I look forward to some positive commentary from you re: the BBC, the nation's best and most important broadcaster.

I suspect Ch4 will come in for some criticism from this poaching behaviour.”

There will also be some resentment when we read that the presenters and judges are being several million pounds each after the move especially as the Mail and other never stop moaning about them being paid much less now.
batdude_uk1
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“Why when we know what programmes to expect on some channels. Anything moved to ITV becomes trashier as well as lots of interruptions for adverts. Similar applies to Channel 4, I can't think of any programme that has improved when it moved from BBC to ITV or Channel 4.

Isn't Digital Spy effectively a 'channel'? Would people prefer coming to Digital Spy and looking on the forum or spending hours looking around the web for different aspects in different locations?”

You cannot think of a programme, well let me help you out, the Paralympics have improved massively since Channel 4 got the rights to show them (BBC used to have the rigors, but did naff all to highlight them).

So it does show that programmes can be improved by leaving the BBC structure.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by davads:
“We already do
http://www.lakeland.co.uk/brands/great-british-bake-off”

But they cannot be promoted on the show. If the sponsoring brand makes a food mixer then the programme will have to use it, rather than choose the best for the job.
anthony david
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Belligerence:
“Why should the BBC be held to ransom by a production company?”

Especially one owned by Sky, no wonder The Sun was crowing about it.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by davads:
“Assuming it's still an hour slot, there'll be four breaks, and they won't be "every few minutes".”

So the programme will be ten minutes or so shorter because of the adverts.
Steve9214
13-09-2016
I recall Ronnie Barker saying he and Ronnie C had had offers from ITV but always turned then down, as if you switched channels the only way to succeed was to be much better than you were previously - "the same is not good enough"

One point nobody has mentioned is running time.

The BBC show is one hour - less credits.
There is not much "repeating things" in Bake-off, as the edit is quite fast paced.
This means to get the same style of show the Channel 4 show will have to run for 1 hour 15 minutes, or lose the "comprehensive" coverage.
With adverts you will get 45 minutes of actual "action"
This is clearly not enough.
They will have to change the style or pace to fit the reduced time

Only other option is to have less contestants to fit the reduced running time of 45 minutes if the show remains at one hour - with advert breaks
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jenkins Leeroy:
“whats the point in even paying the bbc license fee they cant even afford to keep their own shows anymore”

Though we still have to pay the Advertising Tax unless we buy unbranded items that do not do any TV advertising. We will be paying far more that way than through the TV Licence.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“The show will lose at least half it's audience airing on Ch4.”

More, how many programmes on Channel 4 get five million viewers? But even a couple of million viewers will be a lot by Channel 4 standards so bring in advertising.

What is happening to the rest of the 'Great British' brand? I can't imagine Channel 4 putting a sewing or pottery programme on at peak times.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Belligerence:
“Why should the BBC be held to ransom by a production company?”

If they had matched the high price paid by Channel 4 then it could well have gone higher, you can never outbid someone with a bottomless purse.
Aftershow
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“You cannot think of a programme, well let me help you out, the Paralympics have improved massively since Channel 4 got the rights to show them (BBC used to have the rigors, but did naff all to highlight them).

So it does show that programmes can be improved by leaving the BBC structure.”

That's not particularly a case of improving it, simply showing more of it. I can't say I'm overly impressed with C4's coverage (which is not to say the BBC's Olympic coverage is perfect) of it.
Salcy
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“So the programme will be ten minutes or so shorter because of the adverts.”

When Bakeoff is made in other countries with commercials, it has two contests instead of 3, to allow for 15 minutes of ads in the hour. It will lose 1/3 of the content, most likely, as well as it's presenters.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“You cannot think of a programme, well let me help you out, the Paralympics have improved massively since Channel 4 got the rights to show them (BBC used to have the rigors, but did naff all to highlight them).

So it does show that programmes can be improved by leaving the BBC structure.”

When the BBC had the rights to the Paralympics it was a much smaller event and also when international satellite links were more expensive. Channel 4's coverage of the Paralympics is amateurish compared with the BBC's coverage of the Olympics though I have only watched a small amount because every time I switched over there were adverts on and I have seen quite a few comments around about Channel 4 missing crucial happenings in Rio.
David_Flett1
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by hendero:
“This is the type of thing I mean when I point some of the advantages the BBC enjoys in the current UK TV industry set-up. Fair play to them for putting the GBBO on television, but beyond that I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for the programme's success. The reality is one could put almost anything on BBC1 and the literally millions of people who have that as their default channel will at least give it a shot to see if they like it. You could put the exact same show on e.g. Channel 5, and the viewing figures would be less than half. Which will probably happen the second it goes to C4. Which is absurd, of course. But hey ho.”

Two of the most successful shows on TV are Bake Off and Strictly, formats that the commercial sector weren't interested in showing. Love Productions tried for 4 years selling the format but were rebuffed by the commercial sector. The BBC took it on and in it's first season only had 2 million viewers. The BBC promoted and developed it and that is why it became so huge. If a commercial broadcaster had taken it on and achieved only 2 million viewers, they would most likely have dropped it after season one. Come Dancing ended nearly a decade before the BBC developed another dancing show, ample time for the commercial sector to come up with the idea that dancing would be prime time television hit, they didn't because commerciaal television is ratings driven.

Love Productions may sit quite happily checking their bank account but they were a very small production company before the BBC took Bake Off on and helped Love Productions grow and attract investment from SKY. The format was good, the BBC building it was the real success.
David_Flett1
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Hamlet77:
“So the BBC couldn't afford their most popular show on tv. The most popular show on any channel in the UK. Just WTF does that say about the attitude of the BBC?”

Perhaps the government taking £503 million out of the licence fee may be one of the reasons. Come back in 2021 when that doubles to over £1 billion each year, not one single penny spent on what every licence payer believes what they are paying for. "Content"

Love Productions can set the level very high but may have even disappeared if the BBC hadn't stepped in and taken up the Bake Off as no one was interested. If we want the BBC to compete and produce content that everyone wants then it can only do so if it can retain what the licence fee raises. The government take £500 million each year rising to £1.1 billion by 2021 and a staggering £1.5 billion by the end of the next charter. How many people know this? How many people understand this? The licence fee has always provided a balance to the commercial sector allowing them to share a very large income from advertising which delivered a significant amount of affordable content. PAY TV has stepped in and not only use dedicated TV subscriptions but eat into that advertising budget but unfairly use our broadband and phone to build even more revenue. Not may complain because the media never really publish the facts and it is never ever debated but the licence payer should really wake up and challenge why so much of the money they pay is being used for things other than content they wish to consume. Bake Off may just be the beginning.
snafu65
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“So the programme will be ten minutes or so shorter because of the adverts.”

More like 15-20 minutes shorter when you take out the time used up by ad breaks, sponsor idents and trailers for other shows.
batdude_uk1
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“That's not particularly a case of improving it, simply showing more of it. I can't say I'm overly impressed with C4's coverage (which is not to say the BBC's Olympic coverage is perfect) of it.”

Originally Posted by lundavra:
“When the BBC had the rights to the Paralympics it was a much smaller event and also when international satellite links were more expensive. Channel 4's coverage of the Paralympics is amateurish compared with the BBC's coverage of the Olympics though I have only watched a small amount because every time I switched over there were adverts on and I have seen quite a few comments around about Channel 4 missing crucial happenings in Rio.”

You are not comparing like for like, we are not talking about the Olympics, (as they to my knowledge have never been on Channel 4), we are talking about the Paralympics.

The coverage has dramatically improved since they went to Channel 4, you have events shown live for starters, and then you have a great associated programme like The Last Leg, neither of which the BBC did when they had the rights to the Paralympics.

So the Paralympics have most definitely improved since they went to Channel 4, so the point stands, about finding a programme that has made the switch and improved.
mossy2103
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Hamlet77:
“The BBC paid how much for another crappy 'reality' (yeah right) talent (?????) show. One of many, too many.

BUT they will not stump up the cash to keep a confirmed successful and immensely popular show.

THAT is the problem.”

So you would have been happy for the BBC to have matched C4's £75 MILLION for three years?

That's an awful lot of money, especially when budgets are being squeezed and when the BBC is under considerable scrutiny.
mossy2103
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Salcy:
“When you point out all those things, the massive price rise makes no sense. Unless you take into account Love Productions being owned by Sky. I don't think they really care as much about the long term future of Bakeoff as much as they care about the damage it will do to the BBC if they keep losing their most popular programmes. They must have known that their demands were unlikely to be met by anyone other than commercial TV.”

And it also seems to be the case that the agreed price does not cover presenters or judges - these will have to be negotiated (and paid for) separately. They have paid for the format & production.

This could come back and bite C4 on the bum. Really hard.
Richard1960
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“And it also seems to be the case that the agreed price does not cover presenters or judges - these will have to be negotiated (and paid for) separately. They have paid for the format & production.

This could come back and bite C4 on the bum. Really hard.”




Personally i have never forgiven channel 4 with what they did to their show "Time Team"
mossy2103
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“I recall Ronnie Barker saying he and Ronnie C had had offers from ITV but always turned then down, as if you switched channels the only way to succeed was to be much better than you were previously - "the same is not good enough"

One point nobody has mentioned is running time.

The BBC show is one hour - less credits.
There is not much "repeating things" in Bake-off, as the edit is quite fast paced.
This means to get the same style of show the Channel 4 show will have to run for 1 hour 15 minutes, or lose the "comprehensive" coverage.
With adverts you will get 45 minutes of actual "action"
This is clearly not enough.
They will have to change the style or pace to fit the reduced time

Only other option is to have less contestants to fit the reduced running time of 45 minutes if the show remains at one hour - with advert breaks”

Don't forget the obligatory "this is what happened before the break" recaps after each ad-break.
<<
<
10 of 89
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map