• 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
<<
<
19 of 89
>>
>
Charnham
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by D.M.N.:
“The two shows apparently similar to Bake Off that Love Productions tried to sue BBC over were, according to the Telegraph... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-british-bake/

- Hair (BBC Three, 2014)
- The Big Painting Challenge (BBC One, 2015)”

reading that article it looks like Love thinks it owns the format rights to just about every talent show ever made, the BBC is best as far away from Love as is possible.
NorthernNinny
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“It could certainly be seen as yet another BBC shooting-off-their-feet-to-look-hard-up manoeuvre. "Oh no! We can't afford 6 Music and BBC3 and Formula 1 and GBBO any more (please give generously)".

Remember that the BBC spends £1.3 BILLION pounds a year on BBC One alone. That's an incredible amount of money. If they wanted GBBO, they could keep it - and, after all, why would BBC One not want to keep the most popular show on British Television, unless it was some rather desperate and misguided cry for help?”

Maybe it's just a case of the BBC refusing to be held to ransom rather than our cupboard is bare?
Antbox
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“reading that article it looks like Love thinks it owns the format rights to just about every talent show ever made, the BBC is best as far away from Love as is possible.”

Love would seem to have had a legitimate beef, given how closely the formats of the BBC's productions aped Love-owned shows. Much of the publicity at the time said the same thing:

"Similar formats have already proven hugely successful in the shape of The Great British Bake Off – which is set to move to BBC One next year – and The Great British Sewing Bee"

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/15/new-bb...cakes-4188197/

"Eight competitors with their own unique visions will face three different challenges every week in a knockout format similar to recent successful BBC shows The Great British Bake Off and The Great British Sewing Bee."

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a5...-reality-show/

"Competition format commissioning at the BBC has moved from baking to sewing, taken in vegetable gardening and interior design and has now moved on to hairdressing. ... Hair, a BBC In-house production, has been commissioned by Zai Bennett, controller of BBC Three, and Emma Willis, head of commissioning, Documentaries and the executive behind the hugely successful Bake Off and Sewing Bee, both from Love Productions. "

http://www.televisual.com/news-detai..._nid-3536.html
Steve9214
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I should be able to buy Kelloggs Cornflakes without a single penny going to ITV, 4, 5 and the like. That is my beef and my immediate rebuttal to any BBC basher including your good-self who moans about the licence fee. Well I am opposed to the Advertising Tax.”

You can buy the Supermarket own-label cornflakes - which are not advertised on TV.

The biggest threat to TV advertising is own-label products.
A Supermarket might do an advert, but far less than Multinational brands.

If the brands sales drop too far- they cannot afford to advertise - so there would be less advertising if everybody switched to own-label products
Jellied Eel
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by mike65:
“Apart from losing a top rated programme the story is how successful properties can be taken away from a broadcaster in the age of programme publishing. This is actually a big issue for the corporation, they don't own a lot of popular titles and as such are at risk from being outbid - just like sport.”

Indeed. So take two examples.

Top Gear, where it owned most of the rights and was a successful product. Then they gave it to Evans

Bake Off, where it didn't, but had a successful product. But probably didn't own any of the rights, so Love & the 'talent' could flog cook books.

One shows some creative problems, and so might the other. Pre-PACT and industry lobbying, the Bbc used to be able to create it's own shows & formats.. Which in theory could then be sold on to make more money, which could then be re-invested in new stuff.

Instead, it managed to trash one of it's properties and thinks the loss of Bake Off is headline news.. Which is presumably politically motivated to try and squeeze more cash out of the licence payers because it's still Charter time.

It's other alleged money spinner is of course SCD.. But after many years, it's really having to dredge the talent pool for celebs. And of course it's got old stables, like Casualty.. 'celebrating' 30yrs of a tired and familiar Saturday night schedule. Meanwhile, the younger viewers/future licence payers are busily getting the stuff they want elsewhere..
Steve9214
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“reading that article it looks like Love thinks it owns the format rights to just about every talent show ever made, the BBC is best as far away from Love as is possible.”

Same way the group created on X-Factor called "Little Mix" was originall named "Rhythmix" which is the registered name of a children's music charity.

Syco tried to wrest the name off of the Charity, but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmix

Clear case of a Company thinking it can do what it likes and being above the law.
Reality Sucks
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by D.M.N.:
“The two shows apparently similar to Bake Off that Love Productions tried to sue BBC over were, according to the Telegraph... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-british-bake/

- Hair (BBC Three, 2014)
- The Big Painting Challenge (BBC One, 2015)”

Is that true? They've got a cheek. Bake Off is just Masterchef with cakes
Antbox
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“Syco tried to wrest the name off of the Charity, but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmix”

Er, no, actually they just tried to trademark the name Rhythmix in relation to a pop music group. Rhythmix the charity objected, and Syco decided to change the band's name rather than contest it.

It's quite possible for two different companies to use the same name in different fields of enterprise - but obviously it can give rise to confusion, so clearly Syco made the right decision. There was obviously no attempt to 'wrest the name off the Charity' given that they immediately backed down (and made a donation) once they became aware of the clash.
Antbox
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Reality Sucks:
“Is that true? They've got a cheek. Bake Off is just Masterchef with cakes ”

No, Bake Off is a format with numerous distinct moving parts - things like the number of contestants, the use of challenges, the means of elimination, etc. Individually those are no great thing, but when used together the combination is a protectable format, to the extent that people could look at 'Hair' and say 'this is identical to Bake-Off, except with curling tongs'.

If someone else had made a programme that infringed on the BBC's formats in such a manner, they'd be the first to do the same thing.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“If that is your beef, it's a very poor example, long since debunked. Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) like Cornflakes sell in greater numbers because advertising raises awareness of them. If they did not sell in as great a quantity, the cost of production per box would be comparatively higher, and the goods would therefore cost more if they were not advertised.”

That is the advertising industry's claim but sales did not drop when there was a strike and no adverts on ITV. It is probably the most inefficient way to fund broadcasting.
Antbox
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“That is the advertising industry's claim but sales did not drop when there was a strike and no adverts on ITV.”

Because there were still other venues for advertising available, and most advertisers increased their spend in those areas - newspapers, billboards, etc.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Love would seem to have had a legitimate beef, given how closely the formats of the BBC's productions aped Love-owned shows. Much of the publicity at the time said the same thing:

"Similar formats have already proven hugely successful in the shape of The Great British Bake Off – which is set to move to BBC One next year – and The Great British Sewing Bee"

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/15/new-bb...cakes-4188197/

"Eight competitors with their own unique visions will face three different challenges every week in a knockout format similar to recent successful BBC shows The Great British Bake Off and The Great British Sewing Bee."

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a5...-reality-show/

"Competition format commissioning at the BBC has moved from baking to sewing, taken in vegetable gardening and interior design and has now moved on to hairdressing. ... Hair, a BBC In-house production, has been commissioned by Zai Bennett, controller of BBC Three, and Emma Willis, head of commissioning, Documentaries and the executive behind the hugely successful Bake Off and Sewing Bee, both from Love Productions. "

http://www.televisual.com/news-detai..._nid-3536.html”

Sounds to me as if Bake Off was a copy of Masterchef.

I wonder if it would have been challenged if it had not been also on the BBC, perhaps why other broadcasters did not take up the proposal from Love originally.
lundavra
13-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“No, Bake Off is a format with numerous distinct moving parts - things like the number of contestants, the use of challenges, the means of elimination, etc. Individually those are no great thing, but when used together the combination is a protectable format, to the extent that people could look at 'Hair' and say 'this is identical to Bake-Off, except with curling tongs'.

If someone else had made a programme that infringed on the BBC's formats in such a manner, they'd be the first to do the same thing.”

So they looked at Masterchef and worked out how they could do a similar programme by changing a few details. There are probably (expensive) consultants who work out how formats can be changed enough to avoid legal action. Cowell's 'talent' shows are basically the same as ones going back many tens of years with just a few details changed.
Antbox
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“Sounds to me as if Bake Off was a copy of Masterchef.”

Not remotely - there are plenty enough differences. Masterchef followed a more traditional 'World Cup' format - heats, quarter-finals, semi-finals, finals, etc, not one 'elimination' every week. Masterchef has rounds which are consistent each week, different to the varying challenges of Bake Off. Plus Masterchef's rounds are different during the quarter finals. Masterchef's judging panel is not seen (or at least was not in the original version) unlike Bake Off where this is very much visible, providing more of the essential 'tension' for a modern show. Masterchef also includes features where contestants from previous series can return and have another go. No such equivalent in Bake Off.

You can't say that because two programmes are about cooking that they're the same. But you certainly can say that because one programme is about cooking and the other is about hairstyling but they both work in exactly the same way that one has copied from the other.
JazzyJaney
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by vauxhall1964:
“you're deluded if you think 10 million will be switching to watch a C4 version of the show. The channel hasn't had a show pass 5 million all year. And a very significant chunk of the Bake Off fan base will desert the show without its 4 key names. It already has the stench of a rotting corpse about it.”

It's a bold statement but I was half wondering if perhaps the show would start to die off anyway. It might sound ridiculous to say that now but look at The X Factor, these shows that generate a massive amount of buzz across the media tend to have a finite life of about 5 years which the Bake Off has now had, either it slowly dies away (like X Factor or Big Brother) or something like this happens... I'll miss the Bake Off on the BBC but I'm glad they weren't willing to pay 25 million for a cake competition and that they can now hopefully spend that money on making new comedies, dramas, radio shows and documentaries. The ratings will be interesting but C4 can surprise you.
skp20040
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“Indeed. So take two examples.

Top Gear, where it owned most of the rights and was a successful product. Then they gave it to Evans

Bake Off, where it didn't, but had a successful product. But probably didn't own any of the rights, so Love & the 'talent' could flog cook books.

One shows some creative problems, and so might the other. Pre-PACT and industry lobbying, the Bbc used to be able to create it's own shows & formats.. Which in theory could then be sold on to make more money, which could then be re-invested in new stuff.

Instead, it managed to trash one of it's properties and thinks the loss of Bake Off is headline news.. Which is presumably politically motivated to try and squeeze more cash out of the licence payers because it's still Charter time.

It's other alleged money spinner is of course SCD.. But after many years, it's really having to dredge the talent pool for celebs. And of course it's got old stables, like Casualty.. 'celebrating' 30yrs of a tired and familiar Saturday night schedule. Meanwhile, the younger viewers/future licence payers are busily getting the stuff they want elsewhere..”

It isn't only the BBC who have mentioned it on the news it has been everywhere , and I hardly think this was a ploy by the BBC to refuse to increase the spend by 400% when Love asked in order to get more money from the licence fee payer.

I didn't realise no younger viewers watched Casualty or SCD neither did I realise the BBC should only be accommodating those under 30 as they are the future.
Reality Sucks
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“No, Bake Off is a format with numerous distinct moving parts - things like the number of contestants, the use of challenges, the means of elimination, etc. Individually those are no great thing, but when used together the combination is a protectable format, to the extent that people could look at 'Hair' and say 'this is identical to Bake-Off, except with curling tongs'.

If someone else had made a programme that infringed on the BBC's formats in such a manner, they'd be the first to do the same thing.”

I can't see a lot of difference - They set the same sort of challenges on Masterchef (invention test, signature dish and even to the extent of having to copy one of the judges dishes without a recipe) and one contestant gets eliminated every week. It's hardly a groundbreaking format.
Antbox
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Reality Sucks:
“I can't see a lot of difference - They set the same sort of challenges on Masterchef (invention test, signature dish and even to the extent of having to copy one of the judges dishes without a recipe) and one contestant gets eliminated every week. It's hardly a groundbreaking format.”

It's obviously different enough for both formats to be sold, separately, around the world. With that kind of money at stake, if either were a close enough copy of the other, legal action would assuredly have occured long before now.
Ash_M1
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I haven't moaned about the licence fee.

You haven't any real right to buy a company's products and expect that none of the purchase cost goes towards making you aware of them in the first place by way of their TV advertisements. The very idea is simply beyond ludicrous. The rebuttal / comparison is also defunct because you aren't forced to pay any element to retailers under threat of penalty if you don't, you just don't get to have their particular product. A lot of licence fee payers would welcome that choice.

Your devotion to the BBC is almost like some quasi-religion, whereby anything that ISN'T the BBC or is connected to conmercial TV, which is just about everything, is resented and despised.”

...and this is wholly wrong. Of course I am. You acknowledge this yourself within your very post above.

The fact of the matter is this...I should be able to buy any product I like without being forced to subsidise some low-grade commercial broadcaster. All the time the advertising tax exists, anti-licence fee types have not a leg to stand on.

You are right. The BBC is the best that we have. The way it is funded makes it a cut above the rest, the fact it is ad-free, total bliss.
Ash_M1
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“You can buy the Supermarket own-label cornflakes - which are not advertised on TV.

The biggest threat to TV advertising is own-label products.
A Supermarket might do an advert, but far less than Multinational brands.

If the brands sales drop too far- they cannot afford to advertise - so there would be less advertising if everybody switched to own-label products”

With respect, you are totally missing the point.

Any way, we mustn't be distracted. The behaviour of Love and Ch4 is bad for Bake Off, bad for 4 and bad for viewers. No-one wins here.
vauxhall1964
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“Meanwhile, the younger viewers/future licence payers are busily getting the stuff they want elsewhere..”

the irony being that Bake Off has a higher percentage of viewers under 35 than in the over 35 demographics as figures posted in the ratings thread recently showed. Which is precisely the reason C4 were so desperate to get hold of it in the first place. It's an extremely attractive show to advertisers
Xuri
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I should be able to buy Kelloggs Cornflakes without a single penny going to ITV, 4, 5 and the like. That is my beef and my immediate rebuttal to any BBC basher including your good-self who moans about the licence fee. Well I am opposed to the Advertising Tax.”

So you wish you could buy Cornflakes and then tell Kelloggs how to spend what is now their money?

That's not the way the world works. That's like your employer resenting the fact that you spend your wages on an electrical provider that they personally dislike.
ftv
14-09-2016
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbi...how-next-year/
eggchen
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“ ...and this is wholly wrong. Of course I am. You acknowledge this yourself within your very post above.

The fact of the matter is this...I should be able to buy any product I like without being forced to subsidise some low-grade commercial broadcaster. All the time the advertising tax exists, anti-licence fee types have not a leg to stand on.”

No I didn't acknowledge it, you have misunderstood the post. This scenario you have created to justify the point in your mind is ludicrous, but let me put it another way.

You would be completely at liberty to buy a packet of non-advertised, shop-brand cornflakes if you wished, without having to pay, under threat of penalty, some money to Kellogs (and subsequently to ITV who advertise them, if that is your apparent "beef") At any level, it isn't any form of taxation, advertising is wholly inherent to any product's success. We acknowledge that as consumers. You can't just buy any product you like and not expect some of the proceeds will go towards commercials, the notion is absurd. If you don't like that, you are free not to buy their products. You choose to support commercial TV because you want the associated product, you aren't forced.

However, the people who wanted to use their TV sets exclusively to watch Sky, Virgin and all the other non-terrestrial channels and services now on offer DO still have to pay the licence fee to the BBC, under threat of penalty if they don't. And there is the difference.

So your argument is completely invalid.
Ash_M1
14-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“No I didn't acknowledge it, you have misunderstood the post. This scenario you have created to justify the point in your mind is ludicrous, but let me put it another way.

You would be completely at liberty to buy a packet of non-advertised, shop-brand cornflakes if you wished, without having to pay, under threat of penalty, some money to Kellogs (and subsequently to ITV who advertise them, if that is your apparent "beef") At any level, it isn't any form of taxation, advertising is wholly inherent to any product's success. We acknowledge that as consumers. You can't just buy any product you like and not expect some of the proceeds will go towards commercials, the notion is absurd. If you don't like that, you are free not to buy their products. You choose to support commercial TV because you want the associated product, you aren't forced.

However, the people who wanted to use their TV sets exclusively to watch Sky, Virgin and all the other non-terrestrial channels and services now on offer DO still have to pay the licence fee to the BBC, under threat of penalty if they don't. And there is the difference.

So your argument is completely invalid.”

Wrong. My argument is perfectly valid. I should be able to buy what I wish WITHOUT a penny going to ITV. This is the point you fail to/choose to not understand.

BIB...and this is wrong, wholly wrong.

BIB2...and this is right and proper. All should contribute to all public services regardless.

...any way, I'm not going to allow you to distract me from the outrageous behaviour of Not-So Love Productions.
<<
<
19 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