• 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
<<
<
26 of 89
>>
>
brianeccleston
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“
Right, but did he say that? He was a bit ambiguous in my view.

Be that as it may, content costs. There are some who forget this.”

I think it was pretty obvious what was meant to be honest.

Yes content costs. But you can legally watch it without the need for a licence.
Antbox
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“I was also reminding your that it is BBC WW that shows the sell, not the BBC as you stated in your post.”

BBC Worldwide is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC.
Ash_M1
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“BBC Worldwide is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC.”

...which receives no licence fee money as you know.

The BBC was required years ago to maximise the commercial value of content hence the emergence of Worldwide (previously Enterprises). The BBC have simply done what govt back in the day has asked them to do. I have no problem with Worldwide maximising the commercial value of content on behalf of the BBC, ploughing any profits back into the BBC to provide content.
mikw
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“There have been a number of examples given in this, or the other thread, not least 'Hair!' on BBC3, which the BBC setlled out-of-court over.”

You could argue that "bake off" ripped off other formats, couldn't you?

It's hardly an original idea, a televised cookery competition.
mikw
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“There's no question of it being a "uniquely British curiosity" that wouldn't work elsewhere.”

Doesn't that depend on the national flavours the indivdual broadcasters come up with?
Cjwontv
15-09-2016
So,if another company had produced The Sewing Bee (or whatever name), it could have claimed it was a rip off of GBBO, even though in a building, no bunting, not to do with baking, but including the highly original method of removing the worst one every week until there's a final?
mikw
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“And nothing at all to do with how the BBC had soured the relationship with Love Productions by repeatedly ripping off their formats and antagonising them in other ways.

Right.”

Ironic, seeing as "bake off" is a cookery competition and not really very original.

It "ripped off" talent and cookery show formats.
Antbox
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“...which receives no licence fee money as you know.”

Apparently it receives programming from the BBC at a rate which is less than third parties would pay for it, which it then re-sells for a profit, only a small percentage of which is actually returned to the BBC.

That might not be receiving licence fee money directly, but it's certainly receiving the benefit of licence fee money in another form.
Antbox
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by mikw:
“You could argue that "bake off" ripped off other formats, couldn't you?”

A serious allegation which I am sure that you will immediately wish to withdraw. You are, after all, suggesting that BBC Worldwide is selling a stolen format.

Originally Posted by mikw:
“It's hardly an original idea, a televised cookery competition.”

200 countries around the world would seem to disagree with you. Surely you know that what makes up a format is rather more complicated and detailed than your overly broad mischaracterisation.
carl.waring
15-09-2016
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Yearly cost to the licence payer by the government using the licence fee to fund other projects and policies outside the BBC. £500 million. Rising to £1.1 billion each year by 2021 and £1.5 billion by the end of the next charter. By the end of the next charter each licence payer will have forked out nearly £500 to the government not one single minute of BBC content or services.”

Really? That is completely and utterly unacceptable. If I thought it would do any good I'd actually consider starting a petition against that. It's quite ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Apparently it receives programming from the BBC at a rate which is less than third parties would pay for it...”

Glad you put the BIB because they're not allowed to do that as they would be breaking anti-competition law if they did so. (Or something like that. I'm sure someone will clarify. David Flett maybe?)
CAMERA OBSCURA
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“A serious allegation which I am sure that you will immediately wish to withdraw. You are, after all, suggesting that BBC Worldwide is selling a stolen format.


200 countries around the world would seem to disagree with you. Surely you know that what makes up a format is rather more complicated and detailed than your overly broad mischaracterisation.”

The copyright will be for things like the name, the settings (within the context of a baking show) the names of the individual challenges, Star Baker and so on and so on. These are the things that are associated with Bake Off. It is these associated and unique things to the context of a competition other broadcasters are, in essence, buying.

If at the end of an episode Mel or Sue used the phrase 'Your Fired' in order to dismiss a contestant that would be infringing on copyright. The actual elimination process is standard for any competition. Of course, the phrase 'Your fired' has been in use forever in real life, yet in the context of a competition is where copyright comes in.

It wont be for the actual elimination process as, I'm sure you will agree, a competion that has a weekly elimination process over several weeks ending with a grand final is not the thing you can copyright.

And of course you can't copyright the idea of innuendo, judges or presenters.

Can you copyright a 'baking conte I very much doubt it.

Just as you cannot copyright middle aged blokes driving around in cars. You can copyright certain traits around that. The Stig, Star in a reasonably priced car, the cool wall and so on.

I would be interested to hear what you think Bake Off's 'IP' is?
Charnham
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“BBC Worldwide is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC.”

if you want to be taken seriously on this forum, please learn the differnce between BBC and BBCWW.
mikw
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“A serious allegation which I am sure that you will immediately wish to withdraw. You are, after all, suggesting that BBC Worldwide is selling a stolen format.”

Ha! Talk about a massively hyperbolic response.

It's a cookery competition! They've been done before, and it's got judges - that's been done before too.

If "Love" accuse the BBC of copycating with "Hair" then you can also say that "bake off" copied elements of programmes like the "X-factor" (itself just a updated "New faces") and "Ready Steady Cook" - couldn't you?

Quote:
“200 countries around the world would seem to disagree with you. Surely you know that what makes up a format is rather more complicated and detailed than your overly broad mischaracterisation.”

Garbage. They don't "disagree with me" at all. They've brought into a proven format, one which contains elements of shows from before.

Leave it out with the hyberbole.
CAMERA OBSCURA
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by mikw:
“Ha! Talk about a massively hyperbolic response.

It's a cookery competition! They've been done before, and it's got judges - that's been done before too.

If "Love" accuse the BBC of copycating with "Hair" then you can also say that "bake off" copied elements of programmes like the "X-factor" (itself just a updated "New faces") and "Ready Steady Cook" -”

ITV's 'Food Glorious Food', for example, was just about a blatant rip off from GBBO as there could possibly be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyGXaixgrmQ



There are so many elements from Bake Off in that clip alone. From the tent, the WI esque judge, the long walk to present the baked product to a judge, even the jolly incidental music.

Maybe ITV should sue Love Productions as they had Yorkshire puddings in this weeks Bake Off.

Yet, Love Productions got in a tizzy over the BBC's hair cutting competition. Strange behaviour from a production company wouldn't you say? Beyond being an elimination contest I can't for the life of me see on what grounds the copyright claims that were made. Unless LP think they invented elimination contests. Who knows?

Now, the cynic in me might suggest Love Productions have had a move away in mind for a few years. After all, you wouldn't want to take any possible future investor to court for a clear case of blatant copyright infringement. But that's just the Internet cynic in me
Jellied Eel
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Yearly cost to the licence payer by the government using the licence fee to fund other projects and policies outside the BBC. £500 million. Rising to £1.1 billion each year by 2021 and £1.5 billion by the end of the next charter.”

Yup. But such is politics. Some years ago, we had a thing called DSO. The licence fee was increased to pay for that and the money ring-fenced. DSO completed, but the licence fee was not reduced. Instead, the money was repurposed to pay for broadband and some other stuff. In addition, the Bbc has claimed to be making £600m or so in 'real cash savings'. Which means it needs less money.

Don't forget, the licence fee is not a Bbc subscription, so there should be no suprise that the tax gets used for other things.

So that aside.. The BO sale may also leave a hole in Bbc WW's finances, which means less money going back to subsidise the PSB.. Not that that has ever really happened, as evidenced by the Bbc's continuous demands for more money.
David_Flett1
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“As we say on Wikipedia: "Citation needed."”

An expected reply from you but I have noticed from past threads when I furnish you with the actual figures you never come back and dispute them. So just to help these figures based on the BBC Annual report, the BOE inflation target, the projections and calculations for Free over 75 licences taken from the House of Commons Library and the Office of National Statistics. But anyway here goes.

Current External Expenditure
World Service £261 million
Broadband £150 milllion
SC4 £42 million
Local TV £25 million
News Monitoring £25 million

Total £503 million


From 2017-2018 Broadband will be dropped saving £150 million but Free TV licences will be phased in 2018 - £163 million 2019 - £384 million 2020 - £631 million. Current liability and projections going forward for those being given Free Licences are taken from the House of Commons Library which takes into consideration not only those qualifying but the calculations used presently for the rebate to the BBC for Free Licences. Inflation is based on the Bank of England target of 2%.

Media reports put the value of Free Licences somewhere between £600 - £750 million, I think my figure of £631 million taken from the projections in the House of Commons library by 2020 when full implemtation of the Free Licences take hold is on the conservative side.

Perhaps you are sceptical about the figure but perhaps the figures in the BBC annual report are wrong. That the Bank of England target of 2% inflation is wrong or the projections for over 75's qualifying for the Free licences held in the House of Commons Library bearing in mind they are fairly much in line with media reports even though some over estimate the actual figure I have included. Perhaps we will suddenly reverse the trend in the number of people living older by 2021. Perthaps miraculously we will have negative inflation even in the face of Brexit. Perhaps the government will feel compassionate and let the Foreign Office take over the responsibility for the World Service and News Monitoring.

Currently the BBC receive £3.25 billion from the licence fee by 2028 it will rise to £3.43 billion. The cost of production has escalated in recent years with major drama doubling, figures of $6 million per episode for Game of Thrones was seen as fantasy figures but it is now becoming common place with run of the mill dramas costing £2 million per episode. We have seen what has happened to the GBBO, the BBC are now forced to use more of the independent sector which can only result in less control over selling rights around the world which at it;s worst case would reduce the amount that is fed back to the BBC from BBC Worldwide. We haven't even included wage increases for general staff or overhead costs such as rent and infrastructure.

Currently the BBC receive £127 from the licence payer by 2028 it wil rise by just £2 to £129. How much will SKY, BT, Virgin increase their subscriptions by? Over the last 2 years we have seen average increases of 8% Let's be conservative and say over the period to 2028 it is only 6% the basic entry package will rise from £20 to £43 probably enough to keep up with overhead and infrastructure costs, production, entertainment rights etc. But how much will broadband and phone charges rise to keep pace with sporting rights?
skp20040
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Apparently it receives programming from the BBC at a rate which is less than third parties would pay for it, which it then re-sells for a profit, only a small percentage of which is actually returned to the BBC.

That might not be receiving licence fee money directly, but it's certainly receiving the benefit of licence fee money in another form.”

Does BBC Worldwide pay the BBC for all programmes, I thought it's job was to identify markets and sell BBC products overseas etc and return the profits to the BBC and also set up income revenue streams itself in order to return money to the BBC.

The profits are here

https://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/
madmusician
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“Yup. Clarkson & Co's contracts were up for renewal not long after flogging Bedder 6 to the Bbc. The stars popped over to Amazon for some dosh leaving Aunty with an empty tent.. I mean hanger. This time, the vehicle's run away from the Bbc leaving the star's contracts up for renewal. C4 can potentially start off their run with a freshly baked team.”

I think that's a bit of a disingenuous reading of events. Had CHM actually decided to take the money and leave the Beeb when their contracts came up, then you'd have had a valid point. But no doubt the BBC thought that they'd sign on for another period, the show would continue to be a success and then they would work out in due course (and possibly with CHM's input) how to continue the franchise without them present, depending on the terms of departure.

What actually happened was that Clarkson had to go, following the incident, and the Beeb was landed with having to reboot Top Gear with little warning and with lots of public pressure, given the nature of Clarkson's departure. Had CHM just jumped ship to Amazon for the money, then the public, I would argue, would have been far more sympathetic to the new Top Gear. But, given the high-profile and controversial nature of Clarkson's departure, they were given little chance by the public.

I'm not arguing that there were many incorrect decisions made during the reboot of Top Gear. But you cannot simply state that the BBC 'bought the format and not the talent'. They bought the format. The talent were under contract. Clarkson punched a producer and we all know what happened next. It is not analogous to C4 purchasing the Bake Off format without getting the talent.

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“Both were top shows. Both lost their presenters. One failed miserably in it's new, improved version. Will C4's do the same? If it doesn't, what might that say about the abilities of the producers?”

GBBO is a *far* more tightly-formatted show than Top Gear. In Top Gear, it's all about the chemistry of the presenters, the make-up of the challenges and it is ideas-hungry. GBBO just needs to be casted well and then it runs itself, in terms of managing the format (obviously, the editing is top-notch and I am not disputing the producers' talent). I don't think it's fair to say that if GBBO is modestly successful for C4 then they are more successful than the BBC's Top Gear reboot. There were far more challenges on the Top Gear team than GBBO producers, whether the talent is a success or not.

But you knew that anyway.
Evil Genius
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jimez:
“First GBBO on C4 will be a "Celebrity" special............

Yeah, it's done. Being milked now.”

As long as that grade A knob Stephen Bear isn't on it...
Jellied Eel
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by madmusician:
“There were far more challenges on the Top Gear team than GBBO producers, whether the talent is a success or not.

But you knew that anyway.”

Yup. But my comments were addressed at some of the pro-Beebies who assumed TG would be just fine without Clarkson & Co. And now suggesting BO will fail miserably on C4 if the 'stars' don't go with it.. But there's hardly a shortage of celeb chefs to judge, or people to present. Hell, they may be able to get Greg Wallace, if he can squeeze his buns into the schedule..
Antbox
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“if you want to be taken seriously on this forum, please learn the differnce between BBC and BBCWW.”

Are you saying that BBC Worldwide is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC?

If so, can you let BBC Worldwide know, as they are certainly under the impression that this is the case.
Antbox
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“Current External Expenditure
World Service £261 million
Broadband £150 milllion
SC4 £42 million
Local TV £25 million
News Monitoring £25 million

Total £503 million”

Wait, World Service is a BBC service. That's not "money taken away from the BBC Licence Fee" any more than the £1.3 billion that the BBC spend on BBC One.

The funding of broadband has been dropped, as you mentioned. "SC4" is actually S4C, a valued Public Service Broadcasting service for Wales, which has always had the involvement of the BBC and fulfils BBC objectives in that it allows the BBC to discharge their obligation to make and/or broadcast Welsh-language programming, without having to actually broadcast it on the BBC's English-language channels.

News Monitoring is a discretionary activity. If the BBC wishes to monitor the news, that's the BBC using its own money as it sees fit, not "money taken away from the BBC licence fee". These days the BBC seems to monitor Twitter more closely than foreign broadcasts anyway.

Local TV? OK, possibly I will give you that one. I think the BBC could contribute to local TV in better ways, certainly. But in any case that figure is insignificantly small compared to the £4 billion licence fee income, and the intent is certainly 'public service', so hard to get too excited about it.

The "cost" of over-75s TV licences is not a cost at all - it's not a cost if you were never entitled to collect the money in the first place. The BBC themselves have publicly confirmed that the impact of the changes is cost neutral, so that's not "money taken away from the licence fee" either.
A.D.P
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Wait, World Service is a BBC service. That's not "money taken away from the BBC Licence Fee" any more than the £1.3 billion that the BBC spend on BBC One.

The funding of broadband has been dropped, as you mentioned. "SC4" is actually S4C, a valued Public Service Broadcasting service for Wales, which has always had the involvement of the BBC and fulfils BBC objectives in that it allows the BBC to discharge their obligation to make and/or broadcast Welsh-language programming, without having to actually broadcast it on the BBC's English-language channels.

News Monitoring is a discretionary activity. If the BBC wishes to monitor the news, that's the BBC using its own money as it sees fit, not "money taken away from the BBC licence fee". These days the BBC seems to monitor Twitter more closely than foreign broadcasts anyway.

Local TV? OK, possibly I will give you that one. I think the BBC could contribute to local TV in better ways, certainly. But in any case that figure is insignificantly small compared to the £4 billion licence fee income, and the intent is certainly 'public service', so hard to get too excited about it.

The "cost" of over-75s TV licences is not a cost at all - it's not a cost if you were never entitled to collect the money in the first place. The BBC themselves have publicly confirmed that the impact of the changes is cost neutral, so that's not "money taken away from the licence fee" either.”

World service your " incorrect" it was government funded until recently, they contribute a bit to expand the service, but increased costs added to the world service costs.

The governments so far have thought the WS does a fantastic job advertising the U.K. Around the world, and not to be confused with BBC worldwide which you appear to do so.
Antbox
16-09-2016
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“World service your " incorrect" it was government funded until recently, they contribute a bit to expand the service, but increased costs added to the world service costs.

The governments so far have thought the WS does a fantastic job advertising the U.K. Around the world, and not to be confused with BBC worldwide which you appear to do so.”

The BBC World Service increases the BBC's standing in this country and around the world. It fulfils many of the BBC's obligations under the Royal Charter, so even if the Government has historically paid for it in the past, it's just as valid for it to be funded by the BBC themselves. Arguably, it enhances the service's neutrality and underlines its independence from Government.

BBC Worldwide is nothing to do with BBC World Service, there is no confusion there whatsoever.
Artygill
16-09-2016
I have a question for all you clever people who seem to know a lot about broadcasting. Just how much input would the BBC have had in the formulation of Bake Off? Did LP just hand over a finished product or was it a collaboration with the BBC offering creative direction. Who chose the presenters, who did the styling, who came up with the location, etc.
I'd really like to know how it works.
<<
<
26 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