• 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
<<
<
31 of 89
>>
>
Antbox
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Their contracts had expired you don't get to stay without a contract, if they had left ITV or C4 mid contract for the BBC then one might say that was bad behaviour but they didn't.”

Indeed. Just as the BBC's contract with Love for GBBO had expired, and the BBC would not agree reasonable terms for a renewal. The BBC were failing to provide the investment in the show that is necessary for such a massively popular show to have the production resources it needs. Despite a full year of negotiations, the BBC would not budge from their massively misguided position that GBBO was a "factual" show and that - being factual - it would never be given as high a budget as the BBC gives to entertainment shows. Something which is in itself quite disgraceful and highlights how the supposed Public Service ethos of the BBC has been all but abandoned in favour of unchallenging, easy ratings-grabbing nonsense.

This is the real reason why those with vested interests are trying so hard to spin this discussion as being about 'loyalty' and 'greed' - to cover up the BBC's entirely broken system of management and its callous disregard of the value of, and failure to invest in, factual programming - the most important genre of programming and one which should be absolutely core to the BBC's values.

Remember, very little of that production budget is profit. If the BBC internally lobbied for a £10m a year increase in the money allocated to EastEnders, that money doesn't go in the producers' pockets - it gets spent on the shows and seen on the screen. The same applies to GBBO. To pretend that it's about "greed" is wilfully dishonest, and no less than would be expected of the posters on here who think the BBC can do no wrong. (It does a lot of good, true, but it has some serious problems as well.)

Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Are you aware of something I am not ? had Loves costs increased more than 200% of late ? the BBC offered a 200% increase Love turned it down as they wanted 400% , and have Love who are apparently just being loyal to their staff given a massive payrise to their staff due to this 400% increase ?”

It's a long-held view that the quality of the show "on the screen" is directly proportional to how much money is spent on it. Love Productions may well have thought that the BBC was limiting their show's success by refusing to invest adequately in it. To say nothing of the staff and talent who worked on the show. I would expect that Love probably had a real job on their hands having to explain to everyone who gave their all to the show that they'd continue to be paid a "tiny 2 million BBC2 show" fee for their work on the biggest show on BBC1 and British Television as a whole. There comes a point when you realise you're being taken for a ride.

Why was Mel (or was it Sue) actually already thinking about leaving the series anyway, before this all blew up? Because of long hours and a punishing production schedule - exactly what happens when production budgets are tight and the channel fails to invest in a show, and its staff.

So Kudos to Love for taking the risk and doing the right thing - no matter how much it may upset Ash personally.
eggchen
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“So you have chosen to pick me up on a typo...I'm not sure we have anything else to say to each other?

Back on topic...”

I think the poster has picked you up on your comically arrogant assertion that you right the wrongs shown by people with an anti-BBC bias, not your typo.
carl.waring
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“They chased the money. Big deal, that's what business does.”

True. But, again, ethics, public service, etc. As already discussed.

Quote:
“That's what the bbc did when they resurrected Dr Who, a celebrity version of Come Dancing, House Party, etc.”

Complete and utter nonsense.
carl.waring
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“"The Beeb’s factual department lost the show after reportedly refusing to cough up the £25million a year demanded by Bake Off makers Love Productions, and instead offered a comparatively paltry £15 million.

But as the corporation continues to lick its wounds over the huge loss, it’s now claimed that the BBC will chair an inquiry to discuss how they can avoid losing other hit shows in the future.

An insider told The Mirror: ‘BBC bosses are furious there was no joined-up thinking. All the departments run far too separately, with no cross-over. The entertainment department could have made up the difference for the factual section. Now there’s a full review to look at the whole system of departments.’

‘The public doesn’t care which one produces what show. They just want the best programmes from the BBC.’"


Sounds like the Beeb are coming around to the very point that Love were making from the beginning.”

BIB1. Not sure a 200% (?) increase can be considered "paltry" by any standard.
BIB2. I'm sure they could have but then you'd still have the likes of the Daily Wail (and, by logical extension, the Metro) bleating about "how can the BBC possibly justify paying that much for one programme", etc.
human nature
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“This is the real reason why those with vested interests are trying so hard to spin this discussion as being about 'loyalty' and 'greed' - to cover up the BBC's entirely broken system of management and its callous disregard of the value of, and failure to invest in, factual programming - the most important genre of programming and one which should be absolutely core to the BBC's values.

It's a long-held view that the quality of the show "on the screen" is directly proportional to how much money is spent on it. Love Productions may well have thought that the BBC was limiting their show's success by refusing to invest adequately in it. To say nothing of the staff and talent who worked on the show. I would expect that Love probably had a real job on their hands having to explain to everyone who gave their all to the show that they'd continue to be paid a "tiny 2 million BBC2 show" fee for their work on the biggest show on BBC1 and British Television as a whole. There comes a point when you realise you're being taken for a ride.

So Kudos to Love for taking the risk and doing the right thing - no matter how much it may upset Ash personally. ”

The bit in bold is exactly the stage the BBC had reached when they realised they couldn't renew the deal with Love Productions. A reasonable increase is fair. An increase of the scale proposed by LP was just greedy.
sat-ire
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“So you have chosen to pick me up on a typo...I'm not sure we have anything else to say to each other?

Back on topic...”

No I've chosen to pick you up on using a comedian's article to further your agenda; I am rightly putting you right

I'll keep reminding you of that for as long as you reply to me and ignore it.

Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I think the poster has picked you up on your comically arrogant assertion that you right the wrongs shown by people with an anti-BBC bias, not your typo.”

I think we've established he doesn't get subtlety. Stewart Lee will be smiling to himself if he's reading this thread
carl.waring
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Indeed. Just as the BBC's contract with Love for GBBO had expired, and the BBC would not agree reasonable terms for a renewal.”

A doubling of the fee paid for the show wasn't "reasonable"? By which definition?

Quote:
“The BBC were failing to provide the investment in the show that is necessary for such a massively popular show to have the production resources it needs.”

According to Love Productions. You (and I for that matter) don't actually know that for a fact. I'm not sure it does need any more "production resources". The show looks fine to me as it is. They wanted more money; plain and simple.

Quote:
“It's a long-held view that the quality of the show "on the screen" is directly proportional to how much money is spent on it. Love Productions may well have thought that the BBC was limiting their show's success by refusing to invest adequately in it.”

Well the show overall now gets something like 10m viewers per episode; and last year's finale was the most-watched show of the entire year. So I completely fail to see how (if you're right) they could possible think that.

Quote:
“To say nothing of the staff and talent who worked on the show. I would expect that Love probably had a real job on their hands having to explain to everyone who gave their all to the show that they'd continue to be paid a "tiny 2 million BBC2 show" fee for their work on the biggest show on BBC1 and British Television as a whole. There comes a point when you realise you're being taken for a ride.”

Which the BBC were happy to DOUBLE.

Quote:
“So Kudos to Love for taking the risk...”

Well if the BBC hadn't taken the initial risk, the show would have been dead in the water from day one.
Antbox
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“The bit in bold is exactly the stage the BBC had reached when they realised they couldn't renew the deal with Love Productions. A reasonable increase is fair. An increase of the scale proposed by LP was just greedy.”

Love Productions wanted to increase the visible quality of the show as seen on-screen and give it the production and staffing that it needed. The BBC didn't care about that.

Instead they let the relationship with Love Productions become increasingly antagonistic, and we know that at least one of the key members of talent on the show was seriously considering quitting due to the long hours. Exactly the kind of thing which could have been easily addressed by a proper programme budget in line with GBBO's meteoric rise to being the biggest show on British television.

More staff and more support for Britain's most-loved show. Who could disagree with that? Only the BBC. Because, after all, "it's only factual."
carl.waring
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Love Productions wanted to increase the visible quality of the show as seen on-screen and give it the production and staffing that it needed. The BBC didn't care about that.”

I would really love to know exactly what they meant by that because it sounds like nonsense to me. There's nothing wrong with the current production.

Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Instead they let the relationship with Love Productions become increasingly antagonistic, and we know that at least one of the key members of talent on the show was seriously considering quitting due to the long hours. Exactly the kind of thing which could have been easily addressed by a proper programme budget in line with GBBO's meteoric rise to being the biggest show on British television.”

TV show days can indeed be 12+ hours depending on the type of programme. In this context I assume that "proper programme budget" means "so we could offer to pay them more for the longer hours". Fine. A doubling of the budget wasn't enough? Seriously?
eggchen
18-09-2016
One of things that keeps being brought up is this apparent nurturing and risk that the BBC showed the show, which in the minds of some people gave the BBC some kind of ownership of it.

I see it comparable to a firm putting an employee through an apprenticeship, but then not paying the going rate when that employee comes out of his time and is proven to be really good at his job. It often happens too. Of course that employee is going to take a new job with another company for better money.
Antbox
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“I would really love to know exactly what they meant by that because it sounds like nonsense to me. There's nothing wrong with the current production.”

With respect, Carl, you're the man who said that a football game could be covered by a few blokes with some cameras.
carl.waring
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“With respect, Carl, you're the man who said that a football game could be covered by a few blokes with some cameras.”

As you know very well because I confirmed it the last time you tried to use this against me, I was joking to make a point when I posted that.

But yes, do keep bringing it up for no reason whatsoever.
Antbox
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“As you know very well because I confirmed it the last time you tried to use this against me, I was joking to make a point when I posted that.”

Not what you said at the time. But of no further relevance to this discussion unless you propose to make any more judgements on production quality and how that is achieved.
calico_pie
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Indeed. Just as the BBC's contract with Love for GBBO had expired, and the BBC would not agree reasonable terms for a renewal. The BBC were failing to provide the investment in the show that is necessary for such a massively popular show to have the production resources it needs.”

You've lost me. I thought the BBC offered £15m per year (up from around £6m a year currently).

Are you saying that that was not a reasonable offer?

Are you saying that the current series is somehow struggling with production resources, because the production company are only currently getting around £6m a year, when really it needs £25m a year to have decent production values?

I would be interested to hear more about what sort of production we could expect to see with this increase of around £19m a year (300%) increase....
calico_pie
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Love Productions wanted to increase the visible quality of the show as seen on-screen and give it the production and staffing that it needed. The BBC didn't care about that.

Instead they let the relationship with Love Productions become increasingly antagonistic, and we know that at least one of the key members of talent on the show was seriously considering quitting due to the long hours. Exactly the kind of thing which could have been easily addressed by a proper programme budget in line with GBBO's meteoric rise to being the biggest show on British television.

More staff and more support for Britain's most-loved show. Who could disagree with that? Only the BBC. Because, after all, "it's only factual."”

Except that their offer of £15m was a massive increase of more than 2x the current budget. I'm assuming that £15m would provide more support and staff than £6m.

I'm not sure I get how a bigger budget would reduce how long it takes to film.
ftv
19-09-2016
I'm not sure a 400% increase could be described as ''reasonable'', sounds more like greed.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Love Productions wanted to increase the visible quality of the show as seen on-screen and give it the production and staffing that it needed.”

Firstly, where is the evidence that this was the case?

Secondly, where was the visible quality lacking? Where was it evident that it needed a greater investment in production & staffing?

Perhaps this is Love Productions PR fighting back using any aregument that they ca.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Are you saying that the current series is somehow struggling with production resources, because the production company are only currently getting around £6m a year, when really it needs £25m a year to have decent production values?

I would be interested to hear more about what sort of production we could expect to see with this increase of around £19m a year (300%) increase....”

Quite.

GBBO is not X Factor, it does not ned a big studio, it does not rely upon or need SFX, snazzy lighting & visuals, big name guests etc. It's very ethos is a baking competition in a marquee in a field in some sleepy but pictiuresque village in days gone by.

And hasn't C4 already said that it will be unchanged?
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“I'm not sure I get how a bigger budget would reduce how long it takes to film.”

Anyway, isn't it filmed over successive weekends, allowing the bakers to continue with their Mon-Fri jobs/routines if necessary, and to practice their Showstoppers for the next week? And with two challenges on day 1, and the longer Showstopper on day 2. So I'm not sure how the filming time could be reduced without working the bakers longer hours.
snafu65
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I'm not sure a 400% increase could be described as ''reasonable'', sounds more like greed.”

Or just clever business if somebody is daft enough to pay it.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I'm not sure a 400% increase could be described as ''reasonable'', sounds more like greed.”

Yep, regardless as to where the money might have come from, £25 million per year is a massive amount of money for something that does not rely upon or need a massive production budget. No costumes, no intricate sets, no special effects, no big-name guests singing, no fancy camerawork needed. And, editing aside, probably very little in the way of post-production to be added (no intricate sound stage, no need to a 5.1 audio mix), no state of the art title sequences (that's not the ethos of the show).
ftv
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Firstly, where is the evidence that this was the case?

Secondly, where was the visible quality lacking? Where was it evident that it needed a greater investment in production & staffing?

Perhaps this is Love Productions PR fighting back using any aregument that they ca.”

Love Productions wanted to make more money by marketing products endorsed by the show but BBC rules prevented it.Presumably C4 won't have the same problem.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“Love Productions wanted to make more money by marketing products endorsed by the show but BBC rules prevented it.Presumably C4 won't have the same problem.”

So, in that respect, even if the BBC had matched C4's offer and found the extra £10 million from another budget, the C4 offering (allowing for the sponsorship deals) would still have been more attractive.

Mind you, with LP having worked closely with the BBC for 7 years or so, I would be surprised that LP were blissfully unaware of the advertising & sponsorship restrictions taht are placed upon the BBC, restrictions that have been in place for many years prior to BO ever being aired.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Yep, regardless as to where the money might have come from, £25 million per year is a massive amount of money for something that does not rely upon or need a massive production budget. No costumes, no intricate sets, no special effects, no big-name guests singing, no fancy camerawork needed. And, editing aside, probably very little in the way of post-production to be added (no intricate sound stage, no need to a 5.1 audio mix), no state of the art title sequences (that's not the ethos of the show).”

Value is based on demand, not the cost of production. I'm sure it doesn't cost Apple £600+ or whatever they retail at to make their iphones, but demand means that's what they can charge for them. It's pretty simple really. The amount Love Productions asked for was because they knew they had THE most watched show of 2015 on their hands, which has (or at least had) a significant value attached to it for broadcasters.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Value is based on demand, not production.”

I was, in part, replying to earlier claims that LP needed more money for better production.

And yes, it's the free market in operation, which in this instance means taht the BBC could never have offered sufficient, they would always have been trumped by a commercial broadcaster who could offer more money and more advertising opportunities.

But sometimes, as with Apple, market forces don't always work in favour of the consumer (especially where the end result is an over-priced product)
<<
<
31 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