• 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
<<
<
32 of 89
>>
>
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“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)”

Well, despite all the teeth-gnashing about adverts and the like, those who do want to give Bake Off a chance on Channel 4 can still do so for free, which wouldn't have been the case had the show been sold to a subscription based network.
Straker
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Well, despite all the teeth-gnashing about adverts and the like, those who do want to give Bake Off a chance on Channel 4 can still do so for free, which wouldn't have been the case had the show been sold to a subscription based network.”

That was never really on the cards. LP used Netflix to establish the high price that it knew the BBC wasn't able (or willing) to meet and that became the target amount they shopped around to ITV and C4. ITV had the business sense to realise the show was the foursome and passed (otherwise I am sure LP would've opted for them) leaving only C4 as the broadcaster with enough reach and potential to give it the exposure LP wanted. That the format owners had the astonishing good fortune to be dealing with Jay Hunt, a woman whose entire career seems to be defined by idiotic decisions and personal grievances will go down in the annals of television as one of the great pieces of good business luck. They must've been astonished when they realised she was willing to pay the price for just the format that others were only willing to pay if the key talent was attached. Whatever else we may think of LP that is quite an amazing achievement and shows just how motivated Hunt is by her demons.

It was never going to Sky or even Amazon because LP knows the power of the programme now is in getting vast numbers watching and talking about it and that's still not possible at this time when you move away from traditional broadcasters/networks.
Eadfrith
19-09-2016
They were making Yorkshire Puddings and the most basic looking pancakes ever last week.... the ingredients couldn't have cost more than £5 between the lot of them, someones going to get very rich from this deal lol
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“That was never really on the cards. LP used Netflix to establish the high price that it knew the BBC wasn't able (or willing) to meet and that became the target amount they shopped around to ITV and C4. ITV had the business sense to realise the show was the foursome and passed (otherwise I am sure LP would've opted for them) leaving only C4 as the broadcaster with enough reach and potential to give it the exposure LP wanted. That the format owners had the astonishing good fortune to be dealing with Jay Hunt, a woman whose entire career seems to be defined by idiotic decisions and personal grievances will go down in the annals of television as one of the great pieces of good business luck. They must've been astonished when they realised she was willing to pay the price for just the format that others were only willing to pay if the key talent was attached. Whatever else we may think of LP that is quite an amazing achievement and shows just how motivated Hunt is by her demons.

It was never going to Sky or even Amazon because LP knows the power of the programme now is in getting vast numbers watching and talking about it and that's still not possible at this time when you move away from traditional broadcasters/networks.”

Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood are yet to declare aren't they? I think they might just be swayed by a big money offer. The other two can easily be replaced. All of them could to be fair.

It's refreshing to hear somebody talking about good business luck rather than the usual "greed" on the part of Love Productions. I would agree on that front.
Straker
19-09-2016
£350k is a huge amount of money per year to you and me but I thought they'd be on something similar already. If reports are to be believed then C4's offer amounts to a £100k increase which seems on the low side when millions are in the air for just the format. Add in the businesses P&M already have and I wouldn't have thought that would be enough, particularly when they'd be going there without their bezzie mates Mel & Sue.

If the Beeb can match and better the C4 money (which they can) and lock-in a series of shows for each of them and one with all four back together I just can't see why they would think going to C4 to perpetuate a now tarnished brand was the better option.
lundavra
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.”

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.”

There was an article recently (before Love Productions got greedy) about the background staff involved in the programme. It is hard to imagine what more was needed, there are a surprising number of people working behind the scenes. There was nothing to suggest that they needed more.

It could be argued perhaps that the programme could be produced better in a studio as with Masterchef but I doubt whether they would want to lose marquee as if is almost a trademark of the programme even if it does have disadvantages.

I am sure that if Love had made specific proposals to the BBC on ways to improve the programme (at a cost) then they would have said so.
snafu65
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood are yet to declare aren't they? I think they might just be swayed by a big money offer. The other two can easily be replaced. All of them could to be fair.

It's refreshing to hear somebody talking about good business luck rather than the usual "greed" on the part of Love Productions. I would agree on that front.”

Pure conjecture but the fact they haven't already ruled themselves out of moving with the show to Channel 4 would suggest they are seriously considering it at least.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“£350k is a huge amount of money per year to you and me but I thought they'd be on something similar already. If reports are to be believed then C4's offer amounts to a £100k increase which seems on the low side when millions are in the air for just the format. Add in the businesses P&M already have and I wouldn't have thought that would be enough, particularly when they'd be going there without their bezzie mates Mel & Sue.

If the Beeb can match and better the C4 money (which they can) and lock-in a series of shows for each of them and one with all four back together I just can't see why they would think going to C4 to perpetuate a now tarnished brand was the better option.”

There are rumours of C4 offering them up to a million quid to stay with the show, but I don't know how true that is. Nice position for them both to be in, I must say.

EDIT: I see you have addressed that with the £350k a year figure.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Currently, Love Productions hire a marquee, a field and kitchen equipment. They pay the production crew and overheads the going rate. They buy the ingredients. They pay the presenters a reasonable amount and only have the hotel and travelling expenses of the contestants - so cheap to produce.

Jay Hunt says it will stay the same, but there will be adverts, product placement and sponsorship. At least two of the presenters will be different. So by no stretch of the imagination can it be said to be the same.

Love Productions say they want to "develop" the programme. That also means changing it. So definitely won't stay the same.

Viewing figures for the BBC have been built up over the series. For a variety of reasons, they won't be as high on Channel 4 - disgust on the part of some viewers at what has happened, interrupted viewing by adverts or having to ff through them, not liking the new presenters, clash with another popular programme (which the BBC is bound to do if it has any sense), e.t.c.

I predict it won't last beyond the three year contract (if that long) with viewer numbers declining rapidly.

Channel 4 and Love Productions will quickly realise what a hug mistake they've made.
lundavra
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.”

It can create problems though. If they are sponsored by a company or have Product Placement then there could be restrictions on using other companies' products. Perhaps end up like American programmes where ever brand name, even unconnected to advertising, has tape over it.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“For a variety of reasons, they won't be as high on Channel 4 - disgust on the part of some viewers at what has happened...”

There will only be one of those, Ash_M1
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Well, despite all the teeth-gnashing about adverts and the like, those who do want to give Bake Off a chance on Channel 4 can still do so for free, which wouldn't have been the case had the show been sold to a subscription based network.”

But, as the many comments in this thread have repeatedly said, it's the ad breaks, the likely reduction in programme content over the hour, the sponsorship which will undoubtedly come, and the change of presenters (and maybe judges) that will change the whole look, feel and pace of the show so that it will not be Bake Off as we know and love But I suspect that you were already aware of that.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“There will only be one of those, Ash_M1”

So you're unaware of what some very well-known names involved in the TV industry and other industries, including some very successful businessmen, have said then?
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“But, as the many comments in this thread have repeatedly said, it's the ad breaks, the likely reduction in programme content over the hour, the sponsorship which will undoubtedly come, and the change of presenters (and maybe judges) that will change the whole look, feel and pace of the show so that it will not be Bake Off as we know and love But I suspect that you were already aware of that.”

Maybe give it a chance before running it down? That's what I did with the last series of Top Gear, no matter how sad I was that the show I was familiar with was over.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“So you're unaware of what some very well-known names involved in the TV industry and other industries, including some very successful businessmen, have said then?”

I am aware. PS - would those celebrities and businessmen be the guy from Strictly and Alan Sugar, those long standing BBC affiliates then?

Any response on the "moral" issue?
sat-ire
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“There will only be one of those, Ash_M1”

That's obviously faux-outrage; he doesn't even know the two presenters' names

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“An interesting article from the Guardian today:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ck-stewart-lee

The following is of particular note:
"...But in refusing to follow The Great British Bake Off to Channel 4, the comedians Mel Perkins and Sue Giedroyc have shown that they are the beating heart of this delightful show which I have never watched. For Mel and Sue have done something no one does any more. They have taken a stand for something they believe in..."
The Guardian”

eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“That's obviously faux-outrage; he doesn't even know the two presenters' names ”

Typical.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Maybe give it a chance before running it down? That's what I did with the last series of Top Gear, no matter how sad I was that the show I was familiar with was over.”

Logic would dictate that it would not be the same programme (especially without Mel & Sue, and yes, you can see the difference that they make when you watch the more sterile presentations from others on the Comic/Sport Relief versions). The reasons have been discussed many times previously.

I will not be watching what will be a different (and inferior) programme.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I am aware. PS - would those celebrities and businessmen be the guy from Strictly and Alan Sugar, those long standing BBC affiliates then?

Any response on the "moral" issue?”

I think you're being deliberately dense on this. But here goes with another simple explanation.

If you say you're going to do something, you do it. Morally and ethically, that's what you do.

Mel and Sue have said they are leaving and they have left.

Clear now?
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“I think you're being deliberately dense on this. But here goes with another simple explanation.

If you say you're going to do something, you do it. Morally and ethically, that's what you do.

Mel and Sue have said they are leaving and they have left.

Clear now?”

And I am asking you again, because you are being equally dense. If they decided on reflection that the money offered to them was too good to pass, why would that be some kind of moral or ethical issue, rather than them simply changing their minds because of a great opportunity?

You have weaved ethics and morality into a simple case of them saying they don't want to be part of the new show, and I am saying that this is bunkum, and would be bunkum even if they ultimately went to C4

Clear now?
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Logic would dictate that it would not be the same programme (especially without Mel & Sue, and yes, you can see the difference that they make when you watch the more sterile presentations from others on the Comic/Sport Relief versions). The reasons have been discussed many times previously.

I will not be watching what will be a different (and inferior) programme.”

It might actually be better, depending on who presents it you know? I thought Matt Le Blanc would be a hideous addition to Top Gear, being dumb Joey from friends and all, and a Yank invading our British programme. You know what, he turned out to be the best thing about last season's show. He was dry, witty and a great addition.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“And I am asking you again, because you are being equally dense. If they decided on reflection that the money offered to them was too good to pass, why would that be some kind of moral or ethical issue, rather than them simply changing their minds because of a great opportunity?

You have weaved ethics and morality into a simple case of them saying they don't want to be part of the new show, and I am saying that this is bunkum, and would be bunkum even if they ultimately went to C4

Clear now?”

They said it should stay with the BBC. So if they changed their minds because of money they would be wrong by my standards.

In my working life, three times I have decided to do the right thing and leave.

Once when I was being paid to do absolutely nothing - wrong.

Once when an issue arose with a member of staff that hit the headlines and colleagues were talking to the press. A personal matter and nothing to do with them, so again wrong. If I say something about someone behind their back, I then say it directly to them.

Once when I had agreed to do something over a three year period but was then offered a huge amount to do something short term instead. I declined. I;d already committed to the three year deal.

You might think I was being stupid, but I have standards and in each case something better came about because I stuck to my principles and did what I said I would rather than change my mind and go for the immediate money.


And included in those who have condemned what has happened (among others) are Mammoth Productions (Poldark and Victoria) and Endemol Shine (various rogrammes).
Straker
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“And included in those who have condemned what has happened (among others) are Mammoth Productions (Poldark and Victoria) and Endemol Shine (various rogrammes).”

And now Stephen "Dr Who" Moffat, whose Hartswood Films company produces Sherlock for the Beeb.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“They said it should stay with the BBC. So if they changed their minds because of money they would be wrong by my standards.”

It would not be wrong, bad, immoral, unethical, treacherous, unprofessional or anything else to reconsider an offer of work with a rival and then go on to accept it, by anybody's standards. People move jobs all the time, particularly for better money. That is why I called you on it, and the examples you have given reflecting your own circumstances are irrelevant.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“It might actually be better, depending on who presents it you know?”

Considering that I have followed the series from its inception, and that the ingredients (sorry) are well known and make the programme what it is, it could only hope to be a pale imitation of what I (and many others) enjoy.

Quote:
“ I thought Matt Le Blanc would be a hideous addition to Top Gear, being dumb Joey from friends and all, and a Yank invading our British programme. You know what, he turned out to be the best thing about last season's show. He was dry, witty and a great addition.”

And I found him wooden, lacking any real presence, and out of place.

Yes, I have my Amazon Prime subscription ready for the real Top Gear in November.
<<
<
32 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