• 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
<<
<
33 of 89
>>
>
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“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.”

You live by your standards and I'll continue to live my mine. Then I at least will be continue to be happy.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“You live by your standards and I'll continue to live my mine. Then I at least will be continue to be happy.”

You don't sound very happy Janet, in fact you sound rather angry all the time.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“You don't sound very happy Janet, in fact you sound rather angry all the time. ”

The only thing I get angry about is the lack of standards of some people nowadays. As I said you live by your standards with its lies and backstabbing and lack of morality, and I'll live very happily by mine. Fortunately all of my friends live by the same standards as I do and we probably have a much funnier, peaceful and friendlier life than you.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“The only thing I get angry about is the lack of standards of some people nowadays. As I said you live by your standards with its lies and backstabbing and lack of morality, and I'll live very happily by mine. Fortunately all of my friends live by the same standards as I do and we probably have a much funnier, peaceful and friendlier life than you.”

But why would either presenter (or judge) coming out and saying "We've had a great offer from Channel 4, and despite what we said earlier, we WILL be in fact back on your screens hosting Bake Off next year" be any kind of backstabbing or immorality or lack of standards?. It's nonsense and you know it. Their reasons for quitting are their own, and good luck to them, but I wouldn't knock them if they changed their minds and went to Channel 4 either.

PS - As said previously, you know nothing about me so I wouldn't assume anything.
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."”

Can you expand on "increase the visible quality of the show as seen on-screen"?

I'd be interested to hear:

a. specifically in what areas the "on screen visible quality" could be improved.

and

b. why an increase from £6m a year to £15m a year still wasn't enough to sufficiently increase the "on screen visible quality" to a satisfactory level.
calico_pie
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“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.”

Absolutely - I have no problem with that. At least its the honest answer, rather than all this waffle about how the money was needed to drag the production out if the dark ages.

I guess people are just a bit disappointed that the production company appears a little greedy, and has jumped ship from the BBC, which did a pretty great job in nurturing the show and playing a big part in making it the success it now is.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Absolutely - I have no problem with that. At least its the honest answer, rather than all this waffle about how the money was needed to drag the production out if the dark ages.

I guess people are just a bit disappointed that the production company appears a little greedy, and has jumped ship from the BBC, which did a pretty great job in nurturing the show and playing a big part in making it the success it now is.”

I think perhaps the BBC are now starting to ask questions of themselves as to just how they managed to lose it, especially as it turns out that they could have got the money from another department to pay for it. People are saying "Good for the BBC, glad they didn't pay it" but I don't think the BBC are saying "Yeah, good for us..."

The cost could have been offset by the fact that for the last three years, the BBC had what became the most watched UK show for relative peanuts!
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I think perhaps the BBC are now starting to ask questions of themselves as to just how they managed to lose it, especially as it turns out that they could have got the money from another department to pay for it. People are saying "Good for the BBC, glad they didn't pay it" but I don't think the BBC are saying "Yeah, good for us..."”

Or so some might want you to believe (as it might suit the narrative). It might also be the case that the BBC are holding an inquest to see where things went wrong and if lessons could be learned in future negotiations. That in itself does NOT indicate that there is any self-doubt.

As I have said elsewhere (maybe even in this thread), of course the BBC could have found the money, but there would have been the issue of value to the LF-payer. £25million is nearly half the annual savings of closing BBC Three as a broadcast channel, and how such a spend would have played out in the knowledge that the BBC was under close scrutiny, and that many parts of the media would have seized upon such profligate expenditure as evidence of the BBC's extravagance at the expense of other LF-payers or programme genres.


Quote:
“The cost could have been offset by the fact that for the last three years, the BBC had what became the most watched UK show for relative peanuts!”

How is that an offset? The BBC agreed a price with LP, and I presume that there were no strong-arm tactics involved. At the time no-one could have foreseen that the show would grow even bigger. The BBC paid the agreed price out of its allocated budgets at the time, with nothing back-loaded.

To suggest that it's now the equivalent of a delayed payment is, quite frankly, laughable.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“How is that an offset? The BBC agreed a price with LP, and I presume that there were no strong-arm tactics involved. At the time no-one could have foreseen that the show would grow even bigger. The BBC paid the agreed price out of its allocated budgets at the time, with nothing back-loaded.

To suggest that it's now the equivalent of a delayed payment is, quite frankly, laughable.”

I haven't suggested anything about a delayed payment or strong-arm tactics. You're right, the BBC couldn't have foreseen how huge the show would become, but there is no escaping the fact that in 2015 at least, they were airing the most watched show in the UK for a relative cost of peanuts. The BBC were winners in that respect. To have to stump up a hiked fee due to its now meteoric rise in popularity should have been less painful due to that fact.
calico_pie
19-09-2016
The did offer a hiked up fee though. £6m > £15m.

Some would probably have been happy with a 2.5x increase, greater likelihood of retaining the existing presenters, greater likelihood of retaining more of the loyal audience, and some satisfaction from remaining loyal to the broadcaster that had supported and nurtured the show from the start.

If the producers felt that a 2.5x increase wasn't enough, and were prepared to forego the other factors, then that's entirely their right of course. They just haven't come put of it looking that good IMO.
Eadfrith
19-09-2016
Mary and Paul will go to CH4 in my opinion.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I haven't suggested anything about a delayed payment or strong-arm tactics.”

Well, that's what was implied (without any strong-arm tactics) when you said

Quote:
“The cost could have been offset by the fact that for the last three years, the BBC had what became the most watched UK show for relative peanuts!”


Quote:
“You're right, the BBC couldn't have foreseen how huge the show would become, but there is no escaping the fact that in 2015 at least, they were airing the most watched show in the UK for a relative cost of peanuts. The BBC were winners in that respect. To have to stump up a hiked fee due to its now meteoric rise in popularity should have been less painful due to that fact.”

The BBC expected to pay more - they had doubled their offer. But hiked up to £25 million? That's bordering on extortionate (especially when LP were already at an advanced stage with Channel 4, so advanced that they could jump into a taxi and sew up the £25 million deal within a couple of hours)
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Well, that's what was implied (without any strong-arm tactics) when you said”

It doesn't imply that at all, so I'm not sure where you have derived that thought from. I was simply pointing out that the BBC have done very well out of 2014, 2015 and 2016's run of Bake Off, because they paid relatively little for what then became the UK's most watched programme. They should have perhaps factored that thought in and paid Love's requested fee for the rights to screen in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“The BBC expected to pay more - they had doubled their offer. But hiked up to £25 million? That's bordering on extortionate.”

£25m a year for the UK's most watched TV show is a steal.
Ash_M1
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“It doesn't imply that at all, so I'm not sure where you have derived that thought from. I was simply pointing out that the BBC have done very well out of 2014, 2015 and 2016's run of Bake Off, because they paid relatively little for what then became the UK's most watched programme. They should have perhaps factored that thought in and paid Love's requested fee for the rights to screen in 2017, 2018 and 2019.



£25m a year for the UK's most watched TV show is a steal.”

...or Love should have realised and respected the BBC (as a public service), the viewers and the presenters (who all wanted the show to remain on the Beeb) and accepted the very generous offer made by the Beeb. Love, behaving as they have, have cut off their nose to spite their face whilst upsetting the viewers, the BBC and the presenting team in the process. Well done Love. You have killed off the goose that's laid the golden egg.

I would like to see Love justify that fee (£25 million). Where are all those millions going? Come on Love, explain all.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“...or Love should have realised and respected the BBC (as a public service), the viewers and the presenters (who all wanted the show to remain on the Beeb) and accepted the very generous offer made by the Beeb. Love, behaving as they have, have cut off their nose to spite their face whilst upsetting the viewers, the BBC and the presenting team in the process. Well done Love. You have killed off the goose that's laid the golden egg.

I would like to see Love justify that fee (£25 million). Where are all those millions going? Come on Love, explain all.”

Why should they "respect" the BBC? They are a commercial production company whose remit is to make products that make money. You have to wake up and realise that the world doesn't revolve around the BBC, and commercial interests won't always align with your bizarre subservience to our public service broadcaster.

They don't have to justify where the millions are going. £25m is what they believed the rights were worth, and Channel 4 has paid it. Whether that proves to be a mistake remains to be seen.
amelia99
19-09-2016
Just reading that Steven Moffatt of Hartswood productions which makes "Sherlock" said the BBC was right to let Bake Off go as it shouldn't reward greed. Interesting given "Sherlock" won yet another Emmy last night and is also an enormously successful independently produced BBC show at home and internationaly. Last week the Poldark production company said something similar.

Seems like Love Productions aren't getting much love from their Independent Producer peers.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by amelia99:
“Just reading that Steven Moffatt of Hartswood productions which makes "Sherlock" said the BBC was right to let Bake Off go as it shouldn't reward greed. Interesting given "Sherlock" won yet another Emmy last night and is also an enormously successful independently produced BBC show at home and internationaly. Last week the Poldark production company said something similar.

Seems like Love Productions aren't getting much love from their Independent Producer peers.”

They would change their tune if the money was on the table.
Ash_M1
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Why should they "respect" the BBC? They are a commercial production company whose remit is to make products that make money. You have to wake up and realise that the world doesn't revolve around the BBC, and commercial interests won't always align with your bizarre subservience to our public service broadcaster.

They don't have to justify where the millions are going. £25m is what they believed the rights were worth, and Channel 4 has paid it. Whether that proves to be a mistake remains to be seen.”

...because they are the broadcaster which gave them the break. Without the BBC, there would have been no Bake Off and no £25 million for Love now. Love have forgotten their roots, have ignored the viewers, betrayed the BBC and sold out. They have put profits before people...and the people (and the BBC) won't forgive them for this. They deserve no further contracts with the BBC as our money is clearly no longer good enough for them.

If they are to address the charges of greed rightly levelled at them currently, they need to be open and transparent. They need to justify that 25 million and explain where that money is going. If they have nothing to hide...
Ash_M1
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by amelia99:
“Just reading that Steven Moffatt of Hartswood productions which makes "Sherlock" said the BBC was right to let Bake Off go as it shouldn't reward greed. Interesting given "Sherlock" won yet another Emmy last night and is also an enormously successful independently produced BBC show at home and internationaly. Last week the Poldark production company said something similar.

Seems like Love Productions aren't getting much love from their Independent Producer peers.”

Yes I read that Steven Moffatt article as well. They obviously feel tarnished by Love's behaviour and are doing all that they can to distance themselves from them. There is no doubt, trust between broadcaster and indie has been damaged by Love's actions. I wouldn't blame the broadcasters playing hard ball with the indies going forward.
sat-ire
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“...because they are the broadcaster which gave them the break. Without the BBC, there would have been no Bake Off and no £25 million for Love now. Love have forgotten their roots, have ignored the viewers, betrayed the BBC and sold out. They have put profits before people...and the people (and the BBC) won't forgive them for this. They deserve no further contracts with the BBC as our money is clearly no longer good enough for them.

If they are to address the charges of greed rightly levelled at them currently, they need to be open and transparent. They need to justify that 25 million and explain where that money is going. If they have nothing to hide...”

Is there any chance that you can accept that we now know your stated position on this and stop posting the same thing over and over? And over and over? And over and over?

The only time you appear to have deviated was to quote a comedian's opinion piece from a newspaper, and you got the tone of that dreadfully wrong.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“...because they are the broadcaster which gave them the break. Without the BBC, there would have been no Bake Off and no £25 million for Love now. Love have forgotten their roots, have ignored the viewers, betrayed the BBC and sold out. They have put profits before people...and the people (and the BBC) won't forgive them for this. They deserve no further contracts with the BBC as our money is clearly no longer good enough for them.

If they are to address the charges of greed rightly levelled at them currently, they need to be open and transparent. They need to justify that 25 million and explain where that money is going. If they have nothing to hide...”

Ha ha ha ha - there it is - "betrayed the BBC"

You're funny.

Do you deconstruct every product you buy into its individual components, price each accordingly and work out how much you think you should have paid for it, then ring said supplier with demands to justify how much you were charged for it as a whole?
sat-ire
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Ha ha ha ha - there it is - "betrayed the BBC"

You're funny.”

He's rightly putting you right.
Ash_M1
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Ha ha ha ha - there it is - "betrayed the BBC"

You're funny.”

They betrayed the BBC, they betrayed the presenting team and they betrayed the loyal viewers. Love have shown the ugly side of the private sector this week. Not pretty. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“He's rightly putting you right.”

No doubt, due to my anti-BBC bias making me automatically on the wrong side.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“They betrayed the BBC, they betrayed the presenting team and they betrayed the loyal viewers. Love have shown the ugly side of the private sector this week. Not pretty. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.”

You haven't "betrayed" a company you do business with simply by taking your product elsewhere if they can't meet your asking price, don't talk nonsense.

How old are you, because you have a very, very blinkered view of the world.
<<
<
33 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