• 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
<<
<
35 of 89
>>
>
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“It is certainly premium entertainment if it is the most watched show in the UK I would argue. No wonder Love wanted the premium rate then.”

It does not satisfy the caveat: "e.g. Saturday night entertainment shows on BBC One or one-off specials. Key price drivers will be high studio or location costs and format fees".

And certainly not this:

"The price the BBC is prepared to pay for a programme will be determined by reference to a number of factors including the estimated production budget, the expected level of upfront third party investment or other sources of funding, and will be inclusive of any development funding paid by the BBC. "

Being "the most watched" isn't (and shouldn't be) a blank cheque as far as the BBC is concerned (for reasons already discussed, repeated and repeated yet again).
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by ianradioian:
“Does it really matter to its fans? They'll watch it whatever channel it's on; it's no hardship whether you press button 1 or button 4 on the tvs remote is it? It'll still get millions of viewers, and I'll wager the presenters will be on it, or most of them.”

It has been pointed out many times in this and other threads - it is NOT about button presses, it's about the ads, the fact that the programme will have to be shorter to cater for them, it's about the lack of Sue & Mel (reasons already highlighted), it's about the breaking up of the foursome (again, already highlighted), it's about sponsorship & Product Placement destroying the ethos and feel of the programme (again, already highlighted). It's about the whole feel of the programme being different when all of that is taken into consideration.

I'm an avid viewer and I will not be watching.
mossy2103
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Tuvok:
“What a lot of fuss.

"It won't work with ou Mel and Sue" - well the Junior Bake Off and Sport Relief versions don't have them.

Paul an Mary are not on the Junior version.”

And it showed to their detriment (and to the detriment of the viewing figures too) - the programmes were a pale imitation, and demonstrates why the Mel, Sue, Paul & Mary combo was so important.
Mark.
19-09-2016
I've not watched any of the repeats on Good Food, but I think I'll set one to record in the near future, just to see what it's like with ads.

If there's no noticeable difference in quality (elapsed time since first broadcast notwithstanding) then I'll feel more comfortable about the move to C4, especially if Paul Hollywood is on board.
skp20040
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by ianradioian:
“Does it really matter to its fans? They'll watch it whatever channel it's on; it's no hardship whether you press button 1 or button 4 on the tvs remote is it? It'll still get millions of viewers, and I'll wager the presenters will be on it, or most of them.
You can't blame the production company for wanting a good sale. The Bbc bought it in; now channel 4 has.”

That will very much depend on what happens to the show and who presents it , can it work without the current team, probably but they will have to choose a new team very carefully and if they have to change the whole team they should not make any other changes just yet as the show is the whole package and too many changes at once will lose them viewers.
Janet43
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“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.”

Well you do know about me because I actually told the truth in my public profile, unlike you who have admitted that you didn't.

In any case what you think about what's happened (and you've certainly expressed your views over and over and over and over again) doesn't actually matter. In fact it's totally irrelevant and no-one who is actually involved will take note of it or any other view expressed on this forum, and you won't bully posters into changing their view to agree with you..

The only people who matter about whether what Love Productions and Channel 4 have done is right or not are the TV channels and the TV production industry, who know more about it than you or I do. And they've come down firmly on the side of it being wrong as other independent production companies have already said (and I'm sure they're bothered that you disagree with them), and a game changer as far as channels tying down production companies for the life of a programme is concerned, a view which I and many others on this forum do agree with, although the industry isn't bothered about our views either.
sat-ire
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“It has been pointed out many times in this and other threads - it is NOT about button presses, it's about the ads, the fact that the programme will have to be shorter to cater for them, it's about the lack of Sue & Mel (reasons already highlighted), it's about the breaking up of the foursome (again, already highlighted), it's about sponsorship & Product Placement destroying the ethos and feel of the programme (again, already highlighted). It's about the whole feel of the programme being different when all of that is taken into consideration.

I'm an avid viewer and I will not be watching.”

It's been repeated a few times around these parts but has the BiB been confirmed anywhere?
Straker
19-09-2016
I'm sure it'll run 75 or 90 minutes on C4 which will just make it even more unbearable as it means more ad breaks, more sponsor bumpers, more fake jeopardy/melodrama, more "coming-up" and more "before the break" summaries and more of whichever C4 pet gimps they get to replace the irreplaceable M&S.
Tuvok
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“I've never watched the Junior one for that reason and I find the Sport Relief ones are substandard as the celebs don't really care or take it seriously for the most part so it's all a bit pointless. Like most people I suspect, I watch the main one because the mix of all the ingredients are pitch-perfect.”

Try the junior one - the contestants are just as dramatic as the adults.

The only thing about the junior one is the "have you all washed your hands" to which the kids wave their hands!
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“Well you do know about me because I actually told the truth in my public profile, unlike you who have admitted that you didn't.

In any case what you think about what's happened (and you've certainly expressed your views over and over and over and over again) doesn't actually matter. In fact it's totally irrelevant and no-one who is actually involved will take note of it or any other view expressed on this forum, and you won't bully posters into changing their view to agree with you..

The only people who matter about whether what Love Productions and Channel 4 have done is right or not are the TV channels and the TV production industry, who know more about it than you or I do. And they've come down firmly on the side of it being wrong as other independent production companies have already said (and I'm sure they're bothered that you disagree with them), and a game changer as far as channels tying down production companies for the life of a programme is concerned, a view which I and many others on this forum do agree with, although the industry isn't bothered about our views either.”

Janet you shouldn't use anybody not wanting to reveal their real details on a normally anonymous, Internet message board as any kind of slight on their character. We all make our points over and over again, but you're right, it's all pointless in the end. In fact, what are we even doing here? I don't know.
Antbox
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..."

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!”

Exactly that. 100%.
mikw
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“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.”

Well, i think a customer CAN feel betrayed on occassions - so i don't think it's "nonsense" in every case.

No commercial broadcaster took up "Bake Off" - the BBC did, so i think they will feel a bit betrayed.

I find the notion of because vast sums of money are involved it cannot be a betrayal rather odd.
carl.waring
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Not what you said at the time.”

Because I assumed it was obvious.

Quote:
“But of no further relevance to this discussion...”

Yet you brought it up.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mikw:
“Well, i think a customer CAN feel betrayed on occassions - so i don't think it's "nonsense" in every case.

No commercial broadcaster took up "Bake Off" - the BBC did, so i think they will feel a bit betrayed.

I find the notion of because vast sums of money are involved it cannot be a betrayal rather odd.”

I'm sure the BBC will feel disappointed, but betrayed is a strange term to use when you consider they were in negotiaton for a year, talks that simply failed to secure a new deal.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“It does not satisfy the caveat: "e.g. Saturday night entertainment shows on BBC One or one-off specials. Key price drivers will be high studio or location costs and format fees".

And certainly not this:

"The price the BBC is prepared to pay for a programme will be determined by reference to a number of factors including the estimated production budget, the expected level of upfront third party investment or other sources of funding, and will be inclusive of any development funding paid by the BBC. "

Being "the most watched" isn't (and shouldn't be) a blank cheque as far as the BBC is concerned (for reasons already discussed, repeated and repeated yet again).”

Okay, that's fair enough.
carl.waring
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“The value to the BBC of Bake Off being the most watched programme on TV is that it adds to the ongoing justification of the licence fee.

"Why should we pay you our licence fee, it's a rip off!"
"Well we had the UK's most watched show on our BBC1 channel last year you know"”

No. That argument is usually either:
Popular: "Why are we forced [sic] to pay for shows that are so popular they could easily be shown on commercial channels"
or
Not so popular (ie BBC4) "Why are we forced [sic] to pay for shows that no-one watches"

GBBO started in the second category but then went into the first.

So either way the BBC can't win.

And that is the entire point of the issues behind the BBC losing GBBO.

Originally Posted by Mark.:
“I've not watched any of the repeats on Good Food, but I think I'll set one to record in the near future, just to see what it's like with ads.”

Depends what duration slot it's in. If it's one hour then yes, they will have had to edit bits out. If it's more than one hour then you're getting the whole show but with ads.

With the former though, you have no idea what's been cut and therefore what you missed; and may miss from the new C4 show.

(If that makes sense?)
wizzywick
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I'm sure the BBC will feel disappointed, but betrayed is a strange term to use when you consider they were in negotiaton for a year, talks that simply failed to secure a new deal.”

You have a strange definition of betrayal. I guess you'll say next that Jesus wasn't betrayed by Judas because clearly the Jewish priests offered more wealth than Jesus did? The BBC were betrayed because Love should not have taken the show to another channel when the BBC still wanted to show it.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“You have a strange definition of betrayal. I guess you'll say next that Jesus wasn't betrayed by Judas because clearly the Jewish priests offered more wealth than Jesus did? The BBC were betrayed because Love should not have taken the show to another channel when the BBC still wanted to show it.”

And you have a strange definition of business. The BBC might well have wanted it, but their year long negotiations simply ended with them losing the show to a rival channel who were willing to pay more for the rights to air it once the three year rights contract was up. That isn't betrayal, anymore than an employee leaving his long term job for better prospects isn't betrayal. Love didn't just text the BBC the night before with a "Hi Lv hr, wr going 2 C4 w BO. Thnx"
Antbox
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“Yet you brought it up.”

Yes, because you opened the door by directly talking about your perception of the production quality of the show. Your past statements suggest that you are not really in a position to judge that. Whereas Love Productions, being experienced television producers, are. So it's most likely that they know more about it than either you or I do.
Antbox
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I'm sure the BBC will feel disappointed, but betrayed is a strange term to use when you consider they were in negotiaton for a year, talks that simply failed to secure a new deal.”

Indeed. 'Had first refusal and simply chose not to take it up' is not really the position of a party that has been "betrayed".

Nor is 'Had first refusal, even though they'd been messing the other side around for at least a year, and created huge bad feeling and acrimony by stealing the other's formats even while they were working together on other shows'.
human nature
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..."

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!”

Can you provide a source for the bit in bold please?
Antbox
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“Can you provide a source for the bit in bold please?”

Metro article mentioned here a few pages back.
eggchen
19-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“Can you provide a source for the bit in bold please?”

It's in the article linked to in the thread somewhere. What it suggests is that the GBBO is funded from the BBC's factual programming department, and that there has been some dismay about a "lack of joined up thinking" behind departments not communicating, when the shortfall could have been made from the entertainment programming budget if needed.
skp20040
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“It's in the article linked to in the thread somewhere. What it suggests is that the GBBO is funded from the BBC's factual programming department, and that there has been some dismay about a "lack of joined up thinking" behind departments not communicating, when the shortfall could have been made from the entertainment programming budget if needed.”

One might ask about the odd behaviour and thinking of Love productions, they had said they were not particularly happy about the move to BBC1 and they like making programmes for BBC2 the Creative Director of Love said at the time "Commercially, it's nice to do it for a channel where you have only got to get 2 million viewers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, so my first instinct was – why do we have to move to 1?" . Well if that is the case and it had stayed on BBC2 how much would they have asked for it ? they surely would not have expected BBC2 to pay £ 25 million ?
dodrade
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“It's in the article linked to in the thread somewhere. What it suggests is that the GBBO is funded from the BBC's factual programming department, and that there has been some dismay about a "lack of joined up thinking" behind departments not communicating, when the shortfall could have been made from the entertainment programming budget if needed.”

Doesn't sound remotely credible to me.
<<
<
35 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