• 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
<<
<
36 of 89
>>
>
mossy2103
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“It's been repeated a few times around these parts but has the BiB been confirmed anywhere?”

I'd be willing to bet that it would not air in a 75/80-min slot to allow for ad breaks. Like many other (entertainment) programmes it will be in a 60 mins slot (to fit the schedule breaks).
mossy2103
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.”

And yet what those commentators rather conveniently do not realise is that the shortfall would come from existing programme budgets, meaning that programmes (or specific programme budgets) in that other category would face being cut in order to fund that shortfall.
ftv
20-09-2016
I don't think the issue is where the BBC would get the money from, the issue is how on earth would they explain paying a 400% increase for what is actually quite a cheap programme ?
Chris1964
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I don't think the issue is where the BBC would get the money from, the issue is how on earth would they explain paying a 400% increase for what is actually quite a cheap programme ?”

I don't understand what makes a peak 15 million people tune in to what effectively is just another version of Masterchef, but they do and that is what is pushing all the angst.

The BBC's problem is lack of control over the brand. I would have given the format 4 or 5 years on BBC2 at 3 million tops, but what has happened is equivalent to finding a cache of coins from the 15th century in the field at the back of my house. I doubt the BBC envisaged this outcome but they are rather powerless when someone else is setting the bar level. Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt here.

Its possible Channel 4 might bury the coins back in the field again but a few people will be made very rich in the process I would imagine.
mossy2103
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I don't think the issue is where the BBC would get the money from, the issue is how on earth would they explain paying a 400% increase for what is actually quite a cheap programme ?”

Precisely. they would be setting themselves up for a fall big time - politicians like Andrew Bridgen and Philip Davies, Culture Secretary, the DCMS Select Committee, the media would all be gunning for the BBC, and the BBC would have provided them with all the ammunition that they needed.

What I find strange in all this is the fact that no-one in authority, no part of Government, no Tory MP, no-one from the DCMS Select Committee, no part of the media has paid much regard to the way that C4 has ignored its own remit:

"We are a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. We do not receive any public funding and have a remit to be innovative, experimental and distinctive. You can read more about our remit, and how we deliver against it, in our Annual Report.

Our overall role is to champion innovation in TV, film & digital – nurturing and growing new ideas, formats, views and voices, faces, talent, audiences and production companies."


Its remit in full:
http://www.channel4.com/media/images...-(None)_A2.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/info/corpora...annel-4s-remit
tiv
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“I don't understand what makes a peak 15 million people tune in to what effectively is just another version of Masterchef, but they do and that is what is pushing all the angst.”

It's big advantage over MasterChef is the lack of a shouty slaphead babbling banalities all the time! That's why I watch Bake Off and don't watch MasterChef.
mikw
20-09-2016
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.”

They were the ones that took a chance, they were the ones that made it what it was - i think "betrayed" shouldn't be dismissed as you tried to as "nonsense"
mikw
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“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'.”

Ironic, considering "bake off" contains elements from other shows, judges, cookery competition, contestants.

"Bake off" is a good show, but it's not original, Love productions, and you, would be wise to remember that.
Mark.
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“I'd be willing to bet that it would not air in a 75/80-min slot to allow for ad breaks. Like many other (entertainment) programmes it will be in a 60 mins slot (to fit the schedule breaks).”

Channel 4 do currently air programmes in 65/75/80 minute slots. For the rest of this week:

20/9: It Was Alright in the 1970s (10pm-11.05pm)
21/9: Airbnb: Dream or Nightmare (10pm-11.05pm)
22/9: Hunted (9pm-10.15pm)
23/9: The Lie Detective (10pm-10.50pm)

So it isn't entirely out of the question GBBO will get a longer slot so that it's ~1hr without adverts.
Janet43
20-09-2016
If Channel 4 stands any chance at all of keeping viewers, it needs to lose the adverts (it does so for live Formula 1) and stick with sponsorship and product placement. It also needs to find a pair of presenters who will be accepted in place of Mel and Sue, the names bandied about so far fit the bill as far as I'm concerned - Davina McCall, Jo Brand, Jimmy Carr, Jennifer Saunders or Nadyia Hussein.

If Mary and Paul do quit, they'll have a job finding suitable replacements - i.e. bakers as opposed to cooks or chefs - otherwise it would become the Great British Cook Off. Ainslie Harriott, Jamie Oliver, Lorraine Pascale have been suggested, but they are not bakers. Nadyia has also been suggested, but that would be the same as Alesha Dixon being made a judge on Strictly, which failed abysmally - the student suddenly becoming the teacher. Personally, I can't think of any other cook on TV who specialises in baking.

New shoes are never as comfortable as old ones, and I doubt that one series with different people fronting it will be sufficient for viewers to watch in their droves. There will obviously be comparisons with the original team.

As for the BBC having budgets for different types of shows and insufficient available from the factual budget to pay what Love Production demanded, a lot of publicly owned organisation are the same. For instanced local councils can't use money from the waste collection budget to fund social care.
lundavra
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.”

If they had found more from another budget then how high would the price gone. Channel 4 has a bottomless purse so it could have ended up at £30 million, £40 million ......

Then in three years time it would be even higher.
Mark.
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“If Channel 4 stands any chance at all of keeping viewers, it needs to lose the adverts (it does so for live Formula 1) and stick with sponsorship and product placement.”

That quite simply isn't going to happen.
Janet43
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“That quite simply isn't going to happen.”

I know, and that means it won't succeed. I got really P***ed off on Sunday watching F1 highlights with adverts. If they can do it with a live race they can do for the highlights and for programmes which need flow. But that would mean thinking about it and coming up with another way of doing things.

As has been said it's either an hour shortened by adverts which interrupt viewing, even if you record and ff. Or longer than an hour with even more adverts to interrupt the flow.
mossy2103
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Channel 4 do currently air programmes in 65/75/80 minute slots. For the rest of this week:

20/9: It Was Alright in the 1970s (10pm-11.05pm)
21/9: Airbnb: Dream or Nightmare (10pm-11.05pm)
22/9: Hunted (9pm-10.15pm)
23/9: The Lie Detective (10pm-10.50pm)

So it isn't entirely out of the question GBBO will get a longer slot so that it's ~1hr without adverts.”

I stand corrected, although most if not all of those listed are not "entertainment" programmes. The other difficulty might be allowing for the schedule break changes that would impact the rest of the evening's schedule (assuming that BO would follow the C4 News at 8pm weekday), as they tend to put 2x30min or 1x60 min programmes in that slot. A broadcast at 9pm would be likely to lose more viewers (it doesn't feel like a 9pm show anyway). That leaves the weekend which still seems to have a breakpoint at 9pm.
human nature
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.”

Do they really think the BBC's Factual Department can go to the Entertainment Department and say "sorry, you're going to have to cancel that comedy programme you're making because we need the money instead to pay an indie a 400% pay rise because they've been getting good ratings".

Whoever wrote that article is missing a few brain cells. How many comedies would have to go in order to raise £25 million a year? GBBO does not cost £25 million a year to make! The indie are being greedy.
mossy2103
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“ Nadyia has also been suggested, but that would be the same as Alesha Dixon being made a judge on Strictly, which failed abysmally - the student suddenly becoming the teacher. Personally, I can't think of any other cook on TV who specialises in baking.”

Agreed, I simply could not imagine Nadyia appearing on a GBBO Masterclass programme taking us through the intricacies of a particular cake, or talking knowledgeably about the cakes presented in a Technical cake challenge and how they could be improved (which is more than just how they look or taste). Strictly viewers found this out when it became apparent that Alesha's main critique was "you was [sic] great" or "you smashed it"/"you made that dance your own".

And yes, being a chef does not make you a baker, neither does it guarantee that you can be a good pastry chef either.
Mark.
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“I know, and that means it won't succeed. I got really P***ed off on Sunday watching F1 highlights with adverts. If they can do it with a live race they can do for the highlights and for programmes which need flow. But that would mean thinking about it and coming up with another way of doing things.”

Why does GBBO need "flow"? If anything, the format has natural breaks.

Quote:
“As has been said it's either an hour shortened by adverts which interrupt viewing, even if you record and ff. Or longer than an hour with even more adverts to interrupt the flow.”

The increase required to keep the running time would not permit an additional break. All it would do is ad an extra advert or two (total) to existing breaks.

Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“I stand corrected, although most if not all of those listed are not "entertainment" programmes. The other difficulty might be allowing for the schedule break changes that would impact the rest of the evening's schedule (assuming that BO would follow the C4 News at 8pm weekday), as they tend to put 2x30min or 1x60 min programmes in that slot. A broadcast at 9pm would be likely to lose more viewers (it doesn't feel like a 9pm show anyway). That leaves the weekend which still seems to have a breakpoint at 9pm.”

Schedules evolve. We're currently speculating on what may or may not happen 2 years from now (1 if you count the celebrity special).

Having paid £25m per year, not including talent, I'm pretty sure the schedulers will ask "how high" if told to jump.
dizzie
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“If Channel 4 stands any chance at all of keeping viewers, it needs to lose the adverts (it does so for live Formula 1) and stick with sponsorship and product placement. It also needs to find a pair of presenters who will be accepted in place of Mel and Sue, and I don't think the names bandied about so far fit the bill as far as I'm concerned - Davina McCall, Jo Brand, Jimmy Carr, Jennifer Saunders or Nadyia Hussein.

If Mary and Paul do quit, they'll have a job finding suitable replacements - i.e. bakers as opposed to cooks or chefs - otherwise it would become the Great British Cook Off. Ainslie Harriott, Jamie Oliver, Lorraine Pascale have been suggested, but they are not bakers. Nadyia has also been suggested, but that would be the same as Alesha Dixon being made a judge on Strictly, which failed abysmally - the student suddenly becoming the teacher. Personally, I can't think of any other cook on TV who specialises in baking.

New shoes are never as comfortable as old ones, and I doubt that one series with different people fronting it will be sufficient for viewers to watch in their droves. There will obviously be comparisons with the original team.

As for the BBC having budgets for different types of shows and insufficient available from the factual budget to pay what Love Production demanded, a lot of publicly owned organisation are the same. For instanced local councils can't use money from the waste collection budget to fund social care.”

Channel 4 used to have a show by the excellent Eric Lanlard, they broadcast a couple of series. I bought his book, after seeing his show, and he makes amazing cakes and desserts, and his recipe for chocolate fondant is the best I've ever tried - near foolproof (unless you can't count 8 minutes in the oven - done that once or twice!!).

Very, VERY interestingly(!), he and Paul Hollywood once pitched a baking show idea together, back in the early 2000's, and they were turned down by most of the networks as they 'weren't interested in baking show concepts'!! I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to see these two as the show judges, if they secure Paul to the GBBO.

It would present a very different vibe from the feminine slant of Mary and two female hosts, but he worked for the Roux brothers, and is accepted as one of the best pastry chefs in the country, and has previous ties to C4. I suspect there would be the risk that you lose the 'home baker' element that is so important to GBBO, by not having a non-pro baker - two professional bakers judging has a totally different skew to the proceedings, but it's difficult to come up with another 'known' face that is as strongly linked to home baking as Mary. Nigella is as close as I can get - she is strongly slanted towards puds in many of her books, but I think her brand is a bit tarnished these days!
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by mikw:
“They were the ones that took a chance, they were the ones that made it what it was - i think "betrayed" shouldn't be dismissed as you tried to as "nonsense"”

But why have the BBC been betrayed simply because they couldn't agree terms for the next three years? The BBC will accept that with any third party production, there is a chance that the producers may take it elsewhere if an agreement on fees can't be reached, that's just the way it is. There is no betrayal involved.
human nature
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“But why have the BBC been betrayed simply because they couldn't agree terms for the next three years? The BBC will accept that with any third party production, there is a chance that the producers may take it elsewhere if an agreement on fees can't be reached, that's just the way it is. There is no betrayal involved.”

Just because "that's just the way it is" doesn't stop it being a betrayal.
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“Do they really think the BBC's Factual Department can go to the Entertainment Department and say "sorry, you're going to have to cancel that comedy programme you're making because we need the money instead to pay an indie a 400% pay rise because they've been getting good ratings".

Whoever wrote that article is missing a few brain cells. How many comedies would have to go in order to raise £25 million a year? GBBO does not cost £25 million a year to make! The indie are being greedy.”

They wouldn't have to raise an extra £25 million a year, they would have to raise £10 million. The BBC already offered £15 million a series, the shortfall was £10 million. The show doesn't cost £15 million a year either I'm sure, but the BBC were prepared to pay it.
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“Just because "that's just the way it is" doesn't stop it being a betrayal.”

Well it kind of does if you appreciate that Love Productions had been in negotiation with the BBC over a new deal for a year, so the BBC would have known the figure being touted, and that they were likely to lose the show because they weren't going to stump up. It isn't a betrayal in any sense of the word, it was simply a commercial decision to go elsewhere. I didn't "betray" my last long term employer when I took a new job at the end of my last contract, that's life.
human nature
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“They wouldn't have to raise an extra £25 million a year, they would have to raise £10 million. The BBC already offered £15 million a series, the shortfall was £10 million. The show doesn't cost £15 million a year either I'm sure, but the BBC were prepared to pay it.”

The BBC would have had to make some severe programming cuts in order to fund the extra money even if they agreed on £15 million. The fact that the indie stuck out for even more - an incredible £25 million - is pure greed and there's no way the BBC could have justified spending licence money like that.

And that's why the BBC have every right to feel betrayed.
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“The BBC would have had to make some severe programming cuts in order to fund the extra money even if they agreed on £15 million. The fact that the indie stuck out for even more - an incredible £25 million - is pure greed and there's no way the BBC could have justified spending licence money like that.

And that's why the BBC have every right to feel betrayed.”

If you say so. I imagine they simply feel a bit disappointed to have lost the UK's most watched show, and that there have been questions asked internally as to why they couldn't find the money, but betrayed? Nah.
mossy2103
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“They wouldn't have to raise an extra £25 million a year, they would have to raise £10 million. The BBC already offered £15 million a series, the shortfall was £10 million. The show doesn't cost £15 million a year either I'm sure, but the BBC were prepared to pay it.”

So where would that additional £10 million have come from? Yes, I've already provided that answer previously - it would have to have been cut from other programme budgets. More cuts, this time impacting other unconnected programme genres. Robbing Peter to pay Paul (sorry, unintentional pun, but rather apt), and in so doing potentially hacking off other (non-GBBO) viewers
<<
<
36 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