• 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
<<
<
40 of 89
>>
>
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You do know that Joey is a made up character played by an actor who was only pretending? ”

I did. Have you been in Showbiz here? The vitriol towards "Keith Lemon" who is treated as a real person for the purposes of complaint is very amusing.
sat-ire
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Here, here. An excellent informative post as ever.

As I have mentioned somewhere, the broken trust between broadcasters and indie producers is potentially very serious for both.”

Only about 500 times a day - as a certain comedian in The Guardian who you mistook as a serious columnist might say.

Any chance you can leave it now and let the thread(s) breathe. We are all aware of your position on the matter - always before your first post on any matter too as it happens.

There really is no need to keep quoting people for the sole purpose of agreeing with them and offering up nothing new...
CrowleySr
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“It's rather silly to try to compare GBBO to Doctor Who, DW is a drama, a Sci Fi and unique in that the lead character can regenerate, GBBO is a baking competition, it's comparing organges and cupcakes.

Radio atimes today, describes this GBBO issue very well.

The editor says losing GBBO from the BBC is like being mugged.

She got that right.”

How about HIGNFY, Hells Kitchen or Would I Lie to You after Angus Deayton left them?

Film after Barry Norman retired, or countless others

The bbc had 12 months to reach an agreement, they couldn't. If they really wanted it that badly, they could have (smaller increase than the one LP wanted, but with a guarenteed 3 series. Things like that)
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“Bad joke - I do live in a bungalow for that very reason. I hope there are no steps up to your front door. Do you also have room on your level driveway for me to park my Motability car because I can only walk a few yards?

Remember I don't lie.

I notice it's the younger posters (assuming Marks isn't lying about who he is, as eggchen admits he is) who can't see a problem with how the programme will change of channel or the underhand practices of Channel 4 and Love Productions.”

Of course the show will be unrecognisable on 4 which is why I and millions of others will give it a wide birth and stick with the Beeb instead.

Here's why...currently, Bake Off is a very charming, perfectly paced, laid back show featuring normal people...which doesn't take itself to seriously. The tone is very BBC and very British...then...along comes commercialisation......plus the change of personnel. In addition:

Bring on the sensational participants with the sob stories.
Bring on the overly dramatic music and fast paced editing.
Bring on the product placement.
Bring on the sponsorship. I've heard Mr Kipling is very interested. 'Bake Off, sponsored by Mr Kipling'. Yuk
Bring on the god awful frequent and lengthy ad breaks. Double yuk!

Everything that makes Bake Off enjoyable and charming now will be lost with the move to 4.

4's and Love's behaviour has done immense damage all round. Loss of trust between broadcasters, loss of trust between indies and loss of trust between indies and broadcasters. Furthermore, all indies will be tarnished with the same brush which is a shame because I am sure there are some who operate an ethical ethos sprinkled with a good dose of public service values.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“Thank you.

I just don't understand why some posters can't see the effects this breakdown of trust will have on their future viewing, or even that there has been a breakdown of trust. Those actually involved in the industry do and have clearly said so. But it seems some posters think they know better.”

I know Janet. I see it as do the indies clearly, well at least those who have spoken out so far.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“How about HIGNFY, Hells Kitchen or Would I Lie to You after Angus Deayton left them?

Film after Barry Norman retired, or countless others

The bbc had 12 months to reach an agreement, they couldn't. If they really wanted it that badly, they could have (smaller increase than the one LP wanted, but with a guarenteed 3 series. Things like that)”

Re: HIGNFY, I would suggest that there was a lot of luck there. I am sure at the time, many thought that the show would end after Angus left.

Re: Film, people can get their head around change if people retire. People retiring being the key point here.

The Beeb offered an extra 10 mil. That should have been more than enough for Love, but we all know that Love were playing the Beeb in an attempt to extort as much wonga out of them as possible in the name of greed. Love failed. We will all lose out now as a result of their greed. I will go further. They deserve no further contracts with the Beeb. They need to be made an example of!!
jonbwfc
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“The bbc had 12 months to reach an agreement, they couldn't.”

So Love Productions had no responsibility at all? They just had to sit around until the BBC gave them everything they wanted? You seem too have a very odd idea of what the word 'Negotiations' means.
Janet43
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“For you, I'd roll out the red carpet and make vol-au-vents.

I didn't know about your condition Janet so sorry if I've offended you, I was only having a friendly dig about yer age.”

I'm not offended - I'm not the type of person who gets offended, just frustrated that some people can't grasp the facts as stated by those in the know, i.e. the channels and the production companies. I'm also averse to lying because it can have consequences, and if someone is prepared to lie about something trivial, they're usually willing to lie about something important (based on experience).

I hope you now realise, though that having a dig, even in jest, at the physical ability of someone you don't know is inappropriate. My condition has nothing to do with my age - it hit me at age 48. Fortunately there's nothing wrong with my brain and my ability to listen to those actually involved in a matter and to think logically about it.
Charnham
20-09-2016
it wont be Mr Kipling who sponsors the show, not with his current range, viewers will want something they can bake, was in M&S today and there some well packaged products which give you all you need to cook some cakes.

That easy baking product is what will be sponosring Bake Off, maybe Mr Kipling can bring some out, but no point selling a complete cake to a Bake Off viewer, not least a mass produced one.
Janet43
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“it wont be Mr Kipling who sponsors the show, not with his current range, viewers will want something they can bake, was in M&S today and there some well packaged products which give you all you need to cook some cakes.

That easy baking product is what will be sponosring Bake Off, maybe Mr Kipling can bring some out, but no point selling a complete cake to a Bake Off viewer, not least a mass produced one.”

They'll definitely have the name of the sponsor emblazoned across the top of their aprons.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“They'll definitely have the name of the sponsor emblazoned across the top of their aprons.”

Commercialism is just awful isn't it. Well, it will bring about the death of Bake Off that's for sure.
Antbox
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 BBC spend £1300 million a year on BBC One alone, every single year. If anyone tells you that they can't afford £25 million for the single biggest show on the channel - because after all BBC1 especially is not a charity and can be expected to pay market rates for commissioned material - then they're telling porkies.
human nature
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“The BBC spend £1300 million a year on BBC One alone, every single year. If anyone tells you that they can't afford £25 million for the single biggest show on the channel - because after all BBC1 especially is not a charity and can be expected to pay market rates for commissioned material - then they're telling porkies.”

I take it you have no objection to the BBC paying the full competitive market rates for its presenters then?
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“Love Productions weren't asking for "commensurate pay" - they asked for a 400% pay increase. Who else in your scenario of fair play is able to demand a 400% pay increase in the current economic climate?”

Any production company that had delivered a programme which had ratings increase by more than 600%, for one.

But of course the BBC doesn't think that "factual" programming is worth paying market rates for. I'm not sure what's more disgraceful about that - the fact that BBC consider 'entertainment' more worthy than anything that might be reasonably intelligent, or the fact that the BBC considers a synthetic reality-gameshow like GBBO to qualify as 'factual' at all.

But the fact remains that it's a bona fide BBC hit, the biggest show on BBC One - yet they showed nothing but disrespect for the producers who brought them the goose that laid the golden egg. So that's why they don't have it any more.
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“It's very likely Channel 4 are going to live to regret their decision. GBBO does not cost £25 million a year to make.”

It doesn't cost that currently, because the BBC doesn't pay that much for it.

With a proper budget, you can expect to see a higher quality result on screen.
human nature
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“It doesn't cost that currently, because the BBC doesn't pay that much for it.

With a proper budget, you can expect to see a higher quality result on screen.”

A bigger tent?
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“They'll definitely have the name of the sponsor emblazoned across the top of their aprons.”

They definitely will not, Janet, that kind of thing is prohibited under the OFCOM sponsorship code, and not even the most junior member of staff at any independent producer would make a mistake like that.
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by human nature:
“I take it you have no objection to the BBC paying the full competitive market rates for its presenters then?”

I think the BBC should spend its money in whatever way provides the fullest and best value for the licence fee payer. If that means paying less where the talent is happy with that arrangement, then that's great, if that means paying more to secure the services of top-flight top-of-the-line well-loved talent that viewers will really enjoy and appreciate, then that too. Like all things, it's a question of judgement.
bingbong
20-09-2016
It's a tragedy for the BBC and the country, but on a more upbeat note Clare Balding ( the nations favourite ) will be available to present it. The only time i really want to read the words Mel & Sue is when the words chainsaw and accident are in the same sentence.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“The BBC spend £1300 million a year on BBC One alone, every single year. If anyone tells you that they can't afford £25 million for the single biggest show on the channel - because after all BBC1 especially is not a charity and can be expected to pay market rates for commissioned material - then they're telling porkies.”

The irony with you is that had the Beeb paid up you'd be doing a Daily Mail on it now wouldn't you.

You are failing to grasp the issues here. The BBC is a public service. The BBC was good enough for Love when they had no show and no audience. The BBC built the show and 'invested' in it. Suddenly, the BBC's money is no longer good enough for them. They pulled the rug from under the BBC in a shameful way when greed took them over. They have committed the ultimate here by placing profits before people. They will never be forgiven for their betrayal. They have betrayed the BBC, the licence fee payer and the audience.
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“The irony with you is that had the Beeb paid up you'd be doing a Daily Mail on it now wouldn't you.”

No, I wouldn't. GBBO is the biggest show on British television, and investing a proper sum in securing the series for viewers to enjoy, ad-free on the BBC, and with higher quality production than ever before, is the textbook definition of a proper use of licence fee payer's money. £25m is nothing compared to the £1300m which the BBC spends yearly on BBC One alone. I'd rather have another series of Bake Off than more wall-to-wall shit like 'Claimed and Shamed', any day.

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“They will never be forgiven for their betrayal. They have betrayed the BBC, the licence fee payer and the audience.”

But you would say that - wouldn't you.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“No, I wouldn't. GBBO is the biggest show on British television, and investing a proper sum in securing the series for viewers to enjoy, ad-free on the BBC, and with higher quality production than ever before, is the textbook definition of a proper use of licence fee payer's money. £25m is nothing compared to the £1300m which the BBC spends yearly on BBC One alone. I'd rather have another series of Bake Off than more wall-to-wall shit like 'Claimed and Shamed', any day.


But you would say that - wouldn't you.”

You are attempting to argue a complete non-argument.

What the BBC was offering (considering they gave them the break in the first place) was more than enough. 10 million...10 million on top of what they get now is more than ample. They should have accepted the Beeb's offer end of. The fact that they didn't says more about them than it does anybody else.

Still, when Love's work all but dries up because broadcasters can't trust them, they will know where they went wrong won't they.
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“I hope you now realise, though that having a dig, even in jest, at the physical ability of someone you don't know is inappropriate.”

I didn't, I made a lighthearted comment based on older people and bungalows etc. It wasn't designed to offend you, as I didn't know you DID actually live in a bungalow.
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“What the BBC was offering (considering they gave them the break in the first place) was more than enough. 10 million...10 million on top of what they get now is more than ample.”

Perhaps, but Love clearly did not agree, and it's Love's format. Love will have seen the ratings of GBBO increase hugely since the original deal was negotiated and as a result the value of the show increased significantly - to everyone except the BBC.

If the BBC hadn't been so high-handed in their negotiations, and repeatedly ripped off Love's formats in the past - which culminated in court action and an out-of-court settlement, remember - then maybe the relationship would have been more positive and Love would have been more likely to let 'their friends at the BBC' have a better deal. But to act like that and then expect a discount? No no no - not how it works.

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Still, when Love's work all but dries up because broadcasters can't trust them, they will know where they went wrong won't they.”

Any broadcaster is quite free to include an exclusivity clause in their contract with a supplier, and indeed it's known that the BBC did so. Not to prevent the show going elsewhere (because that's a tangible benefit which the BBC would have needed to pay extra for) but to attempt to 'spoil' the show by imposing a one-year delay if it were to move to another channel. The same clause they had for The Voice, incidentally. (The same clause that ITV had for Home and Away, also.)

The BBC got what they were entitled to under the contract - they have not been hard done by in any stretch of the imagination. If they wanted permanent exclusivity they could have asked for - and paid for - that. They did not.
lundavra
20-09-2016
Jo Brand was on The One Show tonight, they asked her about Bake Off. She would not comment, I thought it was for contractual reasons but she eventually claimed that no one has spoken to her about the move
<<
<
40 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