• 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
<<
<
41 of 89
>>
>
eggchen
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“They'll definitely have the name of the sponsor emblazoned across the top of their aprons.”

Originally Posted by Janet43:
“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).”

There's an untruth for you at the top, because sponsorship logos would be against regulations. Frustrating for us people in the know to have to remind you of course.

EDIT: Somebody already mentioned it.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“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”

Very interesting. She wouldn't be right for it would she.
Shaun_Jameson
20-09-2016
The BBC will carry one without bake off, Bake off will survive without the BBC.
Steve9214
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Very interesting. She wouldn't be right for it would she.”

But she presents the weekly spin-off show, which Channel 4 are also supposed to be buying.
You would have thought someone would tell her one way or the other - just manners.
mikw
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Shaun_Jameson:
“The BBC will carry one without bake off, Bake off will survive without the BBC.”

I can't see Bake off surviving for long to be honest.
carl.waring
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“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.”

I am in as good a position as you or anyone else in this thread.
Ash_M1
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“But she presents the weekly spin-off show, which Channel 4 are also supposed to be buying.
You would have thought someone would tell her one way or the other - just manners.”

Well indeed mate, but given that 'The Four' were apparently not consulted about the proposed move, should we be surprised that perhaps Jo wasn't either?
carl.waring
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.”

Of course they could have afforded it. But they couldn't justify the expense; and the likes of the Daily Wail would have been on them like the proverbial about "wasting money on what is clearly a very commercial programme"; conveniently ignoring the fact that it is only now commercially viable thanks entirely to the BBC.

Originally Posted by Antbox:
“I'd rather have another series of Bake Off than more wall-to-wall shit like 'Claimed and Shamed', any day.”

Because it's only about what you want, right?
Antbox
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“Of course they could have afforded it. But they couldn't justify the expense; and the likes of the Daily Wail would have been on them like the proverbial about "wasting money on what is clearly a very commercial programme"”

Cobblers. Who runs the BBC, The Daily Mail or the BBC management? If the BBC are making decisions to the detriment of licence fee payers because they're scared about what the Daily Mail might say, the BBC are even MORE at fault than anyone could have realised!

Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“Because it's only about what you want, right?”

Nice try. It's just an example. If you're saying "Oh, but the BBC will have to cut back on other programmes if it spent more money on its most popular one" then it's a really simple solution. Take the money away from the BBC's least popular/valuable/effective programme (or programmes) and spend the savings on the one that most people will most enjoy. I don't mind which it is - I gave one example.

It really is that simple.
Steve9214
20-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Well indeed mate, but given that 'The Four' were apparently not consulted about the proposed move, should we be surprised that perhaps Jo wasn't either?”

It had been well over a week now - you would think informing the talent that fronts the spin off show ought to have been done by now
Nilrem
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.”

LOL

The amount they wanted for the show was the sort of money that the BBC pays out for a full high profile costume drama (more than that in fact).
If you think that 25 million a year for about 20 hours (or less) of TV with basically a single set is going to make a massive difference to the quality you're massively over estimating the cost of TV (which I guess is a change).

And that 25 million doesn't even include the cost of the presenters.
Antbox
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Nilrem:
“LOL

The amount they wanted for the show was the sort of money that the BBC pays out for a full high profile costume drama (more than that in fact).”

And it would have brought more pleasure to more viewers. Tell me why that's a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Nilrem:
“If you think that 25 million a year for about 20 hours (or less) of TV with basically a single set is going to make a massive difference to the quality you're massively over estimating the cost of TV (which I guess is a change).”

Maybe if they had a decent budget they'd be able to afford more than one set, and to produce more hours of TV. Ever thought about that?
mossy2103
21-09-2016
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.”

Of course they could have found the extra £10 million, but it would have had to come from some other programme budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul, simple as that. One show (and one group of viewers) wins, another show (and another group of viewers) loses.

And in doing so, the BBC pays more than it thinks is fair and justifiable.
mossy2103
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“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.”

Probably entertainment programmes are likely to be more costly to produce, Bake Off does not have nor require elaborate sets, expensive costumes, studio hire, special effects, live bands, guest stars, singers, scriptwriters to script everything that happens, multiple-location filming etc. (all the things that you might expect to have to cater for on an entertainment programme).

That's probably why the BBC tariffs for independent production companies are lower for factual than for entertainment:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissio...dependents.pdf
Glawster2002
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“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.”

Wasn't GBBO turned down initially by the commercial channels before the BBC took it? If that is true then it is a success because of the BBC.
Glawster2002
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“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.


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.”

Considering how quickly LP announced the deal with C4 it would seem to me they had already negotiated a deal with C4 behind the BBCs backs for £25m a year, so it seems evident to me it was always about the money despite their claims to the contrary.

I struggle to understand why you continue to portray the BBC as "the bad guys". The BBC were prepared to pay what they believed to be a fair price for future series, the price LP wanted they considered too high and so they walked away.

That is how it works.
lundavra
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Of course they could have found the extra £10 million, but it would have had to come from some other programme budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul, simple as that. One show (and one group of viewers) wins, another show (and another group of viewers) loses.

And in doing so, the BBC pays more than it thinks is fair and justifiable.”

As I suggested before, there is no guarantee that it would not have gone much higher.

Love had been negotiating with the BBC for a long time then seemingly made a deal with Channel 4 very quickly. It makes me wonder if Channel just said that they would match any offer from the BBC and go £10 million higher.

Cowell has now commented

Simon Cowell says Great British Bake Off will flop on Channel 4 as he blast move 'a mistake'
Night Crawler
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Nilrem:
“LOL

The amount they wanted for the show was the sort of money that the BBC pays out for a full high profile costume drama (more than that in fact).
If you think that 25 million a year for about 20 hours (or less) of TV with basically a single set is going to make a massive difference to the quality you're massively over estimating the cost of TV (which I guess is a change).

And that 25 million doesn't even include the cost of the presenters.”

The contract is for 40hrs, 1 series (12 episodes) plus specials. Works out at £625,000 an hour, the cost of premium entertainment (forgot to thank mossy2103 for the info and link regarding broadcast costs earlier in the thread).

If you regard GBBO as premium entertainment, which I guess C4 has, then I suppose it could be regarded as a fair rate, if it's just seen as a popular mid week programme then they have paid well over the odds.

Channel 4 have excelled themselves recently with the paralympics, I thought the coverage was very professional, the same goes for F1, in my opinion the quality was very much on par with the BBC (Olympics/F1). I think they'll do a good job with bake off, I think they will struggle a bit to get the same viewing figures as the BBC, especially without the current presenters, the special will give a good indication on how it will fair, it'll set up the new series in 2018, then it'll be make or break.
Tassium
21-09-2016
It's funny how often commercial companies don't understand why something works on the BBC. This often happens with people who make the move of course.

But in one sense 'Bake Off' is a person, it's Auntie Beeb herself in the form of a baking competition.

Yes, that'll really do well on CH4!
FusionFury
21-09-2016
Paul Hollywood and Mary are atleast being reasonable and listening to Channel 4's plans for the show.. Sue and Mel can do one. Poor professionals trying to be "popular" by rebelling against the move.
Janet43
21-09-2016
The Daily Mail is reporting today that Paul Hollywood

Quote:
“This summer, he (Paul Hollywood) applied to the Intellectual Property Office to trademark Paul Hollywood for goods and services including fruit juices, craft beers, restaurants, bars, cafes and hotel services. He already has a range of kitchenware including cake tins and baking trays.

The judge is paid around £500,000 per year by the BBC, and his company, Paul Hollywood Ltd, held profits of £1.4 million at the latest count in June 2015, up almost £400,000 on the previous year.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...LOT-dough.html
FusionFury
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“The Daily Mail is reporting today that Paul Hollywood



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...LOT-dough.html”

He's made an absolute fortune.
Janet43
21-09-2016
Didn't know that Lakeland quite a range of Great British Bake Off Products from cake trays to stencils to aprons and oven gloves to mixing bowls e.t.c.

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/brands/great-british-bake-off

Debenhams also have a range of other stuff - including cake tin, mugs, fridge magnets:

http://www.debenhams.com/search/great+british+bake+off

Other companies probably have too.

So that's something Channel 4 can't cash in on.
lundavra
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Night Crawler:
“Channel 4 have excelled themselves recently with the paralympics, I thought the coverage was very professional, the same goes for F1, in my opinion the quality was very much on par with the BBC (Olympics/F1). I think they'll do a good job with bake off, I think they will struggle a bit to get the same viewing figures as the BBC, especially without the current presenters, the special will give a good indication on how it will fair, it'll set up the new series in 2018, then it'll be make or break.”

The few times that I actually found the Paralympics on and not adverts, I was very unimpressed and certainly not comparable with the BBC's coverage of the Olympics. When there was something of interest, I put on Five Live and listened to that instead.
ohglobbits
21-09-2016
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“It's funny how often commercial companies don't understand why something works on the BBC. This often happens with people who make the move of course.

But in one sense 'Bake Off' is a person, it's Auntie Beeb herself in the form of a baking competition.

Yes, that'll really do well on CH4!”

Cooking reality shows are commercially lucrative abroad where they're shown on channels with ads. A lot of shows on the BBC have equivalents that do well here and in other countries on ad supported channels. These include DIY SOS, Escape to The Country, The Apprentice, Strictly and of course Masterchef.

Channel 4 should have transferred the presenting team to avoid a Top Gear situation but it's nuts to label this show as not befitting of the commercial netwroks.
<<
<
41 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