I didn't find the ads that intrusive, there was a good build up before races, the race was in full with decent interviews and race analyst after. The three most watched sports I watched were cycling, swimming and the athletics, comparing the coverage of those same sports to the BBC's output, there was nothing to tell them apart IMO.

I don't think your quite grasping what pretty much everyone, including myself are getting at.

There is no way in hell that even if TGBBO was using gold utensils replaced every episode it would cost something like £2,000,000 an episode to make.

A period costume drama employs dozens of actors, hundreds of behind the scenes staff, masses of very expensive props and costumes, yet the BBC pays around £1,000,000 an hour for that at the upper end of the budget.

How you think that the price wanted for TGBBO could with it's single modern set, a handful of cameras, 4 employed on screen staff, a small number of behind the scenes staff require so much more is beyond me.

At that sort of money the production company could set fire to the set and replace it after every challenge and still be roiling in it.

this isn't about production costs, or improving the sets and props, this is about increasing the profit margin (probably by well over the 400 price increase for the show).

Where is this £2,000,000 an episode coming from, as previously mentioned, the contract is for 40hrs a year, that's £625,000 an hour.

As they were out of contract when the current series ended they had a free choice as to whether they accepted the new one being offered. An offer they chose to decline.

Why is that being unprofessional?


I don't really understand why TGBBO is considered a "reality" show, it isn't comparable to the likes of Big Brother or I'm a Celebrity... at all. It is a baking competition.

I wouldn't like to guess how many FTA commercial channels there are around the world like the BBC channels are, but I bet there aren't too many.

However in the UK if people are given the choice of watching something on the BBC or on a commercial with ad breaks I' would have thought most would choose the BBC. The comparable viewing figures for something like the football World Cup Final are a testament to that.

BBC coverage trounces ITV in World Cup final viewing figures

BBC is probably unique among PSBs in that it shows programmes geared towards the commercial sector without accepting ads.

It is a reality show because contestants are selected by producers, there will be editing, contestants with experience will be ignored over those who make better TV, etc

Sorry even at 625k an hour that's near the upper limit for Drama and solid gold utensils

A former contestant sums it up well:

http://www.myajc.com/news/lifestyles...ves-bbc/nsbHD/

What a well written article, Straker.
Also, the new Radio Times has an excellent article by the TV critic Alison Graham. She knows her stuff and sums up many people's feelings of sadness beautifully.

It puts it more in line with premium entertainment costs than the much inflated figure of £2m.

The main criteria for premium entertainment is a Saturday slot, if Channel 4 decide to air it on a Saturday night, then the price paid for one of the most watched baking programmes would seem to be bang on the money. The big question is, can Channel 4 make it work.

The bit in bold - you know that for certain?

And of course they choose bakers with experience (based upon a fairly lengthy questionnaire going by reports) - have you seen ONE baker who was totally out of his/her depth and struggled to make even the most basic of bake?

And every quiz show, every competition has contestants chosen by producers, and those competitors have to be at ease in front of the cameras. So using your definition even a show like Take Your Pick hosted by Michael Miles back in the 60's would have been classed as reality TV. Which is ridiculous.

The Saturday slot criteria is what the BBC uses to set indicative tariffs. I am not aware of the tariffs that C4 use, but looking at this coming Saturday, they have Grand Designs at 7pm, a documentary fronted by palaeobiologist Dr Tori Herridge at 8pm and a Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz film at 9pm - hardly what I would describe as C4 pushing out the premium entertainment boat!

I understand the figure I referred to was a tariff set by the BBC, I was just using it as a rough benchmark as I thought it was more accurate than the £2m per episode that was mentioned.

I can only find Channel 4 tariffs from 2010. Taking cost increases they are probably not that far off the BBC's tarrifs, peak drama being the exception.

£000's

Drama series (Peak) 350 650
Drama serials/events (Peak) 300 1000
Drama Documentary (Peak) 250 400
Drama (Off Peak) 50 160

Entertainment Archive (Peak) 100 350
Entertainment Formatted Entertainment (Peak) 90 400
Entertainment Narrative Comedy (Peak) 350 600
Entertainment Broken/Scripted Comedy (Peak) 150 450
Entertainment including quizzes (Off Peak) 15 120

Current Affairs (Peak)
Documentaries (Peak) Low: 70 Low: 110
Factual Arts/Culture (Peak) Mid: 110 Mid: 150
Factual Religion (Peak) High: 150 High: 180
Factual Science and Medical (Peak)



Factual History (Peak) Low: 70 Low: 110
Mid: 110 Mid: 150
High: 150 High: 200



Agree, apart from Grand Designs there's not much on Saturday to tempt me.

Why are people upset that C4 got it .At the end of the day does it matter whos got it, I think they be happy its not been cancelled .

The first I watched was Sarah Storey's first Gold. They seemed to only have one camera in the stadium and took some time before they were able to get it onto her with her family on the other side of the arena.

Read the threads.


Yes, quite a lot.


Q: When was it under threat of cancellation?

A: Never.

It has already been reported that Love called a halt to negotiations with the BBC and told them that they had lost the series, before C4 had even bid.

They were nowhere close on price, and the negotiations had been dragged out over a year - fundamentally the world moves on and doesn't have time to wait around for a deal. Eventually something has to be done.


Indeed, but the BBC are only the "bad guys" in the context of these highly-charged discussions where Ash and the usual squad are lining up to condemn Love Productions for their "disloyalty" and "greed" and so on. The truth is rather more nuanced than that, that's all. But as you say, that's how it works - if the BBC thought the price was too much and they walked away (in effect, by refusing to negotiate a more reasonable deal) then it's surely not "disloyalty" or "greed" at all, and just another routine business decision for the BBC. It's only if you start portraying it as a wrestling match - as the BBC seems to have chosen to do - that it becomes necessary to look more closely and judge whether both sides have behaved reasonably.

An excellent article, thank you. The bits I totally agree with include:

"...The charm of "Bake Off" is in its gentleness and it is synonymous with the ethos of the BBC. No swearing, but lashings of cheeky innuendo - particularly thanks to Mel and Sue. None of the fierce competition of other food shows, but contestants mucking-in and helping each other - judged by an 81-year-old national treasure. A beautiful setting in the British countryside, bunting in a tent, watching the bakes grow through the oven doors..."

"...Channel 4 will work hard to make its investment pay off, no doubt. But here in the UK, there is strong loyalty toward BBC channels, and the show is likely to lose many millions of viewers. To date, the highest-rated entertainment programs on Channel 4 achieve around 4 million viewers and programming is pitched toward a younger audience. There are also likely to be a number of spinoffs to capitalize on the brand..."

"...On paper, baking in a tent shouldn't work as a show, and the BBC took a risk on the format back in 2010. Now that "Bake Off" has become such a huge success, it's a real shame the network's original gamble and six years of support weren't enough. Of course, Love Productions is a business, but the millions of fans of the show feel hugely disappointed and genuinely very sad..."

I agree but the point is that they do have to consider that. Look at the nonsense posted on here; mostly lifted directly from that "news" paper. If people knew the facts abd truth about the BBC they'd be a lot better off.


Indeed you did. And I'm sure everyone else could give their own example of a show they don't like that they wouldn't mind if it were cancelled. The problem being that each of the shows named could very-well be the favourite of one of the other people polled.

I think that ".. the BBC's least popular/valuable/effective programme (or programmes)" probably describes BBC4 quite well. Should we close BBC4 (arguably the most "psb" channel the BBC has) to pay for more GBBO?


No it really isn't.


No they really don't. If GBBO is such a "commercial" programme, why did no other commercial broadcaster want it when it was first hawked around? If SCD is such a "commercial" programme, why did ITV not do the format before the BBC?

Here's another good question. At what point did (in this case) GBBO become "commercial"? What's the criteria? What is the viewer cut-off figure at which a programme becomes "commercial"?

Most of Saturday C4 daytime (up until 8pm) is a repeat. Then they often have a film, but in this case, it's also a repeat.

No, like for like, please. There has to be something on BBC1 which the BBC can look at and say "this is the least popular, least public-service, least good use of our money, and we can instead spend the money on something more valuable, like GBBO."

There's no reason why TV channels can't live within their means. If you're never allowed to cancel or stop making anything "because it could very-well be the favourite of someone" then you will end up spending an infinite amount of money which you do not have. So making choices is not something that anyone should consider surprising or unexpected.

So based on the above, do you think the BBC was right to refuse the 400% increase in the production cost of GBBO?

If that is the criteria for a 'reality' show then every show involving members of the public is a 'reality' show, which is ridiculous.

From the reports it was Love Productions who weren't prepared to "negotiate a more reasonable deal', not the BBC, by refusing to move from a minimum of £25m per year, a price the BBC weren't prepared to pay. I fail to see how the BBC could reach any compromise in such a situation.

I agree 100%.

No it was reported that when Love |Productions called a halt to negotiations, they got in a taxi and went straight round to Channel 4 and signed a deal within an hour of leaving the BBC.

They had been in secret negotiations for some time with Channel 4 while still in talks with the BBC.

Admittedly relations between the BBC and Love Productions had soured when Love Productions accused the BBC of ripping of their format for 'Hair' and the 'Great Painting Challenge', when in fact the format had been around long before Love Productions did 'Bake Off', but the BBC settled out of court any way.