DS Forums

 
 

BBC Loses Great British Bakeoff


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-09-2016, 15:40
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Love could agree at 15 million a far increased offer, but wanted £25 million way above its worth.

Strictly costs £18 million for example, more days, more hours, spin off three hours a week, and 13 million viewers.
And has elaborate staging, lighting & projection, along with live band and guest singers
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-09-2016, 15:42
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
By the above rationale then, the BBC spending £15m a year on Bake Off would have been poor value for the licence fee payer and it is best for it to have left the broadcaster.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 15:43
Nilrem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,632
Agree.

The celebrity costs is from £25 k if they last till end October up to £90k in the final, and then the hire of Pinewood studios, make up, costume, glitter, band, music copyright, projection units, transport, pro dancers £35k each etc etc.

But is on
Saturdays 2 hours.
Sundays 45 minutes.
ITT three hours a week.
September to December, with Christmas show and Children in need special.
Aye I can understand how/why Strictly can cost a lot more than Bake off, I was trying to point out that there is no way that the BBC could really justify paying so much more for Bake Off than Strictly given the relative audiences, costs and air time.

Bake Off is at it's heart a far simpler and smaller production so assuming similar audience levels and air time should cost a lot less.
Nilrem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:01
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
Love shouldn't do anything they don't feel is in their interests, that is just silly.
...and that attitude is precisely why Love have been lambasted since this whole sorry saga started. While the going was good, they were happy to take licence fee money and the support the BBC gave them. Then when they thought they could, they sold out. They put 'self' and 'profit' ahead of their duty and loyalty to the public. This is unforgivable. This makes Love unsuitable to receive any public money going forward.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:03
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
Love couldn't agree a renewed fee for rights with the BBC, even though they had been in talks for a year. The show wasn't likely to have continued with the BBC anyway.
They weren't interested in securing a deal with the Beeb. This is the truth of the matter. They were engaged in a money grab. They are dreadful people who have no values whatsoever.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:05
Ash_M1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,139
It will be fine. You wait and see.
It won't for all the many reasons highlighted within this thread. Love's greed has killed the most popular show on the box. Incompetence doesn't even come close.
Ash_M1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:18
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
By the above rationale then, the BBC spending £15m a year on Bake Off would have been poor value for the licence fee payer and it is best for it to have left the broadcaster.
Nice spin. Now some to balance:

But the BBC did go as high as it felt was justifiable, perhaps the Strictly costs reflect the idea that Strictly is done rather efficiently (it being a BBC Studios production of course)
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:21
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
Nice spin. Now some to balance:

But the BBC did go as high as it felt was justifiable, perhaps the Strictly costs reflect the idea that Strictly is done rather efficiently (it being a BBC Studios production of course)
Ha ha - nice spin by retort.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:22
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Ha ha - nice spin by retort.
Thank you.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:26
A.D.P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,318
And has elaborate staging, lighting & projection, along with live band and guest singers
Agree.
By the above rationale then, the BBC spending £15m a year on Bake Off would have been poor value for the licence fee payer and it is best for it to have left the broadcaster.
Changed your tune then,
Aye I can understand how/why Strictly can cost a lot more than Bake off, I was trying to point out that there is no way that the BBC could really justify paying so much more for Bake Off than Strictly given the relative audiences, costs and air time.

Bake Off is at it's heart a far simpler and smaller production so assuming similar audience levels and air time should cost a lot less.
Agree.
...and that attitude is precisely why Love have been lambasted since this whole sorry saga started. While the going was good, they were happy to take licence fee money and the support the BBC gave them. Then when they thought they could, they sold out. They put 'self' and 'profit' ahead of their duty and loyalty to the public. This is unforgivable. This makes Love unsuitable to receive any public money going forward.
Agree.
They weren't interested in securing a deal with the Beeb. This is the truth of the matter. They were engaged in a money grab. They are dreadful people who have no values whatsoever.
Agree, thry should be called, Chuggers or Dick Turpin, or even Donald Trump.
It won't for all the many reasons highlighted within this thread. Love's greed has killed the most popular show on the box. Incompetence doesn't even come close.
Agree.
Nice spin. Now some to balance:

But the BBC did go as high as it felt was justifiable, perhaps the Strictly costs reflect the idea that Strictly is done rather efficiently (it being a BBC Studios production of course)
Agree, they were in a difficult position GBBO is very popular £15 million would hurt, but would be just about justified, and if they didn't try the public would not have been on the BBC side. But the Love execs were stringing them along, we know they were in contact with ITV who said no, ( wisely), and Love were speaking to C4 who were inept, incompetent, and didn't perform any due diligence and didn't consider the Reputational damage to C4s future.
A.D.P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:26
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
I love how typically derided rags like the Sun get linked to if there is a nugget in there that people can nod solemnly in agreement with.
It's the same with the Mail, you typically get the Left posting that you cannot believe anything in the Mail even though their own House Journal, Daily Mirror, has a far worse reputation. I sometimes look up the stories and quite often the Mail has just picked them up from local newspaper as well as the stories being in lots of other national ones.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:29
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
Agree.

Changed your tune then, .
Not at all. How have you derived that?
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:29
A.D.P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,318
It's the same with the Mail, you typically get the Left posting that you cannot believe anything in the Mail even though their own House Journal, Daily Mirror, has a far worse reputation. I sometimes look up the stories and quite often the Mail has just picked them up from local newspaper as well as the stories being in lots of other national ones.
Yes, very true, I " in the past " was a former DM reader but it became too biased, I couldn't trust it anymore, I purchased it for its news, moneymail, was good, but the current management killed it and it , doesn't gave news, just the owners opinions, I will not buy opinions.
A.D.P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:34
A.D.P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,318
Not at all. How have you derived that?
Do you remember the Queen song.

Bohemian rhapsody

Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me
You keep posting the BBC overpaid, underpaid, should keep it, shouldn't keep it.

And say why are people posting on this thread and why is it so important to posters, but post the alternative to anything?
A.D.P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 16:39
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
Do you remember the Queen song.

Bohemian rhapsody



You keep posting the BBC overpaid, underpaid, should keep it, shouldn't keep it.

And say why are people posting on this thread and why is it so important to posters, but post the alternative to anything?
Say what now?

I don't understand a word of the above
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:10
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,682
Love couldn't agree a renewed fee for rights with the BBC, even though they had been in talks for a year. The show wasn't likely to have continued with the BBC anyway.
What do you mean it wasn't likely to have continued, do you mean in general ? because that's wrong as the BBC wanted to keep it on air and had no plans to drop it at all. if you mean due to the money then of course not as the BBC would not pay a 400% increase.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:20
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
What do you mean it wasn't likely to have continued, do you mean in general ? because that's wrong as the BBC wanted to keep it on air and had no plans to drop it at all. if you mean due to the money then of course not as the BBC would not pay a 400% increase.
I meant what I typed. The show was not likely to have continued with the BBC.

If you read the posts in context, mine was in response to this consternation that Channel 4 have somehow "stolen" the programme. They haven't, because you can only steal (or poach) that what belongs to somebody else. Love had been in talks with the BBC for a year, and they were not fruitful with a satisfactory renewal deal, so the programme was going to move anyway most likely.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:28
human nature
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,540
I meant what I typed. The show was not likely to have continued with the BBC.

If you read the posts in context, mine was in response to this consternation that Channel 4 have somehow "stolen" the programme. They haven't, because you can only steal (or poach) that what belongs to somebody else. Love had been in talks with the BBC for a year, and they were not fruitful with a satisfactory renewal deal, so the programme was going to move anyway most likely.
Yes, it was Love Productions that destroyed their own programme - and their reputation too - in their greedy desire for a ridiculous 400% pay increase! And for buying a dud Channel 4 now has a lot of damage limitation to sort out as well.
human nature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:31
Salcy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 280
The only reason it would have been unlikely to carry on is because of Lives ourageous overpricing of their product. A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If Channel 4 had looked into the deal for more than 5 minutes, they would have realised it was way overpriced, and Love would have had to come back with a more sensible offer. As it was, they chances it and Ch4 paid it, without the presenters and apparently without the international licencing rights. It's not worth £75 m.
Salcy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:38
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
As it was, they chances it and Ch4 paid it, without the presenters and apparently without the international licencing rights. It's not worth £75 m.
Yes, BBC Worldwide have the international rights until 2028.

BBC Worldwide retains Bake Off remake rights until 2028

13 September, 2016 | By Peter White

The BBC is to continue to profit from The Great British Bake Off until at least 2028 after it emerged that its international arm holds the remake rights for the next 12 years.

BBC Worldwide, which distributes Love Productions’ format globally, will retain the rights to sell the show following its move from BBC1 to Channel 4.

The distributor has secured 21 international GBBO remakes and sold at least one series of the UK version to broadcasters in 23 countries. It has the global rights outside of North America.

It is also understood to have first right of refusal to sell C4’s version of the show.

BBCW’s agreement with Love means that rival distributors, including Sky Vision, the international arm of Love’s parent company, are less likely to snatch the distribution rights.

Other sales firms could negotiate a large offer to distribute the British version of the show but without BBCW’s lucrative format rights, such a deal is unlikely.

Sky Vision managing director Jane Millichip joked in January that she was “working on” wrestling the global rights away from BBCW after Sky invested in Love in 2014.
http://m.broadcastnow.co.uk/5109408.article
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 17:58
Eadfrith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,289
Love could agree at 15 million a far increased offer, but wanted £25 million way above its worth.

Strictly costs £18 million for example, more days, more hours, spin off three hours a week, and 13 million viewers.
£25 Million LOL......Kind of funny when you consider last weeks show about Batter and basic looking pancakes had the Budget Busting ingredients - Flour, Milk and Egg !!!!
Eadfrith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 18:01
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
Love could agree at 15 million a far increased offer, but wanted £25 million way above its worth..
£15m is probably way, way above what it is worth and yet everybody, to a man, seems to think that the BBC should have paid this with our licence fee. In fact, everybody would have been pleased if they had.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 19:00
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,434
According to the Sunday Times the BBC is planning a new baking show with Mary, Sue and Mel which will get on the air long before C4 can air their version of GBBO in 2018.They also say ITV did not bid because Love Productions could not deliver the four principals, a fact C4 seems to have overlooked.
ftv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 19:00
Janet43
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,129
I'm sure she didn't, because the notion of her having to answer to MP's for acquiring a baking show that couldn't agree terms with its original broadcaster so moved to Channel 4 instead is ridiculous in the extreme.
So you'd be happy if you owned a business and those who you appointed to run that business for you suddenly went against what you'd appointed them to do and spent far more on a project they shouldn't have been concerned with in the first place, than it was worth? Stupid if you would.

So why is it stupid for the government, who own Channel 4, to want answers on what Channel 4 has done? I'd say sensible.
Janet43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2016, 19:15
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
So you'd be happy if you owned a business and those who you appointed to run that business for you suddenly went against what you'd appointed them to do and spent far more on a project they shouldn't have been concerned with in the first place, than it was worth? Stupid if you would.

So why is it stupid for the government, who own Channel 4, to want answers on what Channel 4 has done? I'd say sensible.
Nobody is able to say definitively what the show is worth. The BBC thought £6m, then £15m. Love Productions and Channel 4 think £25m. Whose valuation is the right one? Only time will tell.

Do you think the BBC should have paid £15m a year for a baking show in a tent? If so what are you basing your value on?
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:34.