Sadly, iIt looks like your post has got lost amongst the circular arguments that have been posted over the last two pages.

Here is a report:


http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-25/m...tish-bake-off/

I do wonder where that original report that she was only going to do one more year came from. The cynic in me suggests that it would have had absolutely nothing to do with the PR teams from either Love Productions or Channel 4 (who have both been trying to claw back some positive PR lately).

Their PR teams might as well try to turn back the tide. That this would be a PR disaster was entirety predictable (and avoidable).

But would they try to turn the tide by seeding false stories? Surely not.

I'm still waiting for eggchen to say which of the items listed in Channel 4's remit which I posted in post #1290 covers outbidding the BBC who is currently broadcasting a very successful show. But I won't hold my breath.

I do wonder how active their PR teams have been on here?

Please, feel free.

A remit is an official assigned activity, a list of tasks that are a statutory requirement, but nothing in that remit precludes Channel 4 from bidding to acquire a commercial product to supplement their other output.

Why is it "ridiculous in the extreme"?

The only reason Love Productions "couldn't agree terms with its original broadcaster" is because the original broadcaster thought the asking price was too much.

Love Productions weren't interested in doing a deal with the BBC because C4 were prepared to meet the asking price, however as C4 is government owned surely it is within their remit, as government money is our money, to ask why C4 paid so much to take a programme from another publicly-owned broadcaster.

However long term is this really in their interest?

Yes, they have potentially £75m for three series of Bake Off but how damaged is their reputation now and how wary of them will broadcaster be going forward?

If you read the context of that post, it was in response to Ash_M1 who makes the repeat insistence that Love Productions should have taken the BBC offer. Not from a better business point of view as I can gather, but simply because they should have, based on some kind of ethical premise. I responded the way I did because of that. Whether it turns out to be commercially correct for them to move to Channel 4 is anybody's guess. I personally don't see anything wrong with them wanting to take a higher monetary offer for their product, but many do I suppose. I think that is strange but there you go.

Because going for the highest price may not be in the best long-term interests of your business, as I said above.

Is a short term gain of £75m over three years better value than the long-term damage to their reputation? Whichever way you look at it, this has been a PR disaster for both Love Productions and C4.

C4 will recover from it. It may well mean Jay Hunt losing her job and the privatisation of the channel, but they will recover. Love Productions, on the other hand, will see their stock within the industry plummet, and healing a damaged reputation in any industry is almost impossible.

You insist on ignoring the fact that, without the BBC, they would have no show to sell because NO-ONE ELSE WOULD TAKE A CHANCE ON IT!

According to you. We'll see what the Select Committee, who know more about what their remit is than you or I, say.

You posted up the remit in a bid to support your own argument, did you see anything in there that would preclude them from bidding for the rights to air The Great British Bake Off?

And now they do, and the BBC have lucked out. Big deal.

Did you see anything that stated they could? I didn't.

I don't think there is any kind of moral, ethical, commercial or otherwise issue surrounding the principle of selling your product to the party who will pay the most for it. We all do it, from selling our lots on ebay to the winning bidder, to selling our cars and houses to the buyers who offer the most for them.

That Love Productions now face this barrage of criticism and vitriol for doing exactly that seems strange to me.

There's no point in arguing or even discussing with someone who has no ethical standards. So I won't any more.

Why do they need instruction to do so as an extraneous activity to their remit of statutory obligations as long as they are meeting them?

Fair enough. Your ethical standards are far detached from the real world however, so it's no wonder there's no mutual understanding.

Which to me shows you understand little about business and reputation.

Trust and reputation is everything in business. So if a potential new business partner doesn't feel they can trust you because of your damaged reputation they are less likely to work with you. Love Productions, through their actions, have created that mistrust about themselves.

The BBC, for example, will be very reluctant to ever work with them again, ITV and the other commercial channels will have seen what they have done and wonder if they would do the same to them if they work with them.

Even when it comes to selling a house you're not bound to sell to the person who makes the highest offer. I know of plenty of people who have accepted a lower offer because they thought the people who offered the lower price were more suitable purchasers.

I think you will find that in the real world long-term, successful, businesses don't operate the way Love Productions have done.

You're missing the point. I understand perfectly well about business and reputation, but what I am saying is that I don't think this criticism of Love Productions for taking their program to C4 is wholly warranted.

The BBC's relationship with Love wasn't great to begin with if reports are to be believed, and this would have probably formed part of their decision to move. So where you have some previous bad blood and a better offer, I see it as understandable that they parted ways.

Remains to be seen whether it was a bad decision for them. Too early to tell.

Those reports though seem to be coming from Love Productions, probably to 'justify' their decision.

Business is all about compromise and if, as it seems, Love Productions weren't prepared to budge on £25m a year why would the BBC continue to negotiate? £25m was far more then they were prepared to offer. From their perspective Love Productions intransigence would render any future discussions a waste of time and so they walked away.

If neither side are prepared to compromise there are no grounds for negotiations.

If Sky see the damage to Love Productions reputation as compromising the return on their investment those who made the decision to take C4's money won't be around for long, so we might only to wait until the phone stops ringing at Love Productions to tell.