• 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
<<
<
67 of 89
>>
>
mfr
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“It still doesn't make what happened morally or ethically right though does it. Greed should never be rewarded. I certainly won't be following Bake Off to 4 on principle.”

How is it ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate?

Many accounts suggest LP's relationship with the BBC was far from glowing;. In any case the viewer still gets to see the programme on FTA, public service TV, and the BBC frees up a few million to spend on other things. Win / win / win surely?
jonbwfc
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by mfr:
“How is it ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate? ”

You're proposing an argument based on false equivalence. Not all transactions can by considered equally 'ethical'. While in principle the idea of selling a good for the market value IS ethical, the good being transferred, the intentions of both parties and the cost both to individuals and society should be considered.

Is selling your product for the going rate ethical if your product is weapons and you're selling them to a regime known to oppress it's own people? Is selling your product for the market rate ethical if your product is people? Is selling your product for the going rate ethical if your product is drugs which are illegal in the place you're selling them? What if those drugs are not only illegal, but cut with a substance that may possibly harm or even kill the person using them? is it ethical as long as you tell the person buying them this fact?

Is it ethically right to sell your product for the going price and then not pass some of that profit on to people who may have helped you create that product? is it ethically right to sell a product using a description which is technically correct but misleading?

I can come up with a dozen examples where it IS ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate, simply off the top of my head. Not all sales and purchases are equal. Your argument is reductionist to the point of fallacy.
skp20040
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by mfr:
“ How is it ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate?

Many accounts suggest LP's relationship with the BBC was far from glowing;. In any case the viewer still gets to see the programme on FTA, public service TV, and the BBC frees up a few million to spend on other things. Win / win / win surely?”

Firstly it wasn't the going rate and their costs had not increased by 400% so when offered a 200% increase they should have been pleased , they decided the going rate was more than that with nothing else to say it was other than hints at what some may pay just to take it from the BBC that doesn't make it a going rate . They have decided to go for short term big gain rather than long term guaranteed income, that may well come back to bite them.
Ash_M1
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by mfr:
“How is it ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate?

Many accounts suggest LP's relationship with the BBC was far from glowing;. In any case the viewer still gets to see the programme on FTA, public service TV, and the BBC frees up a few million to spend on other things. Win / win / win surely?”

...because the public invested in the content in the first place. Public money allowed that content to get to air in the first place. Public money was good enough for six years. Now that public money has produced a hit, the public who invested in it should still be able to enjoy that content courtesy of the BBC. It is not acceptable for the private operator to benefit from the investment made by the public.

No. Put simply, Bake Off is only Bake Off on the Beeb.
mfr
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by jonbwfc:
“I can come up with a dozen examples where it IS ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate, simply off the top of my head. Not all sales and purchases are equal. Your argument is reductionist to the point of fallacy.”

Sorry, I thought we discussing a programme about baking. Context is everything.
mossy2103
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by frost:
“Which one? That they low balled them or that they lost out? If it's the latter, we'll see in the long run I guess.”

I was referring to lowballing.
ftv
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by mfr:
“How is it ethically wrong to sell your product for the going rate?

Many accounts suggest LP's relationship with the BBC was far from glowing;. In any case the viewer still gets to see the programme on FTA, public service TV, and the BBC frees up a few million to spend on other things. Win / win / win surely?”

But the viewers don't get the same programme, they will get a different version with different people and probably a different format which C4 could have devised without involving LP at all or spending £75 million.
Charnham
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“But the viewers don't get the same programme, they will get a different version with different people and probably a different format which C4 could have devised without involving LP at all or spending £75 million.”

but viewers have no entitlement to a program.

I love my shows, and I love fandom, but if a company wants to stop making the product I enjoy/buy from them, then its their loss, something new will come along, possibly from another company.

Whilst not a Bake Off fan, this is Love Productions choice, if they want to sell off long term success, for alot of cash, they can, but long term Love Productions is finished now, im betting alot of its junior staff, is already looking for other jobs.
Steve9214
15-10-2016
Some years ago my wife collected novelty cameras.

There was a guy on Ebay selling cameras in the shape of drink cans of well known brands.
He always had a "minimum" bid of over £30, where other second hand novelty film cameras were going for around £10.

He stated he "knew" what his products were worth as he had sold one at the price he was asking. He linked to the completed sale
When you looked up the item he was referring to it was sold to a buyer who had only ever bid on that one item - and lived in the same town as he did. So he obviously "bought" his own camera to try to justify his inflated valuation.

Just look at Dragon's Den when someone inflates the "value" of the Company.

Nobody can know what Love told Channel 4 they had been bid for Bakeoff by other parties, but it is clear that they must have known they could get the £25 million per series, or they would not have knocked back the BBC's £15 million.

Love were doing what they are supposed to do to maximise value to their shareholders.
What on Earth Channel 4 are up to is anyone's guess.

It remains to be seen whether the BBC allow the "break clause" to be lifted - but IMNO Love are going to have to give them something in return for this with other shows they make for the BBC.
Charnham
15-10-2016
in fairness C4 paid alot more, than the BBC offered, so I am willing to accpet they paid the market value, but for the most part people follow this rule when it comes to their second hand stuff, "my second hand stuff is worth more than your second hand stuff, because its mine", and there are loads of "Buy It Now" prices on eBay which are totally over valued compared to the rest of eBay, mostly because the buyer has a ton of said item, and needs to make their money back.

Dragons Den is not about the value of the company its about how much they want, and how much % their want to give away, somehow they dont see that as the value of the firm. They also get totally lost in the idea that it is a £million business now, because they think it will be in the future.
A.D.P
15-10-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“in fairness C4 paid alot more, than the BBC offered, so I am willing to accpet they paid the market value, but for the most part people follow this rule when it comes to their second hand stuff, "my second hand stuff is worth more than your second hand stuff, because its mine", and there are loads of "Buy It Now" prices on eBay which are totally over valued compared to the rest of eBay, mostly because the buyer has a ton of said item, and needs to make their money back.

Dragons Den is not about the value of the company its about how much they want, and how much % their want to give away, somehow they dont see that as the value of the firm. They also get totally lost in the idea that it is a £million business now, because they think it will be in the future.”

an example.

Strictly costs £18 million,
Runs September to December.
Saturday show 1-2 hours.
Sunday show 45 minutes.
It takes two, three hours.
Christmas show.
Children in need show.
And included appearances on other shows like The One Show or Breakast.

Is £25 million for a second hand show, for ten hours a year plus an extra slice, with three of four main talent left, good value?

Then it's against the prime remit of channel four so it's going to provoke looking at C4s license, and going to loose two thirds of its audience, and as it's a format the BBC will bring in a new show, maybe with the three former key talent and a prior winner a year ahead if the GBBO.
Charnham
15-10-2016
the value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it, how much something costs to make is not its value, that is nature of private sector enterprise, make something and sell it for more than it cost you.

Did C4 make a mistake, IMO yes, but that does not change the above
Steve9214
16-10-2016
For all we know Love could - COMPLETELY hypothetically- have had a "letter of intent" from someone like - oooh lets say - - SKY - saying they would pay £24.5 million for Bake off.
Channel 4 see this and offer £25 million.

Now for SKY to pay a company they already own a huge sum for a hit show, might not make much sense.
Unless it was only a bluff to boost value in a negotiation.
Much better to get money in from a 3rd party as that is pure revenue.

The only difference for an "internal deal" would be if somehow the money could be moved internationally to reduce Tax.
Like - again - hypothetically - RTL selling Neighbours - which they own the production Company - for a much higher bid than the BBC to Channel 5 in the UK, which they also owned at the time

This theoretically - allegedly - (whatever) meant a big chunk of Channel 5 profits being shipped across to the Australian producers of Neighbours - so not paying UK corporation tax on that sum - and probably being eligible for tax breaks when it arrived in Australia, as they encourage TV and film production businesses.

If you made £10 million in profit and had to pay 30% tax on it you lose £3 million.
If you "buy" Neighbours for £10 million a year - then you send that money to Australia, you pay no tax as it is a business expense - then in Australia it gets no tax or a tax break you make a minimum extra £3 million on it - or even more.
Plus your UK channel gets a programme that brings in the biggest ratings it has.

I am not saying if SKY had bought Bake off they would have done the same, but it would be good business to have an off-shore division of Love productions just for such an eventuality.
Night Crawler
16-10-2016
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“an example.

Strictly costs £18 million,
Runs September to December.
Saturday show 1-2 hours.
Sunday show 45 minutes.
It takes two, three hours.
Christmas show.
Children in need show.
And included appearances on other shows like The One Show or Breakast.

Is £25 million for a second hand show, for ten hours a year plus an extra slice, with three of four main talent left, good value?

Then it's against the prime remit of channel four so it's going to provoke looking at C4s license, and going to loose two thirds of its audience, and as it's a format the BBC will bring in a new show, maybe with the three former key talent and a prior winner a year ahead if the GBBO.”

The contract is for 40hrs of content a year.

Equally that works out at £625,000 an hour, the BBC value the cost of an hours content on a Saturday night to be £675,000, Channel 4's entertainment costs are about the same. If Channel 4 choose to air all 40hrs on a Saturday night, or just air the series and extra slice on Saturday night and the rest on say Friday night prime-time, I suppose some would see that as value for money.
Steve9214
16-10-2016
Originally Posted by Night Crawler:
“The contract is for 40hrs of content a year.

Equally that works out at £625,000 an hour, the BBC value the cost of an hours content on a Saturday night to be £675,000, Channel 4's entertainment costs are about the same. If Channel 4 choose to air all 40hrs on a Saturday night, or just air the series and extra slice on Saturday night and the rest on say Friday night prime-time, I suppose some would see that as value for money.”

I thought it was "Last Leg" that was being extended to 40 hours - not Bake off.

If they do run Bakeoff for 40 hours then it will be complete overkill, and will be dead in the water before the first series ends.
Night Crawler
16-10-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“I thought it was "Last Leg" that was being extended to 40 hours - not Bake off.

If they do run Bakeoff for 40 hours then it will be complete overkill, and will be dead in the water before the first series ends.”

40hrs were reported when the news first broke.
Quote:
“The commercial broadcaster is said to have paid around £25 million a year for the contract, which will involve up to 40 hours of programming each year, including a variety of professional and celebrity specials.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...?client=safari
Steve9214
16-10-2016
Originally Posted by Night Crawler:
“40hrs were reported when the news first broke.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...?client=safari”

Says Celebrity and Professional versions''.....But the "Creme" show is still attached to the BBC.

Did Channel 4 have the first idea what they were actually buying when they signed up to this ???
DVDfever
16-10-2016
[quote=Night Crawler;84245087]40hrs were reported when the news first broke. /QUOTE]

Does that include repeats? Everything gets shown a zillion times on C4 et al inc. +1
mossy2103
17-10-2016
Meanwhile, it looks like someone's agent has been busy .....

Quote:
“RICHARD Ayoade is the latest name to be tipped to present Great British Bake Off.

<snipped>

With his awkward mannerisms and dry wit, Richard would be a quirky choice for the baking extravaganza.

Although he is no stranger to the channel.



Not only does his show Travel Man feature on it, but he still makes regular appearances on Big Fat Quiz Of The Year.

The comedian also shot to fame as Moss in The IT Crowd, which, you guessed it, had a slot on the channel.

A source said: "Richard is a really popular choice at the minute, as many think he's got a great character that would bring a great spark to the show."”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-t...itish-Bake-Off
jonbwfc
17-10-2016
Dear lord. I quite like him he'd be utterly terrible
ftv
17-10-2016
Have I missed something here - did Jay Hunt really think the programme would move lock, stock and barrel ? We know ITV didn't think that, they declined to bid because LP couldn't guarantee it.We know there was no discussion with any of the principals on the programme before the move was announced (LP have said so).So what exactly have C4 bought apart from the title of a programme that actually no longer exists ?
Steve9214
17-10-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“Have I missed something here - did Jay Hunt really think the programme would move lock, stock and barrel ? We know ITV didn't think that, they declined to bid because LP couldn't guarantee it.We know there was no discussion with any of the principals on the programme before the move was announced (LP have said so).So what exactly have C4 bought apart from the title of a programme that actually no longer exists ?”

Totally agree - the link above says they will be doing the following:
Quote:
“The commercial broadcaster is said to have paid around £25 million a year for the contract, which will involve up to 40 hours of programming each year, including a variety of professional and celebrity specials.”

BBC still have "Creme de la Creme" so how will C4 be doing "Professional specials"
Nilrem
17-10-2016
I'm still amazed they paid something around £400k per hour for a cookery show.

Not a soap, not a sit com, not a drama, but a cookery show.

And they did it without making sure they were getting the presenters who made a very large part of it : (to me it's like buying a ferrari but not making sure you got the engine, wheels or seats).
Steve9214
18-10-2016
Originally Posted by Nilrem:
“I'm still amazed they paid something around £400k per hour for a cookery show.

Not a soap, not a sit com, not a drama, but a cookery show.

And they did it without making sure they were getting the presenters who made a very large part of it : (to me it's like buying a ferrari but not making sure you got the engine, wheels or seats).”

I recall some years ago Bob Wilson commenting about a certain ITV executive who then moved into the FA and messed up a contract so they had to pay one of the England Managers in full when he quit his contract early.

Wilson said that he had signed a new deal to be the main presenter of ITV football, then ITV got the Premier League highlights, and poached Des Lynam from the BBC.
Bob Wilson said he was told he wasn't needed any more, so they would be cancelling his contract.
Except that Wilson knew that if they terminated his contract early, they still had to pay him, in full, for the whole length of the contract.
Something the ITV executives had failed to spot

I think we may be under the impression that some of these TV Executives must be cleverer than we are, and would not do something as stupid as pay a fortune for a TV show without the star talent in place.
ftv
18-10-2016
C4 have bought what looks like the world's most expensive tent.It is misleading to say GBBO is moving to C4, it's not for the reasons stated, the BBC version no longer exists,C4 are getting a different show entirely - and they'll have to wait until 2018 for it.
<<
<
67 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