It's highly likely that the presenters and judges won't move with the show. And those four are part of the overall package that makes it enjoyable and entertaining.

That's primarily what the fuss is about.

Why is it highly likely - money talks!

I think it's a massive mistake that Bake Off isn't going to be on BBC1 after this series. It's extremely popular and is the most watched programme in ths country. Both the BBC and Love Productions would know this, so you'd think that they'd try and do whatever they could to keep it where it is. Having it move to another channel means that it's undoubtedly going to have less viewers watching, (to my knowledge, Channel 4 have never had the amount of viewers that Bake Off has), and it's more likely that the show will change from what it currently is, whether that be with the format or the presenters and/or judges.

I don't know how likely it is, but I'm hoping that somehow, Love Productions will change their mind and have the show go back to the BBC where it belongs.

c'mon now its 2016 guys the bbc like any business should be allowed to go out of business if they cannot fund themselves properly. state controlled television should be out the door. this isnt the 1950s people have choices now and can watch hundreds of privately owned tv channels instead of being under a bbc monopoly like it used to be. 'aunty' is irrelevent nowadays

I wonder what impact this will have on Junior Bake Off on CBBC, the Sewing Bee and Sara Cox's pottery show that are also Love Productions - will they all be off too soon?

Yes. NOW it's commercially-viable. So why didn't the production company offer it to a commercial channel first?


And when that show becomes another "commercial success" and gets sold to a commercial channel? Should LF money be used to build up an audience for a show only for it to then be sold to a higher, commercial, bidder with more money?

Or, to be more long-winded about it; this

Well said David


It's been a while since I've read so much nonsense on this forum


Well they certainly shouldn't have to spend years building an audience for a show only for another channel, with far larger pockets, to come along and take it away when it gets popular.


More nonsense. I'll just leave this here.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacent...years-comp.pdf


Whilst we have no reason not to believe you, there's no way that was the BBC's attitude. I think they probably meant "we don't have as much money to spend as other channels but we are the most-watched broadcaster in the UK."


Oh dear? Where do I begin? I shall start by going to bed. Whilst I'm gone, perhaps Mr Leeroy should research Public Service Broadcasting.

Goodnight!

Wrong on every count.

Most of us value quality and that's what the Beeb provides.

Losing it to Sky would be acceptable but channel 4 are hardy the movers and shakers !!

Acceptable to whom exactly? The ad-men? Certainly not for the UK populous.

Seriously? You think it would be better if we had to pay to watch it?

And what if they don't trust C4 not to tamper with the successful format? And what if they're proven correct not to trust C4? Bake Off is quintessentially a BBC show as many have said.

I'm pretty sure the licence fee has been frozen since 2010, that 6 years at the same price. how many times have Sky increased their prices in the last 6 years? In fact how many price increases have Sky pushed through in the last 2 years?

I'm fully aware it's business but sky do have a habit of allowing a programme to grow and become successful before jumping in and grabbing the rights.

well for one thing the biggest draw of the show, Mary Berry, has as good as said she won't leave the BBC.

The problem is they can't really as the government charter requires them to commission work from external production companies.

Benny Hill and Sooty

Everybody is blaming Love Productions but ultimately Love is owned by SKY.
Greedy uncle Dickie.

The production companies and commercial networks leak it themselves most of the time especially if there is going to be something 'controversial' because they want the quick ratings that such things can cause even though such manipulation ultimately damages ratings in the long term (Look at X-factor)

For the BBC there is less need for them to leak stuff, ideally they would prefer a show with long term success rather than going after quick ratings (and hence quick money)

What, like the banks you mean?

The problem is for the BBC is developing such content is expensive and while its building its audience it has the problem of people going 'There is nothing on the BBC I want to watch' because the audiences grow fairly slowly. If the shows get snatched (or copied) after the BBC have put in all the effort of growing an audience its the commercial company that get the benefit of the BBC's work (even if ratings dip its generally going to be higher than that same channel launching the show themselves from the start) rather than the BBC.

Its the same problem they have with staff, they train up a massive amount of quality staff both in front and behind the camera but they more often than not end up losing these staff once they reach a level where they can start paying back the training they got because the BBC can't compete on a wages front with commercial broadcasters.

The BBC is basically becoming a broadcaster who puts vast amount of money into developing concepts and people but who never gets the chance to fully benefit from them

Commercial broadcasters were probably offered it but might have turned it down. Now that it's had good ratings they would be willing to pay enough to fund the programme. BBC one and ITV have larger budgets and although it seems like a low cost programme with a tent in a field it would take a lot of planning and pre production as well as editing what would be a whole day in to one episode. The way it works is production companies are given the money to make the programmes in stages and broadcasters excluding the BBC and ITV wouldn't have been willing to pay as much so the production company would have to finance the production for longer which could lead to lower production quality because most production companies work on low profits until they sell the programme and format internationally

Sky would never do it Ad Free. Remember for all the crowing about Ad Free F1 its not really, I believe sporting events have different rules for advertising that lets them make up their ad minutes during the pre and post shows, certainly they have plenty of ads in both the pre and post shows. They couldn't do that in Bake off and they aren't going to give up ad revenue

Its as much Labour who are to blame. It was under their watch that the requirement for them to commission shows from outside production companies were strengthened

From reading between the lines, I get from the deal, the potential for Love Productions to sub-licence the Brand Name via advertising in Supermarkets and so on. This is something that can't be done whilst on the BBC. That's why I believe Love wanted so much more from the BBC - to compensate the loss of additional ad revenue from the usage of the Brand name. The show is not worth £25 million per year. It's a cooking contest in a Marquee. Flour and eggs are provided very cheaply by local businesses and the contestants don't get a fee.

It is greed and the appeal of advertising revenue that lost the BBC the show, not the BBC's offer.

A BBC monopoly, well the fact that there are 100's of channels says they do not have a monopoly. And yes we pay a licence fee, if the BBC went we would just pay a broadcasting tax instead as they do in other countries where they get it added on a utility bill , the government would not watch a money making opportunity disappear.

And whilst we still have the BBC we will still have free to air TV, the day it went the likes of ITV etc would be behind paywalls faster than you could blink and Freeview would be full of shopping and cheap tat channels , so you would pay a broadcasting tax and have to pay either Sky, Virgin or BT on top.



Well Sky own 70% but that automatically changed Love productions status with the BBC. BBC under government rules can make up to 50% of programmes in house, 25% must go to independent companies who are to be helped get their stuff on air and if they have shareholders then no more than 25% can be owned by other broadcasters, and the other 25% to others on a normal basis.

Now when Love sold 70% to Sky they changed themselves from a small independent preferential supplier to being just one of many , and it is of no surprise the price went up. My feeling is that Love has most of its output on the BBC who have helped them enormously and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you even as a business.

Major's Government ordered the BBC to use Indy's for 25% of their commissions. Labour increased it to 50%.

The Tories though, are trying to get them to use Indy's for 100% of commissions, but I think that it just means that all programmes must be put out to tender for Indy's to enable them a chance of producing then, even if the BBC chooses BBC Studios for value for money in the end.