Great British Bake Off & the BBC

fabs said:
So, if something doesn't interest you, it's moronic? That makes it so much better. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You really can't tell me that watching someone baking a cake ( or what ever) is enthralling.
Its equivalent to watching grass grow, or paint drying.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
You really can't tell me that watching someone baking a cake ( or what ever) is enthralling.
Click to expand...

But it's not watching someone bake a cake, is it? It's about people rising to a challenge and competing with eachother. Just because it's a subject that doesn't interest you, doesn't make it "moronic".
 
It's not a matter of being forced but conditioned, if bake off in the jungle on skates is all you ever get to see it becomes all you expect to see.
 
fabs said:
But it's not watching someone bake a cake, is it?
Click to expand...

Oh come on, you can dress it up all you like, but that's exactly what it is.
 
Steep said:
It's not a matter of being forced but conditioned, if bake off in the jungle on skates is all you ever get to see it becomes all you expect to see.
Click to expand...

So you assume that, because someone watches GBBO, they will automatically watch all the other reality shows because their "conditioned to"? Bold assumption there.
 
fabs said:
No it isn't. You might as well tell someone who watched F1 tat it's just someone driving a car.
Click to expand...
Well, when push comes to shove, it is.
 
Wife and daughter like the Bake Off, I can take it or leave it, none of us like the dancing show doesn't make it better or worse though.
 
IMHO if they stopped paying out such high salaries to the so called bosses then maybe they could afford the odd program here there. Just a thought
 
Graham W said:
This is what happens when the BBC buy in their programming from outside production companies, they are at that companies bidding.
Of course private investment (Outsourcing) is "All good"* in the eyes of the BBC's paymasters.









A little W1A reference for you there. :)
Click to expand...

This
 
I prefer watching it over watching some blokes run on a field after a ball and then once they got it they kick it or loose it. I really don't understand how anyone find that enjoyable. But hey if they like that that is fine, I would not resort to calling them names for it.
 
Last edited:
wave01 said:
IMHO if they stopped paying out such high salaries to the so called bosses then maybe they could afford the odd program here there. Just a thought
Click to expand...
Try thinking that through. ;)

I'll help, idiots think that anything they see as 'public money' should never pay managers a decent salary.

But in te private sector, the market should be free to drive salaries up.

How do you suggest good managers are maintained by government, the BBC etc?
 
Then the bbc should drive up the there fees to pay more for programs. I don't think that would go down to well
 
wave01 said:
Then the bbc should drive up the there fees to pay more for programs. I don't think that would go down to well
Click to expand...
So now you're coming to understand that trying to run a 'commercial venture' whilst constrained by a government who demand some control is never going to be straightforward.

Of course this position isn't helped by the 'media'* constantly attacking them on all fronts.
*again it's quite obvious why they have a vested interest in the demise of the BBC.

We should listen to what our American cousins think of institutions like the NHS and BBC before we accept Murdochs criticisms. ;)
 
fabs said:
So you assume that, because someone watches GBBO, they will automatically watch all the other reality shows because their "conditioned to"? Bold assumption there.
Click to expand...

I said conditioning, not hypnotism.

An example of conditioning - back in the 1980s (roughly) retail businesses stopped referring to money in their advertising. They'll say things like "only nine nine nine" instead of nine hundred and ninety nine and will never mention "pounds" because they don't want you to think about the money. When you think about money you think about cost and are less likely to spend. I'm willing to bet that you've looked at a price and said to yourself e.g. three nine nine instead of three pounds ninety nine. I do it and I'm aware of myself doing it even though I know what it is, conditioning.
 
Phil V said:
Try thinking that through. ;)

I'll help, idiots think that anything they see as 'public money' should never pay managers a decent salary.

But in te private sector, the market should be free to drive salaries up.

How do you suggest good managers are maintained by government, the BBC etc?
Click to expand...
I think you are spot on. Lots of very good people in the public sector, many who could run rings around the best. The difficulty really is to keep and maintain that talent when the hands are tied; granted some is self inflicted by their own bureaucratic staff and structures which determine that everyone needs to be a manager. But public perception and scrutiny is constantly part of it.

The BBC needs to pay well to maintain good talent. I really would not like to see the BBC disappear. And even a handful of programmes are worth the license fee, and is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Murdoch subscription ;)
 
Now Mel and Sue have come out and said that they won't be following the show to channel 4 I hope that Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry quit too.
As @Phil V said, Love Productions and Channel 4 will be left with a £25m tent.

The show was one of the most successful shows on television with it's existing funding, I understand it was about £5m a series. Quite where Love productions get £25m from is beyond me, it's quite a leap!
But, the deal with Channel 4 just demonstrates that where there is demand, someone will provide the supply.
 
J40ADF said:
Now Mel and Sue have come out and said that they won't be following the show to channel 4 I hope that Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry quit too.
As @Phil V said, Love Productions and Channel 4 will be left with a £25m tent.

The show was one of the most successful shows on television with it's existing funding, I understand it was about £5m a series. Quite where Love productions get £25m from is beyond me, it's quite a leap!
But, the deal with Channel 4 just demonstrates that where there is demand, someone will provide the supply.
Click to expand...
C4 surely would have put conditions in their purchase. Would they? I hope so for them and if not then sack the guy/girl.
 
viv1969 said:
Correct, no matter what device you view on.
Lots of gnashing of teeth and wailing over that, I'd imagine. :D
Click to expand...

The change to the licence fee rules make me angry, not angry about having to have a licence to use iplayer, but the way they've implemented it.

It would be relatively trivial to make you need to create a login and match it to your licence number, but no, none of that. Just let people watch it then fine them if they don't have a licence, incredibly underhand.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Just let people watch it then fine them if they don't have a licence, incredibly underhand.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how the licence system has always worked, you mean? :thinking:
 
dejongj said:
C4 surely would have put conditions in their purchase. Would they? I hope so for them and if not then sack the guy/girl.
Click to expand...
I would have been a shewd move by Channel 4 and Love Productions to make it a stipulation in the contract that the Judges remain. However they obviously didn't manage this with the hosts. Time will tell...
 
viv1969 said:
Kind of like how the licence system has always worked, you mean? :thinking:
Click to expand...

But there's no technical means to restrict an over the air broadcast to a house, there is a technical means to stop people watching it online if they don't have a licence.
 
Am sure there must be something in the contract about presenters... surely C4 bid that based on the format and people staying the same? After all, without Paul and Mary it will be worth a lot less!
 
KitsuneAndy said:
But there's no technical means to restrict an over the air broadcast to a house, there is a technical means to stop people watching it online if they don't have a licence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if a person knows they're going to be viewing BBC content on any device, then they know they need to have a licence.
Choosing to view without one is their risk to take, but whining about it if they get fined won't garner much sympathy.
 
cambsno said:
Am sure there must be something in the contract about presenters... surely C4 bid that based on the format and people staying the same? After all, without Paul and Mary it will be worth a lot less!
Click to expand...
Sue and Mel stated that they'd not been notified of any negotiations, if the same is true of Mary and Paul...

Channel 4 could be screwed.
 
I suspect Mary and Paul are under no obligation to work if they don't want to...
 
Cobra said:
I also heard that if you are watching catch up ( why would you do that?) on an iPad etc, you now need a licence to do so.
Click to expand...
Steep said:
If you try to watch catch up now you get a pop up that you have to agree to saying you have a license etc. I believe.
Click to expand...
viv1969 said:
Correct, no matter what device you view on.
Lots of gnashing of teeth and wailing over that, I'd imagine. :D
Click to expand...

I watch iplayer on my tablet and I haven't been asked if I have a licence.
 
nilagin said:
I watch iplayer on my tablet and I haven't been asked if I have a licence.
Click to expand...
Doesn't alter the fact that as of Sept. 1st, you need one by law.
 
Shirleyr said:
Its not gone gone I think its moved over to Channel 4, I read that they wanted an extra 24million and the BBC would not pay. I like it and its very popular.
Click to expand...
Cartus said:
Interesting that Sky own 70% of Love Productions, that might help explain the price increase.

Now the shows two presenters are leaving it would appear the £25m C4 paid might not look such good value after all.
Click to expand...

Which implies it was only £1m per series?
 
fabs said:
Not really, people watch what interests them. No-one's being forced to do anything. Just because it doesn't interest you, doesn't make it rubbish.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but sometimes at the end of a long day, it's good to sit down and watch something untaxing to let your brain unwind. It's not rubbish, it's no necessarily thought provoking ut entertaining and engaging.
 
Byker28i said:
I understand what you're saying, but sometimes at the end of a long day, it's good to sit down and watch something untaxing to let your brain unwind. It's not rubbish, it's no necessarily thought provoking ut entertaining and engaging.
Click to expand...
It may be, to some, but it's neither entertaining nor engaging to others.
Why does that make those people any more right or wrong.
Can't it just be that different people's opinions differ, and that's OK?
 
viv1969 said:
It may be, to some, but it's neither entertaining nor engaging to others.
Why does that make those people any more right or wrong.
Can't it just be that different people's opinions differ, and that's OK?
Click to expand...

No-one's saying otherwise except for a few who believe that anything they don't find entertaining or engaging is moronic or that those that do are of somewhat lesser intelligence.
 
fabs said:
No-one's saying otherwise except for a few who believe that anything they don't find entertaining or engaging is moronic or that those that do are of somewhat lesser intelligence.
Click to expand...
Exactly that. I don't like soaps but like car programs. My wife ont he other hand.... watches TV in the other room at times :D
 
Byker28i said:
Which implies it was only £1m per series?
Click to expand...

Answer my own question. £7.5m a year it cost the BBC

The corporation is thought to have offered £15m per year to keep the programme on the BBC.

That would have been double the amount the BBC currently pays for the show and its sister programmes such as An Extra Slice and the Sport Relief specials.

But it is understood Love Productions refused to entertain any offers below £25m per year.
 
dejongj said:
Ah well the labels just keep on collecting; as I was in favour of Brexit I'm not just dumb but also an uneducated bigoted racist apparantly. The irony is quite strong when those dish out those labels, isn't it just ;)
Click to expand...

O missed a trick - should have been BreadXit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top