A couple of days ago it was announced that the show will be sold to Channel 4 for a very large amount of money. Very stupidly, the production company assumed that their presenters would be fine with this. Turns out that they are not. Here’s Sue Perkins and Mel Unpronounceablename:
“We made no secret of our desire for the show to remain where it was. The BBC nurtured the show from its infancy and helped give it its distinctive warmth and charm, growing it from an audience of two million to nearly 15 [million] at its peak. We’ve had the most amazing time on Bake Off, and have loved seeing it rise and rise like a pair of yeasted Latvian baps.
We’re not going with the dough. We wish all the future bakers every success.”
This kind of loyalty is rare these days but also very clever. There is a rich variety of present and future available work for them at the BBC and this move now attaches them to the BBC bosom with suction cups. It’s hard to imagine anyone else presenting the show – but then again I said that about Top Gear.
This is also an important message to the people of Great Britain. As Paul Weller once said/shouted “you don’t have to take this crap”. Mel and Sue are lightweight TV presenters but 15 million people loved their gentle jokes about anal sex and bestiality so much that the whole multi million pound deal may well be off. You can’t just put a price on people, sell them on, and expect them to be fine with it.
Big business has been heartened by the fact that you can saddle the public with a huge banking crisis debt, make house prices unaffordable, don’t give them pay rises, charge through the roof for education and bugger up the NHS by privatising it and they will still vote for you. But as somebody said somewhere else, this is like buying Barcelona FC without the players. Mel and Sue are showing us what can be done! It’s a small gesture in the overall scheme of things but an important one.
I can’t disagree with most of your post and I would hate to see the BBC disappear but I think it’s right that, if another broadcaster is willing to pay for a show to be produced, it should do so and free up some of the BBC’s cash for making (or nurturing) more shows. If it turns out people don’t like the show on the other channel then the BBC can have it back at a much reduced price. I’m unsure who the loser here is.
The one thing I would disagree with is that M&S will be associated with the BBC, most of their (TV) stuff has surely been on non BBC channels in the past, if I was to associate them with any one channel, it would be Channel 4.
I am saying that this stand will do them no harm in terms of future work at the BBC. If they want to bring back their Light Lunch show, for example, I think the BBC would be keen.
Also, the show took a while to get going – which is something the BBC tends to tolerate. On a commercial channel it may well have been axed after season 1 because the numbers didn’t add up. Obviously Mel and Sue think that this loyalty counts for something. Will be interesting to see if Mary And Paul also jump ship.
That makes the BBC sound like an old fashioned record label from the 1970s that would let an act find its identity over 3-4 albums before they found success or failure..
That is a good thing as long as I don’t have to pay for it from my TV licence.
Fund it from commercial activities, get rid of the TV licence and I am happy.
I am happy to pay for BBC services.
Isn’t there a contradiction there? I thought the point is that if the BBC was commercially driven, they wouldn’t nurture a show like Bake Off.
That’s exactly what the BBC used to do with sitcoms. They would give them two series to find their feet and establish the characters. The best example of this is Only Fools and Horses which without that bedding in period wouldn’t have got off the ground as the first series was poorly received.
When I had one, my TV licence funded all sorts of bollox I never watched (including GBBO, I might add). The reason I was happy to go on paying for it was things like Happy Valley, The Fall, Radio 4, Radio 3, BBC4…we can all make such lists, I imagine.
The Beeb is an absurd organisation in many ways, always tripping over its own feet in its attempts to reconcile the spirit of Lord Reith with Strictly Come Dancing. I don’t have any doctrinaire objection to other sources of funding, but I fear that if you let commercial interests through the door what I value about the BBC would be the first to go.
Exactly the same unholy alliance of politicians, free marketeers and right-wing press is always gunning for the ABC in Oz – hotbed of lefties, waste of public money, etc. The difference is that it’s funded out of direct taxation, which makes it especially vulnerable to political meddling. But because it isn’t funded right out of people’s pockets in such an obvious way, I don’t get the sense that there’s quite so much grumbling from disaffected citizens. I stand to be corrected by Aussie chums, as ever.
The kid of principles that only money, power and wealth can buy. Up the workers eh!
To be fair, they have rejected the possibility of a shitload more money. It’s all relative of course, but I’m raising a small cheer for at least a degree of integrity on this occasion.
Usual story. British public funds an innovation through initial shaky phases, thorough improvement and on to polished excellence, then some market forces come into play and its sold to the highest bidder. Trebles all round in the boardroom! What Ho! Golf on a Friday afternoon, eh? Pass the nibbles will you?
See also various whole industries, technological advancements, scientific inventions, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps people here can help me with this. I’m genuinely perplexed.
I’ll preface this by saying that I don’t have a TV (this is not any form of right-on-groovy boast, please stop rolling your eyes at the back 🙂 ) so I’ve never seen an episode but I’ve certainly heard plenty about the show.
Why on earth is a TV show where people essentially cry at biscuits so incredibly popular?
Cameron resigned yesterday. The former Prime Minister responsible for bringing about a decision that will change this country more profoundly than any other, told the country that Britons were not quitters and then quit the top job and then yesterday quit politics entirely.
And yet the splash on The Sun was for the Bake Off.
Is this programme really such a huge deal? And if so, why?
I’d honestly like to understand the appeal.
(I’d also like to know if it’s worth watching on catch up. Only I can’t now, what with the licence fee changes, but if it goes to Channel 4, I’ll be able to)
Also, I met a pre-fame Paul Hollywood at a charity dinner thing years ago.
Bit of a tool, frankly.
It’s cosy and comforting, with added risqué puns. It’s also so well edited that during one of the final episodes of the last series The Light and I leant forward from the sofa and gasped in unison as a hapless baker’s sausage roll lived up to its name and went from baking tray to floor. All in all it creates a kind and cosy little world which is a lovely place to visit, thought I wouldn’t want to live there all the time.
it has become a mainstream show as a result of the personalities involved and how they manage to get gentle comedy from the contestants as well as the against-the-clock competitive pressure of the contest. I wouldn’t say it is something to watch again and again – but if you’re interested in the progress of the current series, it may be worth catching up.
There is a niceness to the programme that will definitely be lost once M&S go.
Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses.
It’s a baking show set in a tent so, in most respects, yes, pretty much.
Outstanding. Take this rosette.
No, not that one, gerroff!
It has a variety of elements and therefore appeals to a wide range of people. II wouldn’t want to watch whole one all the way through but I’m happy to be in the room while it’s on for the M&S humour.
The programme is editted to make Hollywood look like a tool, they can edit things to suit their own agenda but it’s so consistent that it’s hard to believe there’s no truth behind it.
‘The splash on the Sun was for the Bake-Off’…you don’t honestly expect the Sun to lead on political cataclysms when there are sausage rolls and celebrity lesbians to write about, do you?
Your comment about tv licence suggests you’re not in UK. The other day for the first time, when I fired up iPlayer via the VPN, I was asked if I had a licence. I gritted my teeth and said yes, and all was well. I hate myself, of course, but you know…
No joke, the Sun On Sunday splashed on a thought Katie Price once had.
@leicesterbangs
Really? REALLY?
Holy balls.
@mikethp
Nope, not abroad. Renting in the home of a person who has convinced themselves that the BBC will be able to trace VPNs and track people down to fine them. I don’t see how, but I watched so little catch-up anyhow that it’s not too big a deal.
It will only really become an issue if I’m still in this place when the Six Nations gets under way or when the last season of The Bridge starts.
I’m with you Scarlet. The world’s gone barking mad when an entire nation can be captivated by watching people cooking stuff.
Loyalty is a rare commodity, so fair play to them for not “going with the cash”.
However, I contend that they are not actually BBC employees, but making this statement will endear them to both the general public (who, based on current reports, see M&S as much a part of the Bake Off as the big tent and overly dry sponge cakes), and to the BBC.
The BBC may well note this show of loyalty and remember them when future voice-over work, panel shows, or presenting jobs become available.
(Both have done voice overs for BBC 4 docos (Su providing the commentary for Top Of The Pops reviews)).
No brainer really for the mirthless duo – move with the show and make a mint or stay at the BBC, which has vehicled them to death and reap more rewards. In Discounted Cashflow terms (the net present value of their future income streams), their choice is likely to have very little cost.
Tell me this, if they’re so against ‘going with the cash’, why do they channel their incomes through production companies located in buildings occupied by wealth management firms? Is it a) so they can donate huge amounts of extra income to the tax man or b) so they can take advantage of capital allowances, depreciation, office expenses and other offsets against income in order to minimise the tax they pay HMRC? I think you know the answer.
I have no idea how Mel and Sue manage their money. But they could have probably made more of it by following the show to Channel Four and didn’t. They aren’t employees of the BBC and owe them no loyalty, but have shown some. They no doubt make income from books, voiceovers, personal appearances etc and are therefore self employed with various income streams from a variety of sources. So what is the problem with forming a company under those circumstances? Blatantly they are not employees, but self employed, so what is wrong with offsetting expenses against tax, which every single self employed person (me included) does?
No problem at all. But spare me the holier than thou loyalty/not interested in the money bs. Staying with the Beeb might yield less in the immediate short term, but long term, who’s to say what loyalty to the Beeb will bring. Quite a lot I suspect.
Quadruple Uppitty Mr. Bartleby.
M&S have turned down cash from Love Productions so there’s no guarantee of any payback from Auntie. Far less bull there than Love mailing their staff to say “this has never been about who might write the biggest cheque but about where we can find the best home for Bake Off”, when its obviously all about the cash.
To be clear – the show is Love’s to take where ever they want. Free of the constraints on the BBC around product placement, sponsorship and spin offs the opportunities for a big pay day will no doubt be grabbed with both hands. Must be hard to ignore. Although Sky effectively own the show, they won’t place it on any of their channels because staying on a free to air offers better earnings potential. Maybe the BBC screwed up here by not having the same kind of rights as they do over Top Gear, although in the current environment it’s more than likely that the BBC wouldn’t feel able purchase them.
It would be nice – indeed less insulting – if Love were just to call it what it is, and not try and use such bull dress it up something more noble. According to Love the BBC were not able to “provide the necessary comfort for the future protection of such a distinctive and much-loved television series.” Maybe they meant to say “cash” not “comfort”.
Quite how the show will remain as “distinctive” if they can’t keep Berry and Hollywood on board remains to be seen. It’s certainly gifted them a major earning opportunity. That said, I’m sure it will be just as good (albeit 20% shorter to make room for the ads) fronted by Davina, Alan Carr and with Antony Worrall Thompson providing the handshakes.
Great tags, BC.
If the BBC want my version “The Great British Wank Off” hosted by Julian Clary then I’ll take their cash. What’s that, too risqué, ok off to Channel 4 it is……. 3-2-1, wank…..
Edit* Just seen your tags, seems you’re way ahead of me, or maybe Mel and Sue were…..
Hosted by Ted Rogers?
Ted Todgers.
Red Todgers, surely.
Seems that all C4 have bought are the rights to the name, the format and a tent. You’d have thought that they would need some assurance on the talent coming across too, but it’s not looking like they have it. Puts Hollywood and Berry in a pretty strong negotiating position I’d say.
didn’t watch it for a few series – I couldn’t see what was interesting about baking. But it grew on me , and I will be sad to see it go.
Rumor is that the production company is 70% owned by Murdoch.
So, he takes a beloved BBC institution and flogs it to a commercial competitor, sans talent.
Who’s the winner here?
Since the production company own the programme they ( Murdoch or whoever) are within their rights to sell it to whoever they want.
Love are now 70% owned by Sky, so I guess Murdoch is the winner on various levels. Love get more money, and his papers and others can slag off the BBC for losing it, and C4 for paying too much. Public bad, private good.
The reaction by the usual papers (Sun, Mail, Express) doesn’t surprise me, but does infuriate me. Matt Everitt put it better than I could yesterday:
Tabloids slam BBC
Govt pushes BBC cuts
BBC warns cuts mean losing shows
Govt forces cuts
BBC loses GBBO
Tabloids slam BBC
I shudder to think who C4 will come up with to host it. Davina must be a shoe-in.
Chris Evans is available…
Or indeed a choux-in
Up!
Very good sir! Have a up.
I have recently been told by a young person that it is possible to “tune” my television receiver into different channels, some of which are not owned by the BBC, and even have commercial advertising on them. Can this be true? Surely that would mean that if a programme moved to a different wavelength, it would still be possible to watch it. Who knows what next – a device that enables you to “change channels” without leaving your armchair? One can but dream.
They’ll be putting it in colour next.
Apparently Mr Baird hated tennis and built the ability to move a programme to a different channel into the specification purely to piss off tennis fans that like to watch a match all the way through without having to pick up the broom handle to change channels.
I have never watched the programme and have no interest in doing so, but blimey the grumps are having a good old go on this thread.
I happen to think it’s like Man Utd selling Rooney this season. It’s had a decent run, people are becoming bored, move on at a high price while it’s still got some value. It’s a busted flush like X Factor and such, well done the BBC ditto “The Voice”
There’s truth in that. Part of the charm of the show is its familiarity but you can only take that so far. The BBC have a long history of keeping shows running long after they should have been sent to the glue factory. (I’m told that The Apprentice is still going. Who knew?)
Not knowing when to stop a show seems to be a common problem and will no doubt become an issue for Bake Off at some point, but the viewing figures don’t support the “people are becoming bored” hypothesis – in 2015 it was the most watched show on UK TV by a mile – it represented 7 of the 10 most watched shows. The first round this year drew a million more viewers than last year. Currently more of a Pogba than a Rooney I’d say.
How about a Fellaini? Maybe busted flush was too strong a term. My other half and I have watched with diminishing returns, to the point where we watched the first one and from Mel or Sues first “BAKE!” to someone I didn’t care about being voted off we realised we were done. Haven’t watched again nor will we.
I got to that point with The Apprentice a couple of series ago – just suddenly lost interest at the first episode, so ditched it. I’m not yet at that point with GBBO, nor are the great British public, I suspect.
Yes I also gave up on Apprentice about then. I didn’t watch last years Bake Off so am not wedded to it but have seen quite a few series and am watching the current one now. (Or should that be currant?). There was still some life in it yet, as long as Mary B was still going strong.
I gave up on The Apprentice was when the prize stopped being a job and became investment in the candidate’s idea. I spotted the eventual winner of that series early on, but discounted him as he would not have been the best overall candidate for a position with Sugar. He won because his business idea in the final episode appealed most, which made what had happened in the rest of the series pretty much irrelevant.
No I think you’re dead right – the winner here is the BBC who are getting out before, as it surely will, the popularity of the show wanes. They can also say that they made a substantial offer, but couldnt possibly use license payers money to pay the figure that C4 have come up with, so that helps them in their VFM arguments with politicians. Meantime C4 have paid a fortune for a show which will almost certainly see a signficant loss in viewing figures, and the prouction company may just find that they have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Just as the Golf people have by selling the Open to Sky and seeing their viewing figures disappear overnight.
What a relief it was not to have the entire BBC taken over by the world’s most pointless pastime* (I refuse to call golf a sport) for a week in July.
Glad to see freestyle cakle-making go the same way.
* with the possible exception of motor racing.
Hangin’s too good for ’em!
I said the same on the Archers thread the other day and, now I think of it, it’s a very versatile phrase, appropriate to a good 70% of recent threads. No womder it used to be so popular.
– “I was delighted today to receive a couple of Pencilsqueezer originals..”
– “Hanging’s to good for ’em!”
Yes, I can see this multi-use expression is not going to work in every instance…
Is this actually true? If so, please post pictures.
As it happens, I do indeed have two PS originals. Falling outside of my 70 % cut off, I have indeed hung them up. I would post pictures, but I have no idea how to do so.
Dear Director General of the BBC
I am writing to complain under the strongest possible terms about the content of your news bulletins on various BBC radio channels today. At one point, I counted a full five and a half minutes during which your presenters were NOT talking about The Great British Bake off.
I know that some critics regard the BBC as bloated and self-regarding. I know that some people were critical of the fact that you had more staff at the Rio Olympics than the British team had athletes. But goodness, the service they provided was sensational. Personally, I couldn’t get enough of your staff interviewing each other about what a marvellous time they were all having in Rio (and I’m sure the vast majority of the public were only too delighted to be contributing to that).
But sadly, your radio news bulletins today have not reflected the fact that everyone in this country is absolutely DISTRAUGHT at the news that a programme about people baking cakes is being moved from one television channel to another. If you can’t reflect the views of the public, one really has to ask if we are getting value for money from our licence fee.
Please address this as a matter of urgency!
Up, up and away!
Far too much self-regarding froth, I’m afraid. Next thing you know you’ll be serving flavoured steam and smoke, but that’s already been done too. There’s nothing wrong with having a good old hoo-hah about a silly little hour of trivia that a very large number of people (all below your pay-grade, obviously), have grown to look forward to as a brief respite in their weekly grind. It’s been sold to the highest bidder for entirely cynical reasons (ad income in first season > price paid to Production Company – ergo: who cares if it tanks and goes under after that?) and quite frankly, lots of people realise that and are well miffed. As well they might be. Snidey-nidey no-no. It’s not the Syrian Proxy WW3, it’s not the Miasma of Brexit, it’s just something that gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. If that wasn’t you, fine, just go somewhere else to crow.
Don’t be too sad for Mel and Sue. As a middle class oxbridge lesbian with a humour bybass and her mate, the BBC pretty much owe them a living. It’s the rules.
Tell you what Vim, it’s political correctness gone mad.
No, it’s smug twats looking after their own, at everyone else’s expense.
Think you are being a bit harsh on Love Productions. But only a bit.
After considering the findings of an independent review, the BBC would like to apologise for comments made by Mr B Celebration on 14 September 2016. The BBC wishes to state that what Mr Celebration should, in fact, have said, is that this was political correctness gone mentally ill.
If you’ve been affected by this or any other thing that’s happened in the entire world today, please press the red button now.
I apologise. Bloody corrective autofill! I actually wrote “it’s political correctness through a different, but equally valid, mental health lens.”
Mail Online article:
“Popular Afterword co-presenter Bobby “Black” Celebration was today fighting desperately to save his career after the BBC pointedly failed to back him, following the publication of an independent investigation into the so-called “Nutjobgate” affair.
Mr Celebration issued a cringing apology, but sources at the Corporation said that the self-styled ‘internet funster’ is now “…dogsh*t on toast as far as the DG is concerned.”
Mail Online has contacted Mr Celebration for comment.
The matter is in the hands of my lawyers. Out of respect to those affected – and their loved ones – I will embark on a self-imposed minute’s silence before posting again.
…
Dear The Afterword,
My client has instructed me to instigate legal proceedings for damages after the auto correct on your site caused him severe mental anguish and public humiliation. His harmless comment, “It’s political correctness gone madeira cake,” was intended to highlight the lamentable advent of PC in the bakery oeuvre. However your over-zealous automatic editor has made it look like he was having a pop at the divs or something. We’re coming for your houses.
yours,
Peter ‘Knuckles’ McGinty, Solicitor and that
Has Sue Perkins ever made you laugh? Honestly? She is about as funny as cancer of the rectum.
She’s no Roy “Chubby!” Brown, that’s for sure!
Arf….
I’ve never watched a minute of GBBO, but yes, she has. Sorry.
I like Mel and Sue. Show will be much worse without them.