« Topics
12345678...293031
Brekkie30,261 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
Are you the Daily Mail in disguise?

So wrong so often I think he might be the former host of the US version of The Apprentice, especially when he sees Sweden and the UK as not being options, but a visit to Putin land - no problem.


It'll end up being in Israel I'm sure, hosted by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shouldn't that have been posted in the "John Logie Baird has Invented Television" thread?
2
tightrope78 and DE88 gave kudos
noggin13,973 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Any production BBC Studios make for transmission on any of the BBC domestic services would, as would any other programme produced for them by any source, be subject to these rules. BBC Studios productions for other broadcasters would be subject to the rules applicable to those broadcasters.


Indeed. BBC Studios has made a series for PBS in the US, which contained sponsorship bumpers.
noggin13,973 posts since 26 Jun 2001
The BBC would NOT be permitted under the terms of it's Charter to accept sponsorship in any form which puts the UK at a hosting disadvantage.


Is this really correct? I find it hard to believe that BBC Studios couldn't benefit from any off-screen sponsorship now that it's a commercial entity.


BBC Studios (the BBC's semi-independent production arm) can make sponsored programmes - sure.

But they can't make them for the main UK BBC channels. The rules about sponsorship vary by broadcaster, and so BBC Studios commissions from the BBC will be made under different rules to, say, BBC Studios commissions from Channel 5, or an overseas broadcaster, like PBS in the US.

The BBC does have sponsored broadcasts on BBC World News, but that's a non-public service channel and not covered by the same Charter/Ofcom rules as BBC One, for instance.
1
UKnews gave kudos
TIGHazard306 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
The BBC would NOT be permitted under the terms of it's Charter to accept sponsorship in any form which puts the UK at a hosting disadvantage.


Is this really correct? I find it hard to believe that BBC Studios couldn't benefit from any off-screen sponsorship now that it's a commercial entity.


BBC Studios (the BBC's semi-independent production arm) can make sponsored programmes - sure.

But they can't make them for the main UK BBC channels. The rules about sponsorship vary by broadcaster, and so BBC Studios commissions from the BBC will be made under different rules to, say, BBC Studios commissions from Channel 5, or an overseas broadcaster, like PBS in the US.

The BBC does have sponsored broadcasts on BBC World News, but that's a non-public service channel and not covered by the same Charter/Ofcom rules as BBC One, for instance.


Rhetorical question, because I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

What happens in the case of something like a international sporting event? The NFL have stated they want a London based team and that stadium would be treated like any other (as in, they can bid for the Super Bowl if they want to)

But lets just assume a London team exists, and the stadium they use is hosting Super Bowl 60.

BBC Studios would then be commissioned by the NFL to produce the coverage of the event for international use. The BBC would obviously commission them for the domestic coverage, and as Sky also have the rights, it would be possible for Sky to do the same.

So now you have three main problems to deal with. The BBC can't have any advertising or sponsorship. Sky can take advertising breaks (but not as many as the US can) and the US broadcaster can have a shed load of advertising and on-screen sponsorship (including things like the Ford pre-kick show, or Pepsi halftime show).
noggin13,973 posts since 26 Jun 2001

Is this really correct? I find it hard to believe that BBC Studios couldn't benefit from any off-screen sponsorship now that it's a commercial entity.


BBC Studios (the BBC's semi-independent production arm) can make sponsored programmes - sure.

But they can't make them for the main UK BBC channels. The rules about sponsorship vary by broadcaster, and so BBC Studios commissions from the BBC will be made under different rules to, say, BBC Studios commissions from Channel 5, or an overseas broadcaster, like PBS in the US.

The BBC does have sponsored broadcasts on BBC World News, but that's a non-public service channel and not covered by the same Charter/Ofcom rules as BBC One, for instance.


Rhetorical question, because I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

What happens in the case of something like a international sporting event? The NFL have stated they want a London based team and that stadium would be treated like any other (as in, they can bid for the Super Bowl if they want to)

But lets just assume a London team exists, and the stadium they use is hosting Super Bowl 60.

BBC Studios would then be commissioned by the NFL to produce the coverage of the event for international use. The BBC would obviously commission them for the domestic coverage, and as Sky also have the rights, it would be possible for Sky to do the same.

Very hypothetical as the BBC don't have a sport division in BBC Studios - BBC Sport remained part of the public service element of the BBC for both production and commissioning.

Quote:

So now you have three main problems to deal with. The BBC can't have any advertising or sponsorship. Sky can take advertising breaks (but not as many as the US can) and the US broadcaster can have a shed load of advertising and on-screen sponsorship (including things like the Ford pre-kick show, or Pepsi halftime show).


Pretty much the same issue that NFL have anywhere. The (non-existent) BBC Studios sport operation acting as host broadcaster would create a clean world feed without sponsorship elements, and possibly a dirty feed with sponsorship elements (it's normal to do a dual-mix with different replay wipes, stings etc. with different branding in these cases and modern vision mixers allow for this).

This clean world feed would be made available to third party rights holders, like the US broadcasters and the BBC domestic operation.

There may be a secondary feed produced by the US rights holders in addition.

As this coverage of an independent sporting event, not a BBC produced 'show' that is being staged by the BBC (i.e. the BBC didn't book the football teams to come and play) then this falls into an event category, where I believe the sponsorship rules are different.

The BBC domestic operation would have to be careful with the handling of sponsored pre-show and half-time content - and would no doubt take a world feed with less 'sponsored' graphic branding, and possibly also not take the US FoH MC sound if that were covered in sponsorship mentions.

However BBC Studios would have no issues - they are being paid to produce coverage, or an event, and they will do that to the spec provided by their commissioners (NFL in this case I expect) In that case they are no different from Done and Dusted doing the coverage.


Moving away from the hypothetical scenario you propose - if the BBC entirely produces a show, but accepts sponsorship this is an issue (c.f. the Robinsons sponsorship of Sports Personality of the Year being axed - as it was clear SPOTY wouldn't exist without the BBC) However, if the BBC covers a pre-existing sporting event, or takes a host feed from a sporting event, that has event sponsorship or advertising around the ground (like a football match) then the rules are different, as the BBC is not directly benefiting from that sponsorship.

Where the BBC are producing editorial coverage as party of a sponsored event like BAFTA, then the rules are different again, and the BBC is careful to restrict showing commerciallogos and producers are careful to script verbal mentions to an agreed limit.

Where Eurovision is complex isn't the on-screen branding - it's the payment for the actual contest. If large elements of that are sponsored in return for an on-screen credit or promotional consideration in surrounding content, that's going to always be tricky. There may be ways round it by the BBC surrendering some duties and responsibilities to the EBU - but it would be complex.
1
UKnews gave kudos
UKnews705 posts since 26 Apr 2011
Not even rhetorical - depending on which US network had the Super Bowl that year they'd produce the coverage using their chosen UK facilities company, just as they have for - regular season - London games. The BBC might not commission BBC Studios, the recent NFL coverage has been produced by Whisper Films. Sky would produce in house as they do now.

In the case of the Super Bowl there is an - NFL Network produced - international feed. Either UK broadcaster could take either one. The international feed has (almost) no on screen sponsorship and a fixed number of fixed length ad breaks.

It wouldn't be any different to how the BBC handle the Super Bowl now. The production team would get a feed of the (US network) production truck talkback and when there was a sponsorship / other promo they'd cut away. For one of those during the Super Bowl this year they did that very cleverly by cutting to a clean version of the international feed. Sky didn't and let the sponsorship message through. For those out of ad breaks both the BBC and Sky would cut back after the sponsorship message. (There are fewer during the game than in other US sports.) Both tend to take the international feed of the halftime show as it doesn't usually have the sponsors logo on screen, although it can still slip through in the announcement before / after the performance.

For the rest of the game the BBC fill the gaps with analysis / highlights, Sky take some ad breaks and fill the rest with analysis / highlights.
JamesM0984589 posts since 21 Jun 2018 Recently warned
Central (East) East Midlands Today
Yep. And remember of course that in the case of Eurovision, the BBC would still have to create a show with commercial breaks, but they would fill those with green room interviews etc. It would be interesting to see if BBC Four still did opt outs, although I'd hope as hosts they would bump up to BBC One.

On that note I see that despite hosting, Young Musicians is only being shown on BBC Two Scotland.
BM11579 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London
Yep. And remember of course that in the case of Eurovision, the BBC would still have to create a show with commercial breaks, but they would fill those with green room interviews etc. It would be interesting to see if BBC Four still did opt outs, although I'd hope as hosts they would bump up to BBC One.

On that note I see that despite hosting, Young Musicians is only being shown on BBC Two Scotland.

An UK hosted contest would probably see the semi's on BBC Two.
BM11579 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London

The concerns now moves on to Tel Aviv v Jersualam and either will the Israeli government accept Tel Aviv or the EBU accept Jerusalem. Plus working rehearsals around Shabbat. The mood does fell like the Israeli government will accept it in Tel Aviv but I am not sure exactly how they work round the rehearsals problem - Jury rehearsal on a Friday afternoon?