New Bake Off line up confirmed

Well 2010 had the late Stuart Baggs, probably one of the two most notable contestants not to win.

As for Claude he’s always been amazing in the interview stage, I’m well aware of that but adds nothing as an advisor. One who was better in small dosesses I reckon!

By the way, this is just my personal opinion in terms of the enjoyment I get from watching. I’m not talking about public opinion at large as I’ve no idea what others think.

Doubt Claude would get the Countdown gig and I don’t think Karen would get to front any BBC documentaries.

So in my view the current advisors are completely dull and the programme makers could do better if they looked elsewhere.

Luckily like Bake Off it’s the producers who make the show what it is and the casting of contestants is probably the second most important thing. There is two areas they could improve though and they are the advisors who had a unique charm at one time and now lack any.

Well it's no surprise that someone so predisposed to be so anti anything that isn't coming from the BBC is rather negative. If we saw more balanced views from you, your posts would be taken more seriously.



We all knew as a default Channel 4 would automatically record much lower viewing figures than the same programme would on BBC One.

I would think Channel 4 would be quite pleased with the results so far and it should be turning a profit, although that's something none of us will know for sure for a while.

On the product placement point, if it was getting 20 million viewers, product placement would be just as an attractive idea for future series if not more so. It ultimately just means a bigger profit.

I think the whole on demand thing is an interesting one. But as it seems to be the way TV is going with younger viewers I think Channel 4 will be pleased all in all it’s doing so well in this regard. And I think it will lead advertisers to think on demand viewing is important and help ensure growth in this area. As more and more on demand viewing is done on TV, tablets or phones than a few years ago rather than on computers where it was easier to ignore, in addition to the fact the younger audience is viewing more and more TV this way, I think is going to be very appealing to advertisers that want to reach that audience.


In summary,

Am I enjoying it? Yes. Is it doing as expected for Channel 4? Probably, but I like everyone else am not yet privvy to such information. Should Cando get rid of his broadcasting biases in order to add more value to conversation? Yes, it would propel him or her from status of a good value member to an invaluable member. Of course it is not going to happen though.

Benefits Street had an average of 5.5 million across the series, and while Gypsy Wedding rated better, it was still on a par with the figures Bake Off are getting. We are far too early in the series for consolidated 28 day ratings to see how many people are being reached, but the first episode has been rated as 9.72million.

It would have been unusual for this programme to build an audience through the series - you'd expect huge numbers for ep1 just out of interest to see what the new faces were like, and if viewers were disappointed the figures would taper off. That hasn't happened.

The idea that a BBC One can move to Channel 4, gain commercials, lose its cast and be attracting those sort of figures IS impressive.

To put this into perspective, the move from BBC Two to BBC One gained the show 2.7 million viewers, so why is it so unreasonable that the same would happen in reverse now the programme's moved to a lesser watched channel?

I very much doubt he'd want it! As much as I like Nick Hewer, lots of people have complained about him being a dull host of Countdown. Considering the ratings doldrums it's in, I don't think it's the prized job it once was (but cushy for someone like Nick).

I don't think Karren Brady would have too much trouble pulling the relevant strings, considering her former positions, to get a documentary if she wanted one.

You mention the 2010 Series - it was the series after that peaked in terms of ratings.

Considering the way both Karren and Claude had made plenty of appearances in other roles on the show prior to becoming advisors (and, in the case of Karren, trialled on The Young Apprentice), I think they've ensured two good choices who, in my opinion, do the role just as well (and, sometimes, better) than Nick and Margaret did.

Some good points there.

True that Brady could get a gig presenting a 'worthy' documentary on something like women in charge of sporting teams if she wanted.

As for Claude and Brady they're both solid choices granted, but for me they added nothing to the show and lack the charm that the original advisors brought.

That's me talking as a viewer, rather than giving an in depth analysis in terms of what the viewing public would want as a whole. And to give balance I can say I've watched more of the series in the Brady era than I did in the earlier series but that has nothing to do with her.

What particually annoyed me about Brady last night was, her seamingly taking offence at the idea attractive women, might be in a better place to sell products to men. Of course it's not like she's in bussiness with anyone who's ever done that!!!

In all not sure the regular cast of The Apprentice really matter, it's not as if they could go on to be one of the worlds most powerful people. The format is king.

On that note, I found it really weird watching Celebrity Apprentice USA earlier this year on BBC One, knowing that man is leader of the free world. But that fact made me watch and I would also suggest BBC One's ratings would have been gigantic had they showed it in prime time, for all the wrong reasons.

Anyway I digress
.

I don't mind Nick on Countdown - but I can see why many people do.

He's not the main reason why the show's ratings are not good, though. Similarly, the differences from the original version aren't the main reason why Fifteen-to-One's ratings are not good either...

Indeed - but would he have got the job if the ratings weren't so low?

Really? I think that if anything Bake Off has proved that it's all about the bakers - and likewise I think if we had dull Apprentice candidates, it would have an impact on ratings.

The problem is striking the right balance between personality and actual business acumen, and over the past few years they seem to have focused too much on the former.

Think you’ve misunderstood what I meant.

When I say regular cast, I mean Sugar, Cluade and the former blue nose.

Sugar is the only one who it may be difficult to lose.

Not sure that’s a problem Lord Sugar [the production team] was able to bring out quite a few past winners from when the format changed to getting an investment rather than a job as an receptionist. In my opinion it works better this way as it’s now about great entrepreneurs. But I do understand that it may mean someone who’s relatively weak on the show may win just because of their idea.

Countdown could resurrect Sir Terry Wogan to host and the ratings would be still be terrible*. If Hewer had the status he had a couple of years ago in the Lynam/O'Conner era it would still be returning more than satisfactory ratings.



*Not quite true that would be pretty amazing and get the best daytime ratings of any TV channel ever.