Very Interesting

[Peter Jacobs]

Jim,
The reason that I have read the Charter was to make informed argument to the ongoing enquiry prior to the renewal.

I have not yet seen any evidence of 'sponsored' programmes, I only raised the point to highlight that 'commercials' are very much within the current Charter, albeit with the prior approval of the SoS.
(this being one of my points raised to the inquiry)

I did spend some time a few months ago going through the BBC's Annual Accounts and the amount of 'set aside' etc. is truly remarkable. That said it is understandable that they apply strict budget controls to all programme makers.

The degree of independence granted under the Charter is only that of independence from the Goverment of the day, (although that too is somewhat unclear) however, that they are funded by public licence money dictates that the are still answerable to the public.

As a freelance Project Manager, Jim, you and I should get together to swap horror stories regarding budgets - the bane of my poor existance!

 

[Bob Roberts]

We take you're not a fan of Keith's then Nigel?

I bow to your greater passion.

But if angling broadcasting had to lose one or the other I'm glad we kept the passionate, singleminded individual who doesn't have to weigh off whether fishing is worth doing when faced with the prospect of more lucrative work.

I worked many times with Keith when Bruno was in the anchor chair and Bruno was the consumate pro whenever we were on air. Very likeable off-air, too. Till you sit there yourself you have no idea how slick these guys are - they do have a very special tallent, crap in rehearsals and suddenly, when you go live, it is like a light bulb being switched on.

I truly believe that angling needed the likes of Keith to rise to the surface rather than the pro's who are able to turn to angling for a little earner on the side.

We've come a long way from the days when Jack Charlton was needed to front TV angling shows but sometimes it would seem there are those who want to turn back the clock.

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

hi Bob, I'm glad you have made your remarks re Asian Minority programmes clear. They certainly could have been misinterpreted.

If you go fishing around the Crewe area, you will quite probably bump into Nick, especially on the trout lakes. I imagine he has also doled out the odd fishing prize in his time. I guess if I want to go fishing you I go with Keith, if I want to here someone talk about it, I go with Nick! Actually, I'd go fishing with Nick as well, but then, he's a mate!

For angling to work on terrestrial tv you need a bigger audience. Even cheapo shows like Matt Hayes' cost a lot to make. Wilson, I was told, is contantly struggling to find the money to pay for his shows. As broadcasters see it, money and budgets follow viewers. As procuctin techniques get cheaper, this could change. But I bet all that happens is that the satellite channels cut the budgets!

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

Bob,I don't want to turn this thread into a Nick versus Keith thing, but what on earth do you mean about Nick having to weigh up if fishing is worth doing when faced with the prospect of more lucrative work? I can assure you that Nick has often turned down lucrative work to enable him to both fish for pleasure or do his radio show. To paint him as some sort of angling dillitante is unfair and rather insulting, I feel.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

There is a wealth of talent in the angling world just waiting to be exploited and I agree with you Bob, it doesn't need to be on the scale of APFA. That was a one off and, brilliant as it was, we would soon get fed up if all angling programmes used that format.

It just needs somebody with a bit of enterprise and willing to fly in the face of these anti's, and Jim I'm sorry to disagree but there are plenty in the higher echelons of the BBC as well as some of the presenters, I, like a lot of people have heard them. Theres also their insistance that angling is a minority sport, this flies in the face of the fact that its the biggest participant sport in the country.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Bob is absolutely right in his comments about the early days of angling programmes featuring the likes of Jackie Charlton.

Although, from there we experienced a quantum leap into 1993 when Passion for Angling was first screened on BBC - now didn't that experience excellent audience ratings?

So, is it that Angling programmes are simply not popular, or is it the type of programmes that we see recently that have become less popular?

 

[davestocker]

Jim, I don?t know if I agree about the anti?s propaganda being particularly good. Here?s a thought; could it be that those who gather, publish and broadcast the news in general are to blame for uncritically giving the ?oxygen of publicity? to virtually any group who appear to challenge the status quo in a media savvy way. If five people were to put on a demonstration against whatever, and they?d made sure that there was some attractive visual material for press/TV photographers/cameramen, they?d phoned up their local media followed by sending out a halfway decent press release, and had one or two articulate spokespersons, I virtually guarantee they?d get some, if not a lot of coverage (subject to the rest of the news agenda). This could easily create an impression that their campaign had significance, when in fact it could simply be that there are five people who have decided that they don?t like something.

It may not be media bias we have to worry about, but the consequences of having so much hungry media around looking for new product, that they?ve lost all sense of proportion.

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

Yup, Dave, that's what I meant by effective propaganda. You tap into what the media want and give it to them mixed with your message. That's what the antis have done far more effectively than we have, I'm afraid.

Graham, as I said, I'm sure there are anti-angling people at the BBC at all levels. And there are pro-angling people at all levels. I was just asserting the fact that I have never come across any official or unofficial institutional anti-angling policy at the BBC and I don't believe there is one.

Peter, I don't know what the ratings for APFA were. All I can surmise is that, as we haven't had series after series, the demand wasn't that strong. Honestly, if there's a ready audience, TV folk will go after it like a bleak after a falling maggot as long as the project can be brought in on budget. But I simply don't have the facts to hand. Maybe Hugh Miles simply got fed up with the subject and didn't want to do any more, maybe Chris Yates got too starry and demanded a separate winnebago for his beard, perhaps Bob James' dogs went off to ITV to become the new Ant and Dec. If anyone knows, I'm sure we'd all love to hear from them.

 

[Mr. Uncredible]

Bob - I bow to your opinion on these guys having seen them in action. How could I know better when I haven't been in that position? I don't doubt that they give everything, in fact Keith's passion for the sport could never be questioned. It's just that he doesn'y do it for me. Much prefer listening to John Wilson than anyone else so maybe I blinker myself. I would say that I find myself driving to work early on saturdays and always with out fail listen to MR Hancock and when the show finished would NEVER listen to K.A! When he is away and Nigel whatshisname is on I find him very easy to listen to. Have telephoned and been on a couple of times then..

 

[Chalkstream]

Having worked in ITV and most recently in the cost benefit analysis of programming, I can tell you that I tried to get the men that matter interested in approaching Hugh Miles to pick up his most recent output, and explore further production.
The terestrial ratings for APFA in original and repeat transmission would on the face of things have proved the project viable within the advertising/sponsorship model.
However, as Jim P has pointed out,firstly there is little place for single programmes or short series in the scheduling philosophy of the major players.
Similarly, as the vacant slots are also seen as 'shelf space' so to speak, there also needs to be the possibility of additional commercial exploitation from any product that gets to air.
As sometimes this forum highlights, anglers are for the most part seen as disperate and less than unified in their attitudes and opinions. Despite the undoubted level of disposal income they represent, these makes them tricky to pidgeon hole and therefore market to. Marry this with the low level of capital investment that brands directly associated with the pastime could muster, and the element of 'risk' in ROI increases.
This is before you consider whether audiences would actually turn up again to watch more of the same.
APFA regularly airs on Sky, and the audience levels involved will only support the ?500/hr programme budget that ITV allocates to the late night schedule.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Jim,

Too right this isn't a Keith vs Nick debate and it's a shame there isn't room for both.

What I meant by lucrative alternatives is simple logic. Nick does TV and hosted an angling radio programme. I cannot for the life of me see him giving up the TV work on say, They think it's all over, to do a radio angling show if he has time for just one of them. And I don't blame him.

In Keith's case angling is firmly his bread and butter and number one priority. Always has been and always will be.

I realise Nick's your friend and you defend him valiantly. I've nothing against him personally, quite the reverse, but there ain't room for two angling radio shows with clashing scheduled slots.

As far as the Beeb is concerned they've pulled the plug. Clearly Nick wasn't capable of pulling a big enough audience when competing for listeners in a limited but dedicated market.

Someone will win the FA cup tomorrow. Won't necessarily be the best team...

 

[Mr. Uncredible]

Hope your wrong on that as well Bob. Man Utd to win making it the best team that wins. And even better Keith Arthur is a gooner :O)

 

[Chris Hammond]

I think Keith's a natural broadcaster too, and mega clued up re angling. I've stopped listening to the show very often now though, I find Keith a bit too opinionated and overbearing at times as well. Plus I cant be asked to listen to John from Enderby or Joe from Enfield every week! )

 

[Bob Roberts]

Don't get me going on John from Enderby. If ever there was a good reason for pulling angling off the airwaves it's John. I thought it was just me but apparently not, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Now can you do me a favour and do the same to John from Enderby, aka John W, aka Mathew Black and no doubt a few more aliases besides?

 

[Wolfman Woody]

APFA probably didn't continue into a second series because you might remember there was a little matter of a bust-up between the two stars. Also, I don't think Hugh recovered all of his costs from the series and even now might still be out of pocket with it. He did it out of love for the sport, not finacial gain.

Fortunately he made his name (and a little money) with other wildlife series.

The ratings were probably not that high for the programme either. If I remember they repeated the once only (I could be wrong) and then we didn't see it again (unless like me you'd bought the videos from Hugh) until it was broadcast on Discovery H&L. How much do you think Discovery Real Time (as now) pay for a programme like that?

Not much I'll bet. Look at how many times they repeat the Bob Ross painting programmes (oh no, not another happy bloody tree!) Along with Total Fishing, Great Rod Race, Go Fishing, Hooked on Fishing, Rex Hunt et al. Whatever they pay they get their money out of it - and that's one of the more popular channels on satelite.

For me, give me a good murder mystery anytime. They can make as many of them as they like - wall to wall Midsomer Murders. WONDERFUL!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Jeff,
Passion for Angling was not only shown in the UK, in fact I saw it first on Norwegian TV and I know for certain it was sold-on to Sweden, Denmark, France and Germany. If Hugh didn't recover his own costs I would bet a pound to a pinch of
sh!te that the BBC most certainly did!

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

I too love the gritty reality that is Midsomer Murders. I especially liked the recent episode in which a man was killed by being staked to his lawn with croquet hoops and then having bottles of claret fired at him with a replica roman seige catapult. And, no, I'm not making this up....

 

[Wolfman Woody]

"gritty reality"? Oh, I wouldn't go that far Jim. I know your being a little cynical now though. It's a bit of fun, light entertainment, but I kind of fancied being drowned in a TV full of wine. After a few mouthfuls, you'd probably not even know about it.

The things they do on set would NOT be allowed in real life. EG: Barnaby (John Nettles) goes right to the scene of the murder and starts removing certain items with Dr Bullard (Barry Jackson - lovely chap). I have a couple of mates who are real coppers and once forensics are called in, that's it! There's a ring of steel around the scene to preserve it and no-one, not even a commissioner, is allowed through unless they're suited up and keep their hands to themselves.

But then that would make boring television, wouldn't it?

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

What we need is an angling detective series. Pretty locations, loads of shots of a man alone wrestling with the grim and violent realities of the real world whilst persuing the gentlest of sports. I can bet you one thing though; if I pitched that to a netwok or production company, I bet they'd ask me to make sure the chap was a fly fishing exponent. Morse liked opera, not brass bands. Has there been a fishing detective on telly or in literature? I know Holmes was eventually drowned, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't as a result of an overhanging branch giving away while chub stalking.

 

[Alan Tyler]

Claret? siege catapult?? would that be a Montrachet trebuchet???