Top Gear new series

[hyperD]

Not for me, tho its very successful at what it does and earns the BBC millions. Just accept that its 'telly'. Every word is scripted, every 'breakdown' staged, every fact fake, every 'trial' rigged (e.g. running the battery down on electric cars before fliming so the car runs out of juice prematurely to 'prove' that lectric is useless) that it has a boy racer's agenda and its an entertainment show in roughly the same market space as 'Nuts' and you won't go far wrong.

Making private millions out of a format built up using public BBC licence money, now that does stick in the craw a tad...

I had to read that twice just to make sure you weren't talking about CAGW.

[pjclarke]

Not sure what you mean. 'Top Gear' is as much as anything a brand, built up over many years using mainly BBC resources. Clarkson formed a private company 'Bedder 6', to exploit the brand through, for example, the 'Top Gear Live' events. This was a joint venture with the BBC, but they were a minority partner. In 2012 he sold his stake to BBC Worldwide for over £3m. Without the brand recognition built up by the BBC show, there would have been no millions.

I've no problem with employees and presenters being paid whatever the market can bear but I'm not sure that using a BBC brand to enrich yourself sits well with the public service remit ....

[DodgyAgent]

Not for me, tho its very successful at what it does and earns the BBC millions. Just accept that its 'telly'. Every word is scripted, every 'breakdown' staged, every fact fake, every 'trial' rigged (e.g. running the battery down on electric cars before fliming so the car runs out of juice prematurely to 'prove' that lectric is useless) that it has a boy racer's agenda and its an entertainment show in roughly the same market space as 'Nuts' and you won't go far wrong.

Making private millions out of a format built up using public BBC licence money, now that does stick in the craw a tad...

Nothing like as much as the BBC has enriched the troughers of global warming.
It is to the BBC's credit that they do not try and stymie Clarkson.

[Gittins Gal]

Nothing like as much as the BBC has enriched the troughers of global warming.
It is to the BBC's credit that they do not try and stymie Clarkson.

They know it's to their credit.

That's why they let him do it!

Reverse tokenism perhaps....

[pjclarke]

Oh, yes you don't kill the Goose blah blah, the revenue TG brings in is why it is able to break all the producer guidelines on accuracy etc with impunity.

But I'd be interested in an example please , someone using BBC IP to make millions for themself, to fund the lavish lifestyle that we all know is enjoyed by all GW scientists and activists ....

[d000hg]

Every word is scripted, every 'breakdown' staged, every fact fake, every 'trial' rigged

We're talking about TG not evidence and experiments challenging climate change.

[Spacecadet]

Oh, yes you don't kill the Goose blah blah, the revenue TG brings in is why it is able to break all the producer guidelines on accuracy etc with impunity.

But I'd be interested in an example please , someone using BBC IP to make millions for themself, to fund the lavish lifestyle that we all know is enjoyed by all GW scientists and activists ....

Clarkson was the brains behind as well as the (not so pretty face) in front of the revamped Top Gear.
Given the huge international commercial success of the Top Gear brand I don't think he's been remunerated beyond what could be thought of as reasonable

[DodgyAgent]

Oh, yes you don't kill the Goose blah blah, the revenue TG brings in is why it is able to break all the producer guidelines on accuracy etc with impunity.

But I'd be interested in an example please , someone using BBC IP to make millions for themself, to fund the lavish lifestyle that we all know is enjoyed by all GW scientists and activists ....

You do not have to. As I have pointed out to you before many thousands of scientists are employed in the global warming industry. Not only that but they enjoy a level of attention and importance beyond the status they would have if there was no "global problem". Al Gore is a prime example of someone who has cynically exploited the fear generated by the climate change zealots.

[DodgyAgent]

This man makes Clarkson look like a pauper. Maurice strong

Thanks to Al Gore & Maurice Strong only sun in China is a digital one

[VectraMan]

Not sure what you mean. 'Top Gear' is as much as anything a brand, built up over many years using mainly BBC resources. Clarkson formed a private company 'Bedder 6', to exploit the brand through, for example, the 'Top Gear Live' events. This was a joint venture with the BBC, but they were a minority partner. In 2012 he sold his stake to BBC Worldwide for over £3m. Without the brand recognition built up by the BBC show, there would have been no millions.

The Top Gear name maybe, but the format was the brainchild of Clarkson and (producer) Andy Wilman, not the BBC, not to mention Clarkson himself being so central to the success of the project (there's no question that the original TG dwindled and then died once Clarkson left). But the bit you're leaving out is that the BBC wanted it that way; public-private partnerships and private production companies were all the rage. It wasn't some cynical ploy by Clarkson and Wilman, though it did work out rather well for them. They sold it back to the BBC when the BBC wanted it back.

TG is possibly the biggest success that the BBC have ever had, and it essentially costs them (and us) nothing. And all they had to do was let them use the name "Top Gear" that was sitting around not being used anymore.