To be hurt and annoyed at being dropped by the BBC?

THIS!

Not surprised at all.

We too have had dealings with the bbc. A client misrepresented our company’s work as their own creation. Not only were the bbc aware and in my opinion did not edit it to make it a neutral broadcast (ie. That this is clients x, not this was designed by client.)

They also after invited the client to further radio and podcast appearances to quiz them on their supposed expertise. Ie. Our design, knowledge and our process.

So not surprised at all and YANBU.

To this day I still find the whole thing quite upsetting to think about. it was disappointing that an organisation that you look up to and should be something so great is really quiet immoral and slimy.

Nah. I was only an undergraduate scratching her pimples to paraphrase Virginia Woolf on James Joyce. Let 'em have it. Twenty odd years ago now.

They didn’t ask OP to research anything. Some sound bites are twenty seconds, and items are often dropped at the last minute due to breaking news.

the production company should have made op aware of this though

they don’t ask you to sign any copyright. Your opinion is not intellectual property.

they will sometimes offer a disturbance fee, but people are not generally paid for being an interviewee.

im guessing OP over prepared so sounded like she was reading a script rather than just talking naturally.

It would not have been due to age and looks. Older women are massively underrepresented in television and the bbc is trying to address that.

Something similar happened to a relative, they used hours of her research and work, she was not paid, and there were whole sections she had written said by another person. She was not credited for this. It has put me off being involved in anything like this.

As I read it, they didn't ask OP to do any research or any preparatory work at all.

I work in a field which means that occasionally broadcasters want me or someone else from the organisation to turn up and give an opinion or some back ground information, or to be interviewed. And that's basically what we do, using our day-to-day knowledge of the relevant field. We certainly don't write scripts out or anything else - indeed quite often they end up asking questions which are quite different from what they discussed beforehand, so it would be a waste of time to do a script anyway. It does quite often happen that we find our words of wisdom get drastically cut or don't appear at all, usually because the topic has been squeezed out on a heavy news day, but basically we know that's a possibility from the start.

In your case, OP, I'm wondering if you gave them a problem if your scripted speech didn't actually fit with the question they originally asked, hence the need to re-film that section.

They should've paid you as a researcher if they weren't going to do an honest and open collaboration as they agreed with you. Honestly I'd be seeking legal counsel.

Did she really say exactly the same thing you did, or just talk on the same subject? Because she would have been cast as an expert / or enthusiast as you were, so she’d know the subject also.

I’ve worked in this field for many years, and it’s possible that a senior producer back at the office decided your face didn’t fit, but - from your description - it’s also possible you were over rehearsed and unnatural. When you cast an expert contributor you want someone who can answer questions naturally, not someone who writes a script and memorises it.

If you really feel your work was taken by someone else, by all means complain, but I think it’s more likely she had similar knowledge to you. I understand it’s frustrating and disappointing you spent time an effort on it, but sometimes these things don’t work out, and not everyone comes across well on camera. They didn’t ask you to get your hair done, so you can’t hold that against them.

And by the way if anyone defends it on here- we both work in media and know full well these days in detail when it's copyright theft - and yes it does happen

@Ladyof2025 don't be shocked, many years ago BBC radio asked for ideas -took a script/concept of my DH and simply ran with it word for word - completely untrustworthy and full of people desparate to 'get on' who have no issue about stealing others work.

He learnt a lot from that - if doing any such thing - record yourself talking .

I am furious on your behalf. This is totally unacceptable.

@Producethis Haha how did you guess! Yes, PM, hence budget interest (fwiw productions can have kit on long term hire so no extra charge for shoots within the period)

And yes, this kind of thoughtless treatment of contributors is unbelievable on a human level, plus it just increases the public’s mistrust and makes our job of finding people to be on tv even harder than it already is. We’re struggling with this on my current production!

@Ladyof2025 Pleased take this further if you can..if it was YOUR words...can you prove it?

Awful.

Thanks.

It really grinds my gears how too many people don’t value the contributors. Without them we wouldn’t have shows, and although there are good reasons for not paying people for their own stories, expecting experts to give up their time and expertise for free is ridiculous - let alone then treating them like this.

TV needs to get rid of the ‘you’re so lucky to be here’ attitude.

What do you do? Your comment about directors made me think production management 😂

^^ This, and I’d be writing an email to the producer about my intellectual copyright ASAP.

Haha completely agree! Though we don’t know if they were pickups (could be multiple filming days in same location).
Saw your reply to OP - you sound like a wonderful Producer that really cares for their contribs, we need more like you.

Also I agree - it is unlikely to be about looks / age. The BBC (and many other channels) monitor diversity, and actively encourage on-screen and off-screen diversity. We have to submit diversity reports for each production.

Anyone using ‘one of the team’ as a replacement expert isn’t a proper production. It’s completely inappropriate and would definitely fall foul of BBC ethical guidelines.

Self-shooters still have to be paid, albeit not as much as camera ops, and in-house kit is still chargeable against the budget.

It’s not megabucks, but it’s still (conservatively) a few hundred pounds - an expense no production will willingly bear unless it was essential.

Which either means the production is completely awful, run by idiots and charlatans (definitely possible) or the initial contribution must have been unusable for some reason - that could have been over-rehearsal but it also could have been a technical fault, lost rushes, poor sound etc.

The timelines described where the OP was contacted and filmed within days, then called to say it wasn’t being used within a week doesn’t scream premium factual, so budget will have been a consideration.

I am assuming, of course, but on a Countryfile / Coast type thing. the attractiveness of the contributor wouldn’t necessitate a reshoot.

That’s heartbreaking, genuinely OP. I’m sorry.

Duh!

@LittleBigHead I've been an academic for hire on BBC radio and they always pay me! Not much but I do get appearance fees.

I've also been dropped at the last nine minute, asked then swapped for a more famous contributor - that's how it goes. But I do find OPs story surprising - it's very poor ethics. If it really was word for word, I'd ask for a fee for the research and time.

This is what will have happened. There is no way any producer would ask a stand in to learn words that a pundit has already said, and then repeat them verbatim. For one thing they'd be there all day doing retakes if the stand in got a word wrong . And secondly, rehearsed stuff always sounds awful in this context; completely unnatural. This is why the OP will have been dropped in the first place; nothing to do with age or looks because, especially for local history segments, that's exactly the demographic of most experts usually.

So it won't be word for word at all. It'll be similar; because there's a limit to what you can say about a local history place in the short time allocated.

But a complete copy, word for word? Would never happen.

Source; I was a BBC documentary, News and Current Affairs producer of 20 years.

It's surprising there are still those who defend them. It's a corrupt institution, who covered up and gave air to actual paedophiles, rapists, abusers and misogynists.

Yet a little bit of script-stealing is definitely a step too far for them, because... Their famous 'integrity' and 'strict rules'. Right.

Yes they are wrong.

Reshoots don’t have to be expensive - there are producer-directors or even assistant producers / researchers who can self-shoot. They may be using in-house (free) camera kit. They may be located close to the filming location. The replacement expert may have been a member of the team. It could potentially be done at the cost of a hire car and a couple of hours of their time.

Also, it may not be that they travelled back specially. They may have planned more than one filming day in the area and were able to squeeze this quick reshoot in.

Its funny a lot of posters are making assumptions of the type of factual programme, but we dont actually have confirmation on that, or their budget.

If you go online and dig a bit, you’ll find that the BBC has form for this kind of thing.