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

[Ladyof2025]

BBC contacted me asking me to speak on camera about an aspect of local history I happen to know a bit about. I agreed and spent the next few days brushing up on the facts and then writing and rewriting a script and reading it out loud again and again until I knew it by heart and could speak confidently to camera as though I'd never said it before.

I do not have a pretty face, and am in my 60s and rather podgy, but I went to the trouble of going through my wardrobe for the perfect outfit that flattered my podginess, and had my hair cut specially and put on some make up, so I could be the best possible version of me that I could.

The production team visited, took me to the site and filmed me speaking. I did it smoothly and confidently and was glad that I had put in all the rehearsal so I came across as knowledgeable, professional and confident of my material. They said my performance was perfect, thanked me profusely and left.

After about a week they rang me to say that due to time and space issues the section of the programme that featured my input had been dropped. I felt absolutely gutted, not because I want to see myself on TV but because I had used up a lot of my valuable free time for several days preparing and rehearsing for it (for no fee I should add).

A few months later the programme I was dropped from came on TV and to my utter astonishment an attractive, slim young lady appeared, at the same site I was filmed at, and she spoke the exact words I had written and rehearsed! I nearly fell off my chair - the absolute bloody cheek of dropping ME but stealing the script that I had written. Thinking about it, I realised that they wanted my expert input, but not my saggy face or ample figure.

AIBU to be hurt and angry?

So you absolutely are not unreasonable for being upset. I would be absolutely fuming.

From your comments I'm a little bit confused on how close the person who ended up speaking was to your script and this is really important. Did they use your information (not ok in itself), or did they actually copy your words close to verbatim?

I presume you signed some form of release as well - did that say anything that would suggest they had the right to take your words/information and use it for their own purposes? Did it say anything about them having the right to use your research externally?

I would be complaining regardless, but depending on whether they copied word for word, and whether your release gave them any rights to do so, would change whether my focus was on them being untrustworthy and unprofessional, or actually in breach of their contract with you.

If it took you YEARs of research, then why on earth did you share that information knowingly for FREE to the first person who came knocking...was it for 5 minutes of fame?! If you feel that strongly...write a complaint! It hasn't really been stolen even if they did reuse it, you gave it away like an anecdote? Why did you do that really if it mattered so much to you? I think I and you know the reason, but if I say the word you won't accept it and I'll be told I'm too harsh! It's horrible when life is unfair and people take advantage of others, but sadly, as I myself have learned the hard way many many times, other people will do many unscrupulous things to further their own ends..isn't the media industry in fact well known and stereotyped exactly for this...? If you've been sheltered from these kinds of behaviours until this point in life, you've done well. Gnashing your teeth about it now won't change it, best you can hope for is an apology unfortunately and that they don't run it again/credit it you if they do.

@Developedanillness You'd be amazed at what putting these things on TikTok can achieve. Companies alllllllways bend over backwards to solve people's complaints when they have gained traction on TikTok. They don't want the bad PR so they insist on being seen to address the issue in a good, swift way.

OP you should definitely complain that you weren’t featured in credits! But you should also not assume a horrid reason that you were cut, or take it personally. There are lots of reasons the producers might have taken a different direction that aren’t to do with you at all, e.g., perhaps they had originally intended the information to be delivered by a range of local experts, but the other ones weren’t available/were terrible on screen, and it would have been really random to just have you - so they decided to go for a more “presenter led” format and got the presenter to re-do your section?

Unfortunately a person's appearance is not a protected characteristic so discrimination would not apply

My opinion of the BBC was already very low but it has sunk even lower.

Ignore the mean girl posters trying to put you down. It sounds as though the producers didn’t do their jobs properly and tell you not to rehearse etc.

But please don’t assume you were dropped because of your looks - that’s so unlikely to happen.

They would have known what you look like beforehand unless you have no internet presence at all - and even then, if looks were important they would have found an excuse to hop on a zoom to check you out before committing to filming.

If they just wanted your expertise, they would have done a research call with you and written a script from that - again, not gone tk the considerable expense of filming you.

Much more likely there was a problem with the delivery - entirely down to their poor producing - or a technical issue that necessitated a reshoot.

But call or email them and tell them how upset this has made you. It’s unprofessional and unkind and they should take it seriously - there is a push to change the culture in TV, and decent treatment of everyone is a big part of that.

Yes I'd agree it's a pittance now even from the professional photo banks. One of the reasons is everyone has a camera with them all times on their phone and people are happy to give away media for free.. photojournalism is pretty much over as a career/ main job! "people are just proud of their work and want other people to see it" by that token if OP is proud of her work and wanted people to see it, all she really wants is a credit...?

They are the only ones who should be embarrassed for their lack of decency.

So sorry you are feeling like this. Sod them! You should be proud of your expertise and passion.

I think it's really cheeky of the BBC and quite mean to take research you had done and claim it as their own without giving you any credit. I would write to the producer and say as much. If they gave you a credit at the end and acknowledged you it would have been more professional. There's not a lot you can do at this point but I would write and say, as you've said here, that the information you had discovered look a long time to research and you were disappointed to see all of it recited by the presenter without giving you any credit and you find it unprofessional of them.

I've worked for the BBC in a different department and this doesn't surprise me - it's a huge, impersonal, somewhat cut-throat organisation.

Unless OP had a patent put on her script which takes years and years and costs thousands, then it's not copyright infringement

Stop being so nasty.

The OP has a legitimate grievance about the way she’s been treated, so stop minimising that by attributing it to vanity.

I could suggest your meanness is down to jealousy, but as I don’t know you at all, I couldn’t possibly support that - same as you have no idea about the OP so don’t get to assert ‘the real problem’.

Please don’t support Elon Musk

Join BlueSky rather than Twitter. BlueSky is now open to all and free.

I am appalled for you, OP, and very sorry.

I hope you gain some solace by the realisation that you are not alone. Being dropped is sadly par for the course, but if your script was truly stolen as you describe I hope you will pursue this. As PP have said there are technical issues, so I think you need a solicitor.

I haven’t RTFT yet so I apologise if this is now redundant.

I understand this, my angle is that they used her as a researcher by using her words/script and getting someone else to read it instead of their researchers writing a script for the other person to read. So instead of doing their own research they consulted OP but without any credit. Either way I think it's a bit dodge mate.

Send them a bill for your time, pointing out that you wrote the 'script' and you have the (dated) original files to prove it
You did not sign a release for your script, I assume?
BBC generally pay piecework for scripts, and a 10min PTC would expect to be in the region of £30-50

I used to be a freelancer for the BBC. They are a truly terrible organisation.
No, I don’t have a TV licence!

But that is entirely the fault of the producers. The first thing I tell someone when we agree and interview is that I won’t send questions because it’s important not to rehearse. I reassure them that I will guide them through and there’s nothing to worry about and if I get the sense they are nervous, I allow extra time to make them comfortable.

That is literally my job - produce the person on screen to give good content.

If they don’t, that’s on me - either for choosing them in the first place, or not helping them through their nerves.

@Namechangey23 What a nasty post

You can tell who in this thread has ever worked in media/broadcasting and who hasn't...

It's not a "legitimate grievance" to be cut from a show. It happens.

And yes she should have asked for the £50-£75 quid 'disturbance' fee for her time in the first place.

I'm sorry this happened to you. I used to work in a similar role and it's likely it's not you at all. Often the audio track can have a hiss or the camera work isn't quite right when they check it, and they have to reshoot. They may have felt bad about drafting you back and so just got the presenter to precis what you said. On the upside, maybe you could offer to give a talk to a local group about your subject and get some use out of your chosen outfit and your research.
I am 100% sure it wasn't about your appearance - no show I ever worked on would have cut someone because of how they looked.

A very kind and fair response

I think if she was delivering similar information it is obviously not impossible that they simply found two experts on the same subject who set out similar information, and therefore it only made sense to use one of the interviews.

I would also check any contract you signed - did you give permission for your research to be used for the show more generally?

If not, then you could make a complaint. I wouldn't mention the looks of the person they used, as it is not relevant and could be seen as demeaning to her.

If you’re a producer, you know people get dropped from shows for all sorts of reasons - and the producers on the ground don’t always have control over that.

In the case of history docs, it’s normal to tell contribs what you want them to cover because they are appearing as experts and you need them to be on top of the content. As the OP is an amateur enthusiast they should certainly have told her not to rehearse lines, but it is possible they did, and the OP didn’t take that in in her enthusiasm.

It’s hard on people when this happens, but it’s most likely that this section of the programme simply didn’t need to be as long as originally anticipated and so the presenter delivered a few key points in a PTC.

If the OP feels the material was hers, she’s quite entitled to write and point out she should have been acknowledged, either in the credits or by letter of that wasn’t possible. It’s possible other experts they spoke to had the same material - but either way she’ll get an apology or an explanation.

The OP doesn’t need to feel bad about what happened, and she’s entitled to ask for an explanation, but neither should she be encouraged to think that anything terrible or out of the ordinary happened.

Ok, so with this new information, and the fact they filmed the presenter in the same spot, they were giving themselves ‘options’ for the edit.

It could be they never intended to use you - but filming is expensive and takes longer than having a research chat, so I struggle to see why they would bother, unless it seemed as though it was the only way to get you to share your knowledge - which absolutely doesn’t seem the case.

There are myriad reasons why an item doesn’t work - they could have needed it to be shorter and more precise - so much easier to write a script for the presenter. They may have realised they hadn’t had the presenter in enough at this point in the programme. They may have covered your interview badly, so didn’t have a way of cutting it well.

It could have been your delivery - and if you wrote a script that you recited, that is probably the case.

but - and I can’t stress this enough - that is THEIR FAULT for not producing you properly.

You did nothing wrong. You were professional, passionate and hard working.

Absolutely. OP, value your own time (and your knowledge, if, as you suggest, your expertise is based on your own primary research). The sums of money involved are so derisory you should only do something like this if it’s potentially professionally useful/expected, promotes something you feel could benefit from a higher profile, and can be done without taking up vast amounts of your own time. That way you’re not disappointed if you’re not used. Is there another way of disseminating your research?