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?

@Ladyof2025 can you answer the question about how the woman was captioned on the screen?

depends on whether your remit is professional or public engagement.

If the latter, it is often expected that you share with a general audience and tv is an excellent way to do that.

I’m a specialist docs producer and work alongside scientists and historians all the time who either want to raise their own profile or are encouraged to by their grant finders or university. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship that requires professional treatment - and although not aligned with a university, the OP deserves the same consideration.

Also, just because you wouldn’t spend hours making yourself look good to increase your confidence, doesn’t mean someone who does is less than you.

Yes of course they should have explained it to the OP, but it is untrue that is necessarily the producers’ ‘fault’ that she got dropped, and you are not helping the OP by telling her she wasn’t briefed properly - you have no idea of that. Contribs get dropped for all sorts of reasons, many beyond the control of the immediate production team.

No it isn’t.

The OP has said it wasn’t verbatim, it included information gleaned from her interview.

Apart from not potentially producing her properly, they haven’t done anything wrong in making the programme.

They have, IMO, done plenty wrong in how they communicated the editorial changes to her.

But plenty of people don’t like tricky conversations and will avoid them for an easy life - tv is just as full of arseholes as every other industry. Actually, probably more.

I’m well aware of all that. I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t be. Yes, my funding often requires non-specialist dissemination, but it’s not, as I said, the primary means of disseminating my research. Also, as I said, it’s a mutually convenient relationship between tv/documentary producers and researchers, absolutely. Whether I get a haircut is irrelevant. My point is that the OP doesn’t sound as if she is an academic researcher, so there was no particular benefit to her in spending days preparing a script, choosing an outfit etc — she was doing it to be on tv, which is why she’s understandably so disappointed when it didn’t happen. I’m sympathising with her here, and saying that it was almost certainly nothing she did wrong that meant her segment wasn’t broadcast, and that if she’s anxious to get her research to a wider audience, she should explore other ways of doing it (giving a talk in her local library, a walking tour, local radio?).

Do you have a copy of your initial video?
Are you able to speak to a solicitor and see if you have some sort of a case of historical information uncovered by you being used publicly, without mentioning you as the contributor?

I am so sorry you're having to leap to your own defence here, you are definitely not unreasonable!
I'm a master's student and know full well that they 'hire' academics to say their piece, rewrite the script and add historical accuracy all without paying them. 'Oh, academics are usually happy with just a mention!' So I wholeheartedly believe you.
Having said that, and agreeing with you, absolutely email the producer and discuss this. You've proven you know your worth and can stand up for yourself 😊

Whattttt, that is so out of order! Can you tweet the producer the segment, plus your script, asking why they did that? That is outrageous,

I know that. As I said, I’m a producer - a very experienced one who makes those decisions.

We don’t know that she wasn’t briefed properly, but she did say she was sent questions - that is not best practice, and coupled with the poor communication around her piece being dropped, I’m going to stand by my assumption that she likely wasn’t briefed properly.

At the very least, the person sending the questions should have included a line about not preparing too much.

The expectation shouldn’t be on the contrib to understand how it works - the prod team should give them all the necessary info.

If the OP spent ages writing and learning a script, I’m confident she wasn’t told not to over-prepare or rehearse - which is page 1 shit for researchers.

Edit: I don’t mean to suggest it’s the producer’s fault she got dropped - but if the decision to drop was made (even in part) because over-rehearsal lead to a poor interview, then the producer bares some responsibility. I’m trying to reassure the OP that she shouldn’t feel silly for making the effort she did.

The benefit to her was in sharing her knowledge and research with a wider audience who no doubt would appreciate her hard work.

It’s ridiculous to imply she would only do it ‘to get on tv’. Maybe you only share your work because you have to to fulfil contractual obligations, but not everyone thinks that way about knowledge dissemination.

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

Finding your posts interesting @Producethis

This! I have a niche interest that I've spent years researching, and decided to compile everything I've learnt into a document I have made available to others who share my interest. I've done this partly because I had a couple of requests but mainly because one of the sources I used is a defunct forum and pages are starting to disappear so information is being lost. When I have finished it I'm considering putting it up on Scribd.

Well, I had this happen to me as an academic....provided absolutely loads of free research, etc, and was dropped to see my expertise included but not credited.. I was also filmed and included, but I wasn't paid anything for my time helping the producer with content, and it involved an entire morning of filming and hours of work. I didn't even get my rail ticket reimbursed. It happens all the time. People say you should be more than happy to share your knowledge. Sure, and I don't mind doing this for local radio and such, but there is also just taking the piss when it is a nationalised programme. It was actually brought up as a problem at an AHRC sponsored gathering concerning media exposure for academics held in 2021.
https://www.ukri.org/news/transforming-arts-and-humanities-research-into-television/

I hosted for a non-BBC show, and was paid a whopping £100. I think the show is still on air in other parts of the world. If you expect money, you need an agent to negotiate for you.

It is the same thing with cross over trade (scholarship for a lay audience) books...if you don't get the Society of Authors or your agent to look at your contract, you'll end up getting zilch or very little...£600 advance for writing a commercial book.

You can reassure the OP she doesn’t need to feel silly, without implying the producers did a poor job when you have no idea that’s the case.

It’s completely normal to send an expert contrib topic areas for specialist factual docs - from the programme makers POV the contrib need to be on top of their material, and from the contribs POV many wouldn’t agree to take part without.

The fact the OP was sent questions does not imply she wasn’t also told how the slot would work, and that she didn’t need to preprep answers. From the OP’s description she jumped in with great enthusiasm, so it’s possible she got caught up in that, ignored the brief and went OTT on the prep - it happens.

It’s also quite possible the OP got dropped for reasons other than an over rehearsed delivery, it could be for time or because storyline changed direction. (It won’t be because of what you look like OP.)

No one likes being dropped from a show, but it happens all the time. The OP should have been better communicated with, although the fault for that may with the production company rather than the team on location, who may not have been involved in the final edit. If the OP writes to complain, which she is more than entitled to do, she’ll get an apology or an explanation.

Topic areas, yes - I said this already in a previous post. It is not best practice to send questions and if a researcher or producer working under me did that, I would explain why not to next time - as I have done on occasion.

I have made an assumption about what has happened here based on the info I have from the OP’s posts, set against my many years of making specialist factual films.

It might be incorrect, but without seeing the emails or listening into their calls, I don’t know - anymore than you know they were definitely briefed properly and got over excited.

I also have said several times that she may have been dropped for any number of reasons not related to her performance - but as she doesn’t care about anything other than her own feelings of embarrassment, I wanted to reassure her that even if it was related to her performance, that isn’t her fault.

Producers produce - and I don’t think I’ve had many (any?) interviewees over the years that I couldn’t make work, given enough time. Now maybe they didn’t have the luxury of time, but again, that’s a reason external to the OP.

So how about we agree to disagree?

Yes, I think the OP needs to say something and at least be provided with an explanation. This is particularly the case if the OP had not done a media appearance before. A reasonable number of academics I know are happy enough to talk to a producer for 1/2 hour, but beyond that ask for a fee.

@Namechangey23

That's the real problem here. You told all your friends you'd be on TV and now have egg on your face because it's not. It's like straight out of Gavin and Stacey when Mick's whole family gather round to see his 'interview' which gets cut to a 2 second comment! It could have been worse OP!
Well aren't you a nasty friend with nasty friends if you all sit about enjoying seeing things go awry for each other.

Friends aren't gloating and seeing egg on the face if their friends. Friends get pissed off on behalf of their friends.

Some of the answers on here make me relieved I left broadcasting at a fairly young age.

as it’s an area I know well, I also find it fascinating how little people know about the industry, the way it works, and the legalities.

I’m guessing by the subject matter, this was not prime time viewing. It’s possibly local news.

that’s not to detract from the show or the OPs contribution, but to suggest the BBC is a morally corrupt organisation because an contributor was dropped from ‘points west’ or similar regional news programme is batshit.

Like many post on AIBU, there’s more to this story. And the OPs lack of knowledge of how TV works makes this more likely.

No payment is offered generally for contributors. If it is it’s a minimal ‘disturbance fee’- you have no rights as an employee or contractor. You are basically a volunteer and if the programme maker drops it, you have no comeback.

Next time OP, don’t put so much effort into it. And just chat enthusiastically about your subject. The best contributors are ones who can just wax lyrical about their passion- trust me, you’ll come across a lot better and you aren’t being marked on how much you know- it’s about entertaining people too

I was approached by the BBC recently for the same sort of thing. I told them I wouldn't present well on camera but offered them a script and image for the show. They game me full credit on screen and my piece was done by a famous presenter in my place. I did ask if there would be payment, but they said there wouldn't be for that kind of contribution, which is fair play. It got my name and my work up in lights and I was happy about that.

Maybe for just providing a script, you don't get a credit or payment? I think that you could complain, but for providing a script they probably wouldn't credit or pay you as that is just normal practice for a small contribution like that.

To be fair it could be an item on the One Show or something like Coast or any UK-based travelogue.

But yeah, crappy communication from the production team aside, it’s not really a ‘defund the BBC’ level issue.

That’s not to minimise the personal upset it’s caused the OP - she has every right to feel hurt and it could all have been avoided with a phone call from the producers.

Well, actually if you are providing scripts, you should join the Society of Authors, and you absolutely can negotiate a fee for that. They have an in house attorney who will help you with that. It is all part of their service they provide to members.

No one here is saying the Beeb is corrupt, but as I mentioned upthread, there are a goodly number of disgruntled academics out there who felt taken advantage of...this really came out at the 2021 UKRI conference in Q and A, and there was reassurance that the networks would do better. Especially if there is someone who doesn't know a lot about media and law, a simple phone call or email explanation from the producer, etc, is not too much to ask.

This must be fake

You’re completely right.

and I think the fact that it’s pretty poor form and bad communication from the producers is actually lost in this thread.

i would’ve contacted a contributor if I’d dropped them to let them know. And there’s been a lack of direction to the OP as well- it’s ridiculous that some people would rather redo an interview than tell someone they are doing it wrong.

funnily enough- I also thought One show. I’ve heard some stories about it from former colleagues 🫣

Omg, speak to a lawyer, go on social media, go tell the guardian...how dare they! This is theft at it's core

If we’re being fair, things like TOS are a good training ground for young directors, so maybe inexperience rather than malice was to blame here.

A decent phone call could have prevented the OP feeling like crap.

‘OP, I’m really sorry to tell you that we won’t be including your filmed contribution in the final show. We faced time pressures in the edit which meant we needed to shorten the Fancy House section. The most efficient way to get information across in an item like this is through our presenter and we tried to include as many of the fascinating details you uncovered with your research as possible.

I wanted to acknowledge that this must be very disappointing for you, and thank you for the time and expertise you gave to the project.

Your incredible knowledge about Fancy House was so interesting, and we hope you will be pleased that the intriguing discoveries you made about previous visitors will be shared with our audience. Is there anything you would like to ask me?’