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?

I feel so angry for you, that’s disgraceful. The fact that they stole your script too is wholly unacceptable, can you prove it?
I’d be looking to sue them…typical BBC, arseholes.

Put an official complaint in .The B.B.C shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

I believe you @Ladyof2025 that is really shit

@Ladyof2025 I think you should fight your corner and say that while you appreciate that features are dropped, they seem to have kept the feature and dropped you and they have used information that was not in the public domain as you researched and identified it. I’d at least want to let them know I was aware of what they did.

The D of pork makes sense. Dont take it to heart. Do ask why no credit for your research if you feel inclined. Doesn't hurt to remind crews that they deal with people for whom this is a big deal, and a credit or just thanks would've been the right thing to do. It's a ruthless business and you should try to shake off the hurt. I'm guessing that you probably came over badly, maybe nervous. They've appreciated your research and had it revoiced. A small thing to them, big deal to you, understandably.

Suing over a bit of research? You must have money to burn. A bad idea.

If you would bother to read the whole thread you would see that the BBC did not ‘steal her script’

TLDR: OP had never done anything like this before, and in my opinion she sadly set herself up for a great fall, although on the up-side if she's as passionate about her subject as she says, then she should take comfort in knowing her words were of great use in helping to promote said subject. Also, I don't think those one here who have disagreed with her have been particularly harsh.

NC for this, and my goodness there's a lot to unpack (most of which I won't). It's interesting though, that those who are replying to explain to OP about how all this works and offering reasons as to why whatever happened did so as it did are being told (collectively, that is) that OP is being given a hard time. I don't agree - it may not be what she wants to hear, but it is all consistent with my experiences with the television and other media work I've done.

I have to suggest that if the OP wasn't doing this for her own benefit of having a few seconds of fame on TV (and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that), then it must have been for the greater good of raising the profile of the subject that she is clearly quite passionate about...in which case the "job's a good 'un" in as much as the information she wished to put out there was still used, albeit not delivered by her. At least the whole thing didn't end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

I don't have a lot of talent, and I don't have a lot of knowledge either, but I am exceptionally knowledgeable and time-served in one particular subject, and I have been told repeatedly I am a "natural" when speaking on that subject. As a result of this, I've had several television appearances, one of which I was a main contributor to the program, and numerous interviews for radio and written media.

I knew well in advance of appearing on TV that the opportunity was likely to arise at some point in the future, based on the work I was doing, and that it would be a matter of time & opportunity. Ahead of that, I did a lot of research into what makes someone a good guest speaker on TV & radio, and it was suggested that becoming a regular caller on a local radio was always a good start, so I pursued this with my county's BBC radio station - it didn't take long for them to start calling me up out of the blue, asking my thoughts on all sorts of subjects and asking if I'd be willing to go on air "for a chat".

From there I got the chance to appear in a TV documentary. There was no payment for this, so like with the OP, one does it to meet one's own agenda. I wanted the chance to find out how it all worked, what was expected, and what the rules were. I did not contribute to the documentary per-se, rather my contribution was for an interlude to break up the weight of a 50-minute long 4-part documentary, with footage of me driving my car (filmed from inside and out) whilst commenting on the condition of a stretch of motorway was used (along with a great many other people's contributions) between the main features of the documentary.

As others have said, there are rules to be followed, papers to be signed, and objectives to be met. There was no misunderstanding on my part that all of what I contributed to may never be used, and that it could easily be chopped & edited out of context, and so on. The only thing I hadn't bargained on was how long, tedious, and at times boring the whole process could be.

I later got the chance to appear on a local ITV news feature, as the organisation I was heading up at that time had sponsored a charity, and we were asked to contribute. Again, there was no payment, but it was a brilliant opportunity to get the name of the organisation out there for free. This was exactly the same with the printed media too - there was a lot of that at one point. Sometimes I'd be interviewed over the phone and my words used in an article written by the journalist, other times I would be asked to write my answers and send them in for consideration...and it turned out I was a natural at that too, as very often what was used (this always being a minuscule amount when compared to the quantity I had been asked to provide) would be used word for word as I'd written it.

And then later still came the paid TV work...for that I very much did it for the money and nothing else. Hours and hours of answering the same question and doing the same action over and over again so that it can be filmed from various angles does get boring after a while...one appearance saw me away from home for over twelve hours door-to-door; fortunately the fee I negotiated was more than enough to cover all of my time and expenses, but it was a very long day and all to produce a clip that lasted less than five minutes.

In the program where I was a main contributor, I had to devote two days of my life to travelling and filming, and devising a range of activities for the participants of the show to undertake...again, I was paid enough to make it worth it, but we're only talking a few hundred pounds for a hell of a lot of work. Again, it was repetitive and boring at times (so much time is spent just standing about waiting for producers and camera operators to be ready to film), and of the many hours of filming, only about 15 minutes of it was used in the program, but that's just how it is - TV companies seem to want huge quantities of "stuff" so that they've plenty to work with for when the format of the show is eventually decided and footage edited accordingly.

I could get upset about the money I'd spent on resources to make the various demonstrations and activities happen, only to discover that much of it was never broadcast, but what would be the point? I'd included the costs in my negotiations over the fee, so like in any job, you're paid to do it and so long as you do it properly then it's of no concern to us what happens with it next. But without knowing what the OP's motivation was for taking part in this TV article she speaks of, it's very hard to say whether or not she's been treated badly.

I'm glad you agree you don't know what happened.

I've been on national radio (In Our Time and Today), BBC TV as an interviewee, and on another international channel being interviewed about my academic research. Sometimes my material was included, sometimes it was not, but the thing that grinds my gears and that of my colleagues is that people provide free labour, and it happens repeatedly that people are never told if the material is not included. This can be after a morning of filming, several hours of providing information and answering questions. There is often not even a thank you.

There are a number of my colleagues now that refuse to work with the media because of things like this or are insisting on consultancy payment after 1/2 hour conversation. This treatment was brought up at the 2021 UKRI gathering for academics on how to translate their work into television, and it was acknowledged that things need to improve. They clearly haven't from what I have seen in this thread. That is disappointing, if not surprising.

Of course not bothering to contact people after you get the information you want for not the end of the world to you or anyone in the industry! You got what you wanted for free and wasted someone's else's time, and then it is too much trouble to have the courtesy to contact them? I call BS on that. And, then of course, once you have the information, you can condescend to the person who provides it and say, well dear, you should practice and practice and practice in the hopes someday you might just be good enough to take your information and time, for free. And, oh, don't count on us bothering to email to tell you by the way.

Do you know how arrogant this looks? It is ridiculous.

It isn't a race to the bottom. My experience with doing media told me that unless you have an agent, you will get no payment, or be very poorly paid. "Exposure" rarely pays the bills.

I agree, but I have to ask (genuine question, really it is), how does what you've written tie-in with what I said? And again, I mean it genuinely and kindly, I'm just not getting the connection.

If the culture around doing media interviews is to be expected to be exploited, it becomes the norm? Do you think that is right? Do you really think that the OP should not have been upset not even to get an email afterwards? I'm serious. You did a lot of work for little money.

I've never considered it. I'll have a think. At present I have no feelings on the matter...I'm a great believer that we all have to have our reason "why" in all that we do, and that we understand others have their objectives too. I grew up with a mother who did so much to help other people, for which she was most appreciated, but never once did I see any evidence that she admitted to herself that she wanted to do this, as a person who needed to be needed. She moved mountains for some people and is greatly missed since her death, but it wasn't all selfless.

This very point was encapsulated well some years ago, by Mary Portas in her TV show "Mary Queen Of Charity Shops", where she had to have a stern word with some volunteers who were unmovable in terms of when they would and wouldn't attend the shop...as she said (and I am paraphrasing here as it's been years since I saw it), while there was no doubting their kindness in volunteering, the position gave them a lot back too which was otherwise absent in their lives. Harsh, but true. She said if they really were committed to the cause, they'd recognise the need for flexibility so as to best serve the charity.

Everyone has a reason why. I'm just not seeing what the OPs reason is.

Well, I suspect OP had some local knowledge that was hard won, she was proud to share it, and went to some trouble to do that...it was part of who she is? Maybe she felt erased? I don't know.

As to the Mary Portas example...well, maybe the charity could be committed to the volunteers in some way? People like to be appreciated when they help. If they are told what they are doing isn't good enough, a lot will quit doing it, particularly if it is free labour. They might as well get paid if their manager is going to discipline them.

SImilarly, I did the media to try to help to get the knowledge out there, but I had the very silly idea that I would be given at least a thank you. Sometimes I was, but I saw after a while that I wouldn't often be thanked/acknowledge whatsoever. When it started getting exploitative, I stopped, and returned to teaching my students to disseminate my knowledge. The latter was a lot more satisfying. The students were more appreciative.

Which is why (not withstanding the first two contributions I mentioned in my first post) the TV work I have done has been for payment. Although I enjoy my subject, I have no desire to share it for free, it just doesn't fire me up enough.

I think everyone in the industry agrees with this in principle. Where this gets tricky in practise is that virtually the entire industry is freelance.
So your contact is say the Assistant Producer for the shoot but they finish the day after filming wraps and move on to a different product made by a different company. Ideally they should pass contributor details on to someone else to inform about broadcast dates etc, but often the last handful of people on a production, months later, won't have been across exactly who you were, what you did or why it did or didn't make the final cut. We'll know who is in, but not always who isn't.
Those last people then leave too and it's very often the case that by the time a show airs, none of us works for that company any more.
I'm not saying this to excuse a lack of manners at all, just as an explanation as our industry works so differently to so many others.

I remember one gentleman who had been sent to film me in my home (he was utterly adorable, such a lovely man) saying that "our industry is embarrassingly freelance", a statement made as part & parcel of a sort-of upfront apology for not knowing much about what was going on, other than what he'd turned up to do that day.

On the back of that, it wasn't actually my home he filmed me in - I was in the throws of having a load of work done at home and it just wouldn't have been appropriate to have the place on camera, so a friend of mine allowed me to use her house...and just like with the OP, not a trace of that part of the filming made it to the final program - not because I'd done anything wrong, but because as the theme of the program have evolved during editing, the part filmed in my (friends) home just wasn't required.

Sure, I appreciate this. I did a show with a producer who was also filming with the camera on a strap on his rather rotund stomach, and a lighting guy. They were freelancing to get a series in the can, and I helped them out with contacts for locations and other interviewees. But I'd also think there might be some self-interest to make sure contributors are appreciated in some way...even if an emailed thank you? I would think you'd get better response from people if this was more of a norm? This is particularly the case when people contact you at the last minute...I had someone who wanted me to film in 2-3 days and wanted a lot of specialist information. I couldn't film because I wasn't free, but provided them with a list of three other people, and wrote a lengthy email to answer their questions. I didn't get a thanks or acknowledgement. It is when I started declining media requests unless it would do my local community some good.

It is extremely bad practice to steal someone else's ideas and work even if you can get away with it legally. This can happen in job interviews or when freelance journalists pitch feature ideas, told they aren't wanted, and then talk of the devil, they appear soon after in the publication by a staff writer. There is no doubt in my mind that in this instance they took OP's work and used a pretty face to read it without any acknowledgement. She should definitely complain in the strongest possible terms because the least she deserves is a grovelling apology.

Sure, but a few hundred quid isn't a lot really for what you did? For me, I want a thank you.

Well, probably except for the time I helped script, hosted, and filmed for 14 hours, including on a boat on the Thames, and I was paid £100. I was admittedly young and naive and made another silly assumption that I would get a little more than that. They did pay for one night's hotel stay though, LOL.

After all my expenses were paid, I earned about 50% more than I did in my day job, for the two days it took. At the time, I had no major commitments to stop me from doing it, but had it been a couple of years earlier when I was a part-time carer to my MIL, there's no way I'd have gone through the hassle of doing it for 50% more than two days work. It simply wouldn't have been worth it.

I'd love to say the culture has improved in that respect but I think I may have been lucky with the teams I've worked with. A lot of the shows I've made have quite sensitive content, which attracts teams not just with the experience to handle that but also the personality or temperament. If contributors are trusting us to tell the story of the worst thing that ever happened to them, then that and they will always be treated with the respect they deserve. Sadly it sounds like overall improvement is still required.
The freelancing also impacts on 'last minute' in telly meaning something very different to many other industries. Budgets are painfully tight, so everything needs to be done as fast as possible to keep the number of staffing weeks down. 2 or 3 days in TV production can be like 2 or 3 weeks in other industries.
Tangentially, it's also the reason the likes of Gregg Wallace get away with everything they do for so long. It's all so transient that patterns of bad behaviour can take longer to become apparent.

Lots of posters saying it's understandable that OP's segment wasn't needed in the final edit, but the fact remains that it DOES seem to have been needed, albeit with a totally different person presenting the identical information, for whatever reason. And that information wasn't readily available in the public domain, so could only have come from OP.
That is what has gone down like a cold cup of sick.

Out of curiosity was this recent, or a while ago? I'm trying to gauge if the payment has improved!

Which brings me back to my question - did the OP do this to take the glory, or did she do it for the benefit of her subject? Because if it's the latter, she's still a winner, as her contribution was used.