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?

It would also be unfair to the people who worked on the show. We have no way to tell what has actually gone down here. Turning it into a witch hunt isn’t fair on anyone.

Hopefully the OP will get some answers and an apology if required, and can move on from the disappointment.

It's not unfair to the people working on the show if they've done something wrong.

Yes it is.

They haven’t done anything illegal - at worst (and without minimising the effect it’s had on OP), it’s poor communication in explaining why the content has been included in a different way.

People make mistakes but they should be dealt with in a respectful, professional way, not a misguided witch hunt by loads of randoms online.

You have nothing to do with this, beyond supporting the OP on an anonymous forum, and pressuring her to reveal anything more is unfair to the people actually involved.

Even if OP signed away her rights to the material, she did it on the basis of the information provided by the production team. If they'd been upfront and said that they wanted a professional presenter to be on camera, she might well have still agreed or negotiated payment for her efforts, but that would have been agreed from a position where there was truthfulness from the programme makers. It's about being treated respectfully and honestly and not lied to or used.

...but she may not want to out herself to anyone who doesn't.

Can't say I blame her.

There is no indication she was lied to. They may have changed their mind - which they are allowed to do. It does, from the limited info we have, appear that they weren’t clear that the info would still be included, just not with her saying it.

We don’t film stuff we have zero intention of using - it’s too expensive and time is too tight. If they wanted her info and not her contribution on screen, they would have done a research call / meeting instead - likely days or weeks in advance to enable time for a script to be written. Filming a presenter redoing the piece and including the fresh info the OP had revealed in her interview will have been a last minute and pressured decision - some poor producer will have had to pull a script out of their arse, on location. Unless the OP had already given the info to the researcher in their earlier communications, in which case they again had no reason to film her at all if they had no intention of using it.

It sounds to me (again, form the very limited info here) like poor practice not to have been clear they were including the piece in a different way, but it’s not illegal or immoral or anything that would excuse making this into a nasty campaign against the producers.

It is immoral to use the work OP has done and not give her credit or payment, having previously indicated that she would be on camera presenting her own research.

How would anyone watching have known it was her work?

I disagree.

It’s rude not to give her a proper explanation (if that is what has happened) but there is nothing immoral about not using a contribution that, for whatever reason, wasn’t suitable for inclusion.

The release forms are very clear on the right to use the contribution in whatever way - or no way at all - the programme makers see fit.

If they had persuaded her to give them her research on the basis of being on tv, that would have been immoral - firstly for making a deal like that, and then for reneging on it.

As that didn’t happen, there is no question of immorality here.

People who don't work in TV will likely sign release forms as requested, but still expect that their contribution will be used in the way initially presented to them and the basis on which they agreed to be part of the programme.

I'm not seeing how it isn't immoral to use someone's research (not information that was easily available on the public domain) and not give them credit or payment for their time.

Adults with full capacity can make their own decisions. It’s infantilising the OP - who is clearly intelligent and accomplished - to suggest she was unable to understand the contents of the release form.

I'm not saying she didn't understand it, but most people who don't work in a particular industry, would trust the people who do and would expect their work to be used as initially agreed. And if that changes, would expect to be notified and compensated.

If a person agrees to contribute their research for free, in the expectation they will be presenting their own work, and then the terms change, it's not right imo for the production team to not credit or pay the OP.

@beenonthebox if the OP was on tv presenting her own research then viewers would assume it's either hers or is information in the public domain. If someone else presents it, they will make that assumption about the new presenter. As it is, they've seemingly used OPs efforts to make a programme that will generate money for the organisation, but not paid or credited a person who contributed their expertise.

I don’t disagree that she should have been made properly aware of the change, but it isn’t clear that there was any ‘deal’ whereby the sharing of the research was contingent on OP appearing on camera.

If it was, that would have been problematic in several ways.

I do think the OP deserves an explanation and potentially an apology - but the calls for naming the production and potentially outing the programme-makers are a step too far.

And what if they do? I'm not being argumentative, I'm being serious - why would a viewer care? Unless someone is recalling a personal experience, I've never stopped to wonder if they were the ones to uncover the information.

I think it probably doesn't matter much to the audience, but it matters to the person who did the work I just think people should get credit for their contributions.

I really feel for you, but also beg you to try to put this all behind you. I spent 15 years in production on live shows and pre records. I can guarantee you that no-one intended to cause you upset. Everything they did is NFN, standard practice. It may be that you were so devoted to being the perfect talking head, that you came over badly. Maybe nervous? Perhaps needing re-voicing because you were over prepped and had to be cut down? Ignore the doubters on here. But do believe me, these people would be doing these PTC's day in and out. They are all about what works best for the programme. Consider yourself valued for your input. If it had to be re-voiced for whatever reason, that they re-used your info is a compliment. Its a bit poor that they didn't offer you a fee though. But honestly, don't feel demeaned in any way.

How will she be outing herself to anyone who doesn't know her?

I love you for this post 💖 I bet your segment was bloody amazing!

How utterly awful that they stole your research. Completely disgusting. And didn't even have the courtesy to ask you.

And for what it's worth OP, I would MUCH rather hear from someone who has researched and is passionate about a topic even if their delivery wasn't like a professional TV presenter. You're there because you have something interesting to say and that's the whole point.

Not surprised you're upset, op. Some people have been really mean on here.

Why don't you ring the Beeb and ask what happened? I'd want to know. Say you noticed that the presenter used your exact words, and ask why what was wrong with your interview.

Out of more than 500 replies so far, anything "mean" has been drastically overshadowed by the sympathy, and the "mean" posts were largely people explaining how things work.

The OP has been given some great constructive feedback, on top the sympathy I mentioned above. Overall, the OP has done quite well from the post.

But it isn't.

You can be passionate and knowledgeable and still not come across well on camera. It's a real skill.

It should be no shame or embarrassment to the OP that they didn't use her contribution. There are a dozen reasons why they needed to reshoot. Looking at the final programme might make it was obvious why.

The OP rowed back on saying that the exact words had been spoken. That's why it's a bit disingenuous for anyone to say it's disgraceful or plagiarism or theft or anything. No-one knows unless we see the script and the final broadcast.

Methinks we've touched a nerve here!
The clue is in the username.
We're on Mumsnet not the BBC!