Behind The Scenes... Anything and everything you want to know

[IdealWorldWorker]

How can this possibly be the case: QUOTE "Whether these are then corrected on air by the presenter is out of the producers control" - OK, maybe not totally the Producer's control, but if a presenter keeps on giving out misleading information, should they still be presenting, I ask? Should IW not read them the proverbial riot act and wave a P45 in their face? So are you saying that we have to assume the producer will correct the presenter when he/she gives misleading information, and then the producer will happily leave it up to the presenter to decide whether to correct it (or not bother!) whilst they are on-screen?!! There is one presenter on IW who gives misleading information on a regular basis, and certainly DOES NOT say "you can get it home for £xxx plus p&p". Said person says something like "it's just 2 fivers" - which is a load of old tosh. Are you seriously telling us that this person is regularly corrected by the producer, does nothing to apologise for, or rectify the incorrect information given whilst still on-screen...and yet is STILL allowed to present on IW? Does the tail wag the dog there? Seems mighty suspicious to me.

Again. I will explain I was working as a floor manager, backstage. Not a company guy at the top bringing presenters into meetings to discuss what they are doing wrong. I said I'd tell things from a TV production point of view. That is what I am doing.
A presenter would make a mistake on air. The producer would calmly correct it. If the presenter ignored it, they would calmly mention it again. If they then still ignored it, the producer would raise his voice and direct the remark with more authority numerous times. If the presenter still ignored it, when a VT is being played out, the presenter and producer would end up arguing over the mistake. Meetings are held after each show and it would be brought up then.

As said earlier, TV is live. The producer can do so much to try and correct it. But at the end of the day, he can't pause the show, stop producing and just keep trying to ammend things. This is the same case whether it is shopping TV or entertainment. It is a strange world of TV that we work in, and until you are in it, I appreciate it is hard to understand the weird rulings.

Also remember, they are presenters for a reason. They like attention, they like limelight. Imagine them off screen. They are much the same, in general. Overly confident, loud, outgoing, think they are always right, think the world owes them a living and quite carefree. Now how many people do you know with these attributes in the "normal world" would admit to being wrong...? I don't know any.

Then, why arent they fired? Lies or not. Issues or not. Arguments or not. They make IW money. A lot of it.

Is it right? Probably not. But that's not my concern. You asked a question. There's the truth as it plays out in front of backstage staff.

And "does the tail wag the dog there?" - You have very much hit the nail on the head...

 

[Craftalot]

I have a question about the camera work on Ideal World. It's appalling, and always has been. The focus is never pulled properly, the presenters are always looking at the wrong camera far too much of the time. Zoom is terrible; always jerky and the same with panning. No shots dissolve (I presume this is more the PCR than the cameramen), anything with a shallow depth of focus is pretty much impossible for them. it's just all very shoddy. Why does Ideal World put up with it, particularly when you compare it with QVC's camerawork which it has to be said is excellent? Or is it a conscious decision by Ideal World to make the channel seem warmer, fuzzier: more 'homely', rather than the slick sharp camerawork of its competitors?

Thanks for the thread.

 

[Keep Going]

Your kind of comments are the reason I came on here in the first place. Then when you don't get the answers you believe to be true, you stick to your skeptic remarks. Haha.
I've got no reason to lie. I don't work there, nor is it my company. I just saw a forum of people talking nonsense about something I know about and wanted to correct them. Yet I'm to be taken with a pinch of salt.....

Ok you say you saw a forum about the "people talking nonsense about something you know about".......................That statement alone goes to show the contempt that shoping channels treat the general public with (from the dogsbodies to the salesfolk) as on the next post you have openly said "Then, why arent they fired? Lies or not. Issues or not. Arguments or not. They make IW money. A lot of it. Is it right? Probably not. But that's not my concern. You asked a question. There's the truth as it plays out in front of backstage staff."

So what this all comes back round to is that the general public who were apparently talking nonsense are in fact saying what has been the truth all along, but as you were geting a wage along with all the others, to hell with the general public and the ethics of being honest, for example simply saying the full price of a product.

So as I suspected at the start of this thread we have all learned nowt, nada, zilch as we all knew the game and tactics all along, maybe you would have been better posting on a forum that was closer to do with TV productions and giving folk who maybe want to get into that game a few tips and hints.

 

[shopperholic]

Your kind of comments are the reason I came on here in the first place. Then when you don't get the answers you believe to be true, you stick to your skeptic remarks. Haha.
I've got no reason to lie. I don't work there, nor is it my company. I just saw a forum of people talking nonsense about something I know about and wanted to correct them. Yet I'm to be taken with a pinch of salt.....

And your comments are a massive load of BS, in my opinion of course, saying nothing that I couldn't have said myself and I don't even work there! So if you're not going to say anything "rude" about the presenters, then offer the same respect to posters please.

 

[historymystery]

Absolutely right. What does all this tell us that we didn't know? Ethics? Morals? Er, no, not when money's involved - well, aren't we all amazed at that! Who would have thought it - gosh, I'm glad this "insider" has posted such valuable information (yawn). I am still laughing at the poster's previous comment to the effect that shopping channels have to behave or they can be in trouble with OFCOM (yeah, right, OFCOM are a REALLY scary outfit), but later contradicts him/herself, by commenting to the effect that the presenters can get away with doing what they like! Sceptical about all of this? Join the club! Something doesn't ring true here, and I think I've got a good idea what it is.. In my opinion, this poster's comments are total BS.

Ok you say you saw a forum about the "people talking nonsense about something you know about".......................That statement alone goes to show the contempt that shoping channels treat the general public with (from the dogsbodies to the salesfolk) as on the next post you have openly said "Then, why arent they fired? Lies or not. Issues or not. Arguments or not. They make IW money. A lot of it. Is it right? Probably not. But that's not my concern. You asked a question. There's the truth as it plays out in front of backstage staff."

So what this all comes back round to is that the general public who were apparently talking nonsense are in fact saying what has been the truth all along, but as you were geting a wage along with all the others, to hell with the general public and the ethics of being honest, for example simply saying the full price of a product.

So as I suspected at the start of this thread we have all learned nowt, nada, zilch as we all knew the game and tactics all along, maybe you would have been better posting on a forum that was closer to do with TV productions and giving folk who maybe want to get into that game a few tips and hints.

 

[Lady Madonna]

And your comments are a massive load of BS, in my opinion of course, saying nothing that I couldn't have said myself and I don't even work there! So if you're not going to say anything "rude" about the presenters, then offer the same respect to posters please.

Not nice comment.

 

[Lady Madonna]

Absolutely right. What does all this tell us that we didn't know? Ethics? Morals? Er, no, not when money's involved - well, aren't we all amazed at that! Who would have thought it - gosh, I'm glad this "insider" has posted such valuable information (yawn). I am still laughing at the poster's previous comment to the effect that shopping channels have to behave or they can be in trouble with OFCOM (yeah, right, OFCOM are a REALLY scary outfit), but later contradicts him/herself, by commenting to the effect that the presenters can get away with doing what they like! Sceptical about all of this? Join the club! Something doesn't ring true here, and I think I've got a good idea what it is.. In my opinion, this poster's comments are total BS.

Not nice comment.

 

[historymystery]

Also interesting to note the usual suspect coming on as Devil's Advocate (yawn).

This is a good thread. It's interesting to note some of the reactions when pre conceived ideas are challenged and rebuffed.

 

[Greg]

Also interesting to note the usual suspect coming on as Devil's Advocate (yawn).

Exactly what I thought historymystery! They stick out like a sore thumb...

 

[shopperholic]

Not nice comment.

Sorry we must be reading different threads, I'm replying to the "ex IW worker" for being rude.

 

[historymystery]

Don't knock it, Greg - gives them something to do (although something a bit more original would be a welcome change)! :mysmilie_17:

Exactly what I thought historymystery! They stick out like a sore thumb...

 

[historymystery]

Some people might enjoy being told how to suck eggs, others don't. Some of us can spot BS a mile away, too.

Not nice comment.

 

[alan1302]

Sorry we must be reading different threads, I'm replying to the "ex IW worker" for being rude.

How can you say someone is rude when you are yourself?

You have said they are talking BS and say you have no interest in the thread but still constantly post.

If you have no interest why not move on and don't read or post in this thread?

 

[shopperholic]

How can you say someone is rude when you are yourself?

You have said they are talking BS and say you have no interest in the thread but still constantly post.

If you have no interest why not move on and don't read or post in this thread?

I think you should calm down, if I want to change my mind, I will, if I want to comment here, I will, if I want to be rude to someone who was rude to another poster calling her posts sceptical "ha ha" I will. Thanks for your contribution though, I'm sure the "ex IW worker" (debatable) will appreciate it.

 

[IdealWorldWorker]

Look, I really don't get why you guys are getting at..? It literally makes absolutely no sense hinting that im not an "insider" and that I am purely talking BS. That would be absolutely pointless in me being here.
It seems to me that you are just looking for answers that are not there. You want to know why the presenters get away with "lying" or giving misleading information. I have told you that the producers correct them. But the presenters are naturally firey characters and choose to not do as their told. As someone put very well earlier "the tail seems to wag the dog". This is very very true. Not how it should be. Not how I would have it. But that is the case there. IW can get a producer for £30k. Working long hours. They will find one anywhere. It's not so easy to get a presenter that sells well. Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, is totally irrelevant. IW hire them because they make the company money. To suggest that because I was taking a salary out the company means that I am as bad as them and don't care for their customers is absolute nonsense too. I'm not saying that misleading people is right, if that's how the customers feel. I was asked whether they are told off for lying, whether they are made to lie and be misleading etc. I am telling you in no uncertain terms that producers did everything they could whilst I was there to correct errors. Because it always turned out to be the producers jobs on the line rather than the presenters. If the presenter didn;t correct themselves on air, what exactly can a producer physically do during a live show? Absolutely nothing.

How closely are IW actually watched by OFCOM? VERY VERY OFTEN. Not that scary? You don't hear in the press about the hundreds of thousands they got fined. Staff were regularly in OFCOM meetings, shows were pulled off air for false information, DURING A SHOW. They have 20 page documents on specific words they can and can't say per product. Again, do they stick to it all the time? No. Do they make slip ups? Yes. Are there repercussions? Yes. Do you hear about them? No. But do the staff seem to get sacked for it? Evidently not.

How can I remain pleasant and not rude to posters, when I am getting told that I am talking BS..? It's insane.

What exactly do you want me to say? What exactly do you want me to answer? You are asking questions that I have given the full 100% truthful answer to. Which as you've already stated, you could've guessed. So what's the point in asking those kind of questions? Why ask why a presenter doesn't get the sack for saying misleading information? Then say it's obvious that they haven't been sacked, because they are still working there. You are proving your own point to be invalid. It's stating the obvious.

I think what you want me to say is that, as an insider, all the staff knows that they can sell a lot more product by PURPOSELY LYING about the price, flexi payments, how good a product is etc. And that everyone is walking around ideal world laughing at the customers ringing up to buy "absolute tat that no-one would ever want". and that presenters don't have any of "this rubbish" at home. and everyone at ideal world should go to hell for how dishonest and stone cold they are, and they wake up every day looking to fleece as many people out of money and try to con as many people as possible out of as much money as possible.

It's just not true. But if that's the case of what all you guys think, why do you watch it? Why are you buying from them? Why are you taking the time to come on this forum? Just don't buy from them. I don't.

I will say again. I came here purely to put to bed the nonsense I was reading as it was silly. It's literally like seeing someone ranting online that "2+2=6". Then someone comes along and says its 4, and everything starts laughing and claiming BS. It's crazy.

 

[IdealWorldWorker]

I think you should calm down, if I want to change my mind, I will, if I want to comment here, I will, if I want to be rude to someone who was rude to another poster calling her posts sceptical "ha ha" I will. Thanks for your contribution though, I'm sure the "ex IW worker" (debatable) will appreciate it.

I'll send you my CV shall I..? Ludicrous. Why would anyone lie about working for IW? It's hardly a claim to fame. lol. My CV includes the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, SKY Sports. I'm really going to come onto a forum to lie about my time on Ideal World as a floor manager. lmao.

 

[Dave]

Seems to me the ex I/W poster came to post, about production, etc, and said he/she didn't want to "dish the dirt". However some interesting info was divulged. He or she agreed about "fibs", the steam cleaner that removes what is portrayed as burned on grease but was nothing more than gravy or whatever. As long as they make lot's of money seems to be the reason they survive, but surely not at the cost of feeding dodgy presentations!
The reason the info was divulged remains a mystery - what was the motive? If posters on the forum have a beef with the content of some shows, then the ex worker basically said yes, that is what happens. Personally I don't want to know about the presenters, but what annoys some forum members IMO is the blatant "fibs" we are fed. Complaining to IW seems a waste of time, so when posters make a legit moan, then here is the place to vent.
I rather suspect very few forumites will be interested in this thread, if they haven't already decided it's a set up in some way.
This is my last post on this thread. I hope it gets closed by the mods. I am sure they have been reading with interest. As a post script, it is refreshing to have a say here, without being censored, posts removed, as seems the case elsewhere. Thanks' Graham and Sazza. :mysmilie_12:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[alan1302]

I think you should calm down, if I want to change my mind, I will, if I want to comment here, I will, if I want to be rude to someone who was rude to another poster calling her posts sceptical "ha ha" I will. Thanks for your contribution though, I'm sure the "ex IW worker" (debatable) will appreciate it.

I'm perfectly calm. But thanks for thinking of me

You've still not said why you continue to post here despite thinking it's BS and that you think it's a waste of time as they won't answer your questions. Do you just like posting and being 'difficult' just because you can?

 

[IdealWorldWorker]

I have a question about the camera work on Ideal World. It's appalling, and always has been. The focus is never pulled properly, the presenters are always looking at the wrong camera far too much of the time. Zoom is terrible; always jerky and the same with panning. No shots dissolve (I presume this is more the PCR than the cameramen), anything with a shallow depth of focus is pretty much impossible for them. it's just all very shoddy. Why does Ideal World put up with it, particularly when you compare it with QVC's camerawork which it has to be said is excellent? Or is it a conscious decision by Ideal World to make the channel seem warmer, fuzzier: more 'homely', rather than the slick sharp camerawork of its competitors?

Thanks for the thread.

Hi Craftalot. Thanks for asking a sensible question....

There are a few reasons why the camera work looks so blurry.

Shopping television is where most people start work behind the scenes of television after uni etc. Therefore, they have little to no experience. In comparison to a place like QVC that uses mostly robotic cameras, controlled by directors who have more experience. Although these take longer to get the shots.
The lighting, and cameras at IW/Create and Craft are very old. Never replaced even after the fire they had all those years ago. Quite simply, they are just old rubbish cameras that don't live up to todays quality, and IW don't like spending money on this kind of thing. Which is quite astounding as you could buy a £1500 camera from canon that could do a better job than their current cameras.
The cameras viewfinders are also Black and White, which makes it harder for the camera guys to focus on objects, especially in fashion shows and craft shows where the focus has to be really sharp to see the detail.
Dissolving shots is down to the director and I do think that create and craft used to do these when showing samples of cards. However, unless it's something like this, dissolves are normally seem as quite cheap and tacky when just cutting between cameras. To be fair though, quite ironic as the whole channel looks quite cheap and tacky to me.

Again, the bad Zoom and Panning is down to inexperienced operators. Then as soon as they are experienced. They will easily have left within a year and the bad work starts again..

Ideal World put up with it because their ethos, as I found out, was, "get the staff in cheap and inexperienced, then wait until they leave and get someone else in cheap and unexperienced.". They would have much better output if they had experienced staff. But roughly speaking, IW will get through 50+ backstage staff members a year due to the low pay, terrible hours and how badly the staff are treated. It is definitely not "family friendship and fun" off camera. £14k, for 14x 13 hour shifts a month. No breaks, as there isn't time. So in theory you worked an hour at least each day for free.

Put it this way, when I handed in my notice I was told, "ah good, we've got two people from uni who look ok and only one job. that makes it a bit easier. see ya".

 

[alan1302]

Seems to me the ex I/W poster came to post, about production, etc, and said he/she didn't want to "dish the dirt". However some interesting info was divulged. He or she agreed about "fibs", the steam cleaner that removes what is portrayed as burned on grease but was nothing more than gravy or whatever. As long as they make lot's of money seems to be the reason they survive, but surely not at the cost of feeding dodgy presentations!
The reason the info was divulged remains a mystery - what was the motive? If posters on the forum have a beef with the content of some shows, then the ex worker basically said yes, that is what happens. Personally I don't want to know about the presenters, but what annoys some forum members IMO is the blatant "fibs" we are fed. Complaining to IW seems a waste of time, so when posters make a legit moan, then here is the place to vent.
I rather suspect very few forumites will be interested in this thread, if they haven't already decided it's a set up in some way.
This is my last post on this thread. I hope it gets closed by the mods. I am sure they have been reading with interest. As a post script, it is refreshing to have a say here, without being censored, posts removed, as seems the case elsewhere. Thanks' Graham and Sazza. :mysmilie_12:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Info about the behind the scenes stuff I do find interesting - certainly more interesting that some of the posts about what a presenter is wearing! LOL

Do find it amusing you say that you think the thread should be locked but then go on to say it's nice things aren't censored!