|
Post by jasonward on Oct 27, 2015 17:56:12 GMT
David and Donna are also well known faces, if they have been seen going into BF's offices by anyone on the industrial estate BF are located on they could easily be the source of the information, in which case not really a leak, just life happening.
|
|
|
Post by gban007 on Oct 27, 2015 18:14:46 GMT
It sounds like the leak site have jeopardised the fact they have any "Official Contacts" in a rather foolhardy manner.
EDIT
The leak site runner has replied to the post in the comments field, initals CKM
Regards
mark687 Hi Mark687, As the facebook post looks to have now been removed, are you able to provide the gist of CKM's response? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Shalott on Oct 27, 2015 18:18:19 GMT
David and Donna are also well known faces, if they have been seen going into BF's offices by anyone on the industrial estate BF are located on they could easily be the source of the information, in which case not really a leak, just life happening. True. But I do think BF was blindsided (and probably dismayed) by the widespread coverage of the Blogtor Who post. I just want to give Nick a reassuring hug ... and tell him to hire a good PR person for BF stat.
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Oct 27, 2015 18:39:01 GMT
As a former reporter allow me to provide some context as to why a leak could put a deal in jeopardy.
I used to do a fair bit of sports reporting and often we'd find out that a team had resigned a star but that things hadn't been made official through the league office - so we'd conduct the interview and agree not to run the piece until things had been made official. Running the story ahead could lead to the contract being nullified (come collective agreements had clauses allowing for that under damages), or could lead to serious fines both to the player and the club. I even had players later contact me shortly after cutting an interview and ask me to destroy my tapes and conduct an interview after the deal was formalized.
In this particular context the best guess I can make (as I am not party to the contract details BF has with the BBC), I could see there being difficulties when it comes time to negotiate rights to the series when the current contract is due as there is likely some form of confidentiality clause limiting what can be discussed before it is signed off by the BBC.
Again, that is speculation on my part, but not something unheard of in instances where content rights are farmed to a third party.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Oct 27, 2015 18:40:41 GMT
I have no reason to think Nick is lying about anything although we do know in the past that BF has timed major announcements to coincide with the publication of Doctor Who Magazine, although that seemes to have slacked off in the recent past. So there is precedent for Big Finish holding information back, which means, at least from Blogator Who's perspective, there would be a good reason to break the story. I can't comment on the behind the scenes stuff or how Cameron acquired the info, or indeed how people behaved but the thing I keep coming back to, if you are a provider of news and you get your hands on a juicy scoop, the primary instinct would be to run with it. Breaking news is one of the reasons a news & information site exists. I understand. I just think they aren't doing their job properly if the breaking the story runs the risk of causing the thing the story was about to fall apart. I mean, they're supposed to be fans after all. I have rather ruder things to say about people responsible for sneaking the potentially harmful information out in the first place.
|
|
Tony Jones
Chancellery Guard
Professor Chronotis
Still rockin' along!
Likes: 2,132
|
Post by Tony Jones on Oct 27, 2015 18:47:14 GMT
David and Donna are also well known faces, if they have been seen going into BF's offices by anyone on the industrial estate BF are located on they could easily be the source of the information, in which case not really a leak, just life happening. FWIW BF use a lot of locations and at least one has no neighbours
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Oct 27, 2015 20:09:41 GMT
What was the point of that?
If your going to post something on a public Social Media Account etheir stand by it or amend it as facts come light. don't remove it entirely.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Oct 27, 2015 20:13:10 GMT
Since I don't know why the post was removed, I am not going to pre-judge.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Oct 27, 2015 20:22:27 GMT
Since I don't know why the post was removed, I am not going to pre-judge. The post in question is the 1st post of the Thread, which is a copy of one posted by Nick Briggs on FB which has now been removed
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by cr1980 on Oct 27, 2015 20:42:07 GMT
In an ideal world, BF would have a PR person to provide professional non-answers to nosy bloggers rather than have Nic struggling with the issue. I suspect his fears of things going wrong if the news came out prematurely were exaggerated. but it certainly doesn't make Big Finish look good even though watertight security is beyond their control.
Without knowing details, I wonder if it's possible that there wasn't an actual leak at all. We all assumed Tennant/Tate was inevitable, probably sooner rather than later, so clumsy remarks by someone vaguely related to BF could easily look like confirmation even if that person didn't know themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2015 20:57:06 GMT
What a mess. The gist of the conversation seems to be that cameron did ask Nick if it was OK to run the article. Nick admits he got the mail but never noticed the question and didn't respond. So Cameron ran the article. Naturally BF wouldn't be able to makr any response if contracts weren't signed, but a holding phrase response would probably have been wiser than silence, which Nick also admits. As mentioned in earlier post, BF need a press officer, poor Nick is probably stressed out about the whole thing. I really feel for him.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Oct 27, 2015 21:28:44 GMT
Since I don't know why the post was removed, I am not going to pre-judge. The post in question is the 1st post of the Thread, which is a copy of one posted by Nick Briggs on FB which has now been removed
Regards
mark687
The first post of this thread is still there. I was referring to the removal of the quoted post from Nick's FB page. I thought that was what we were talking about. I don't know why he removed it from his FB page, so I can't judge his reasons for removing it.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Oct 27, 2015 21:32:19 GMT
In kind of thinking, though, that we should remove the quoted material from Nick, too, out of consideration for him.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Oct 27, 2015 21:44:33 GMT
In kind of thinking, though, that we should remove the quoted material from Nick, too, out of consideration for him. Up to Admins I suppose as I said though if your going to post something on a public Social Media Account ethier stand by it or amend it as new facts come to light, deal with the fallout, don't remove it entirely IMO.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Oct 27, 2015 23:27:24 GMT
What was the point of that? If your going to post something on a public Social Media Account etheir stand by it or amend it as facts come light. don't remove it entirely. Regards mark687 It may not be new facts that have come to light, but just a rethink about what Nick actually wants and doesn't want to say, of course it's too late, people read it, and copied it, it's out there, one the dangers of using social media.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Oct 27, 2015 23:29:17 GMT
In kind of thinking, though, that we should remove the quoted material from Nick, too, out of consideration for him. Not minded to remove it myself, the cat is out of the bag, if BF wanted a forum they could control then... nuff said, but if Nick or BF contacted us asking us to remove it, I would consider their request carefully and probably favourably.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Oct 27, 2015 23:41:13 GMT
I think the issue is more about the fact that the cat was let out of the bag weeks before the promotional image was released. Even the range banner was leaked beforehand! At the very least Blogter Who should have framed the article as a speculative piece about if, not when BF would do the Tenth Doctor, or held off until Big Finish announced it.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Oct 28, 2015 0:53:57 GMT
In kind of thinking, though, that we should remove the quoted material from Nick, too, out of consideration for him. Not minded to remove it myself, the cat is out of the bag, if BF wanted a forum they could control then... nuff said, but if Nick or BF contacted us asking us to remove it, I would consider their request carefully and probably favourably. Okay, makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Oct 28, 2015 2:30:52 GMT
I was a bit surprised to get that long of a comment from Nick. It sounds him though, and I was expecting to hear a statement similar to that at some point, on a podcast or interview.
As for the leak itself, I don't know where I sit on this one. I'm all for the freedom of the press. Now, as a fan of BF I usually respect their decisions on the timing of their announcements, although I don't always buy the line about how they always announce new projects the 'moment they are able to'.
I do want them to be successful in all they do, and timing can be very important in creating a good buzz about a title or range. The actual announcement of David returning... I mean, us fans of Big Finish already felt pretty darn certain that David would return at some point, it was basically only a matter of time, so this news was, to me, inevitable. As for the DW fans new to audio drama, I'm all for BF trying to get full value out of their marketing to get those kinds of fans to take a punt on this and hope it leads them into being Big Finish fans as well.
Honestly, I don't know if the leak hurt or helped BF on this one, because sometimes leaks can help a lot. (you know the way leaks are sometimes made intentionally in order to exploit the media for free publicity.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Oct 28, 2015 2:43:27 GMT
Alternatively, the BBC could have said "this is the time table, it mustn't interrupt any marque episodes on the TV series, or any announcements were making about the TV series, or the DVD range. It must not distract from X, Y and Z. Or else we might just take our bats and balls and go home".
The leak came out when? Just as series 9 started.
|
|