[Jon]

There’s plenty of things broadcasters do that I am critical of. Even if this was some attempt at trickery I wouldn’t really be bothered.

What’s ridiculous about your post is the suggestion that the BBC is trying to get one over on viewers. When the most likely scenario is they didn’t think the other series were that relevant as they never had any intention of showing them and it just makes things simpler as a proposition for iPlayer audiences. Or possible the people responsible for uploading the listings on iPlayer themselves are unaware of previous incarnations.

If it was a series of something like Friends and they started labelling season 6 as series 1, I would find that a bit odd. But for this programme it seems to make sense because of the particular set of circumstances.

[tellyblues]

What’s ridiculous about your post is the suggestion that the BBC is trying to get one over on viewers.

Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last. The BBC Scotland channel for example.

[bilky asko]

What’s ridiculous about your post is the suggestion that the BBC is trying to get one over on viewers.

Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last. The BBC Scotland channel for example.

To be specific, in what way would the BBC trying to "catch people out" by listing the Australian series 5 and 6 as 1 and 2 respectively?

[tellyblues]

To be specific, in what way would the BBC trying to "catch people out" by listing the Australian series 5 and 6 as 1 and 2 respectively?

The BBC are the only ones referring to the two most recent seasons as series 1 and 2.

I can see why they would do that - to make the show more appealing to viewers because it isn't seen as "old", and in the case of "series 2", people are more likely to want to catch up if they think there is only one previous series, so the re-numbering drives use of the iPlayer. The situation also reflects more positively on the BBC, them being seen to being fully committed to shows as opposed to buying in selected episodes. Ultimately, no questions are asked if people see "series 1" and "series 2".

[bilky asko]

To be specific, in what way would the BBC trying to "catch people out" by listing the Australian series 5 and 6 as 1 and 2 respectively?

The BBC are the only ones referring to the two most recent seasons as series 1 and 2.

I believe they're the only broadcaster outside of Australia and New Zealand to show the series, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

I can see why they would do that - to make the show more appealing to viewers because it isn't seen as "old", and in the case of "series 2", people are more likely to want to catch up if they think there is only one previous series, so the re-numbering drives use of the iPlayer. The situation also reflects more positively on the BBC, them being seen to being fully committed to shows as opposed to buying in selected episodes. Ultimately, no questions are asked if people see "series 1" and "series 2".

Despite the conspiratorial tone, that still doesn't explain how it is supposed to "catch people out".

The more reasonable explanation is that they have bought the rights to show the revived series on the strength of Lord Sugar's presence. Because the chances of them showing the previous series is precisely zero, they have numbered it accordingly.

[tellyblues]

I believe they're the only broadcaster outside of Australia and New Zealand to show the series, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

Um... because they're not the first and second seasons of the show?

Despite the conspiratorial tone, that still doesn't explain how it is supposed to "catch people out".

The more reasonable explanation is that they have bought the rights to show the revived series on the strength of Lord Sugar's presence. Because the chances of them showing the previous series is precisely zero, they have numbered it accordingly.

Yes, for their benefit. There will be viewers who will have been unaware that there were previous seasons and decided to watch for reasons I already explained. That is what is called catching people out.

[gottago]

I believe they're the only broadcaster outside of Australia and New Zealand to show the series, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

Um... because they're not the first and second seasons of the show?

Despite the conspiratorial tone, that still doesn't explain how it is supposed to "catch people out".

The more reasonable explanation is that they have bought the rights to show the revived series on the strength of Lord Sugar's presence. Because the chances of them showing the previous series is precisely zero, they have numbered it accordingly.

Yes, for their benefit. There will be viewers who will have been unaware that there were previous seasons and decided to watch for reasons I already explained. That is what is called catching people out.

That isn't catching anyone out.

You noticed quite a dull technicality and have drawn out a very odd conclusion.

[Neil Jones]

I believe they're the only broadcaster outside of Australia and New Zealand to show the series, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

Um... because they're not the first and second seasons of the show?

Despite the conspiratorial tone, that still doesn't explain how it is supposed to "catch people out".

The more reasonable explanation is that they have bought the rights to show the revived series on the strength of Lord Sugar's presence. Because the chances of them showing the previous series is precisely zero, they have numbered it accordingly.

Yes, for their benefit. There will be viewers who will have been unaware that there were previous seasons and decided to watch for reasons I already explained. That is what is called catching people out.

I think you're reading too much into it to be honest.

By the same logic when BBC Four wheeled out episodes of Joy of Painting they were all labelled as "Series 1" and "episode 1/26", that could be interpreted by as you "catching people out". Anybody who saw them and knew anything about that programme could tell a) it didn't look anything like Series/Season 1, b) it was never made in 26 season batches in the first place, and c) it was effectively a compilation of episodes from about four seasons worth and near enough random. Mention was made of "Welcome to the 10th Joy of Painting series" (or whatever) by Bob Ross but we didn't see anybody complaining that it wasn't series 1 of that show.

The point being it is not the first time that a broadcaster has bought something and pushed it out as "Series 1" when chronologically it wasn't. But as above if there is no chance the original first series is going to be seen, its pointless shoving it out as "series 3" or whatever as all that does is cause people to think they've missed something they haven't.