'The Stig. He's ours'

[T0M722]

I was looking of the TG website just before and found this which is very interesting. Top Gear are going through a rough time trying to hold onto their secret. No doubt some of you would be interested in what's going on with Top Gear at the moment.

 

Doubtless you’ll have read that the BBC and the book publishing people, HarperCollins, are now in a big legal battle over HarperCollins’ wish to publish an autobiography of the person who wears the Stig suit to work. The BBC has responded with a polite statement, but I must say I feel the urge to add my ten penn’orth about how we see things down at the Top Gear office.

 

First off, I had to laugh when I read the bit of the HarperCollins statement where it says: “We are disappointed that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers’ money to suppress this book…”. “Disappointed??!!” Give me strength.

 

“Disappointed” is the word viewers use when they think Top Gear has wasted licence payer money on something stupid or rubbish, and when viewers use it, they usually mean it from the heart. Big book publishing companies worth hundreds of millions do not sit in their boardrooms going: “We are so disappointed”. If I could apply my patented Reality Check (It’s like Spell Check but I haven’t quite invented it yet) to their statement, it should actually read: “We are deeply irritated that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers’ money trying to protect something that belongs to them, as we were hoping to cash in on it in time for Christmas, even though in the eight years the Stig has existed, we’ve contributed absolutely bugger all to the character’s creation or development.”

 

The fact is, the “waste of licence payer’s money” argument gets trotted out many times as a way of attacking the BBC, but the reality is this: the BBC is a massive organisation. It’s naïve to think it can only ever spend money on cameras, tape for the cameras, Daleks or anything else that contributes directly to what ends up on screen. The BBC also has the right to spend money on protecting the intellectual property it created, because the truth is that all that stuff – the Stig, the Tardis, the Blue Peter dog – does belong to the licence payer, and not to some opportunists who think they can come along and take a slice when they feel like it.

 

As you can tell I’m quite cross at the moment, but there’s plenty to be cross about. Last week, instead of working on the next series, I had to go to court. If you go to court you have to look smart, which meant I had to dig my suit out of the back of the wardrobe, and the last time I wore that suit George Michael could still drive in a straight line. So on Monday there I was, dressed like somebody who works behind the till at NatWest, having to listen to people from HarperCollins telling me that they have the right to reveal who the Stig is. Well actually, that’s tosh. The whole point of the Stig is the mystique – the bizarre characteristics he has, the wonderment created about what he might think, feel, do or look like. Kids adore the conceit, and I believe adults, although they know it’s a man in a suit (or is it?), gladly buy into the whole conceit because they find it entertaining. Even the papers, who love to make mischief, have kept everyone guessing over the years because they acknowledge that viewers like the Stig secrecy thing.

 

Anyway, HarperCollins have decided none of that is as important as their profits, so if you get your Christmas ruined by one of the best and most harmless TV secrets being outed, you can rest easy in the knowledge that by contrast, HarperCollins’ executives will be enjoying a fantastic Christmas.

So why are we fighting in court? Well, obviously we want to protect the Stig’s anonymity for the reasons I’ve just outlined. Also, it’s an issue of trust. Everyone who’s ever worked on Top Gear has kept the Stig thing a secret, and the person who wears the suit has signed confidentiality agreements to do the same. So talk about what you like in your own life, but not the bit you agreed not to. Your word is supposed to mean something.

 

Some of you will say we’re also trying to protect a brand the BBC makes money out of. You’re right there too. The Stig does make money for BBC Worldwide, which is a business, and some of it is invested back into the business, some of it is paid out in dividends, and crucially, some of it goes back into funding the TV show. And the show needs that money, ‘cos this ain’t a cheap piece of telly. And actually, while I’m on the money point, BBC Worldwide are also picking up half the tab for this case, so it’s by no means just licence fee payers’ money being spent.

 

Inevitably, Fleet St has endless opinions on what BBC Worldwide should do with its money. Only yesterday morning Stephen Glover wrote a very robust piece in the Daily Mail about Top Gear’s commercial affairs. But since he can’t actually count up how many shows we make a year (it’s 14, not 8 Mr Glover), I’m not sure I’d trust the rest of his maths. Besides that, like every outsider he doesn’t know the details of any confidentiality clauses we have going, he doesn’t know about Top Gear internal relationships, and he doesn’t know who the Stig is, and sadly I can’t help put him right because we’re in the middle of a load of legal tussles, and I wouldn’t want to anyway, because it’s a secret.

Speaking of which, I’ll be back in court sometime soon, looking once more like an office junior at Foxtons, and we’ll be fighting our corner. If we lose at this stage, it won’t be over but the book will be published and the papers will have a field day with a barrage of headlines about “Humiliating Climbdowns” etc. But so be it. Bring it on. Do you want a BBC that runs away from a snidey headline, or one that fights to protect its belongings? What’s the saying? “It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees”. A bit dramatic I know, but the fact is, the ramshackle, dysfunctional family that is the Top Gear team, from the newest runner right up to Jeremy, Richard and James, has worked bloody hard for many years to make the Stig something worth caring about, and that includes protecting it from a bunch of chancers.

 

It's wrong of HarperCollins to take something of Top Gear's and ruin it for them just to make money. Mr Wilman makes some very good points in there and I do hope they show HarperCollins who's boss.

[t.]

I really don't get all the hype around the Stig anyway. It's a bloke in a suit who drives cars around a track whilst keeping up a mysterious persona, great. I think the global obsession with the Stig and Top Gear in general is part of what puts me off it slightly these days, it's got almost too big in some respects.

 

Full credit to Andy and the team though, no one can doubt that they have created a winning formula with Top Gear.

[Eudemon]

In the same vein though isn't the person who is actually the Stig also somewhat heavily involved in the whole stigma? Especially in regards to his ability to control the most powerful of cars and the god given talent he seems to posses behind the wheel especially if the majority of the driving and such is by this one person.

 

The 2 main factors behind the Stigs popularity imo is the secrecy and mystery but also the unbelievable control said person has behind the wheel of virtually any car and clearly the real life human behind this does have a claim to a large share of that fame!

 

Also why don't the BBC pay the person behind the Stig better, it's clear they both need each other. I wonder what he gets in fact!

 

PS: Does anyone think 14 shows a year is too little?

[Ryzza5]

14 shows is ok, I'd just rather they do an even split of 7 eps per series.

 

I hope the BBC win this case. If anyone should be earning money from outing the Stig once TG is dead, it should be them, not some other company.

[Leadfoot[YT]]

I hope the BBC win this case. If anyone should be earning money from outing the Stig once TG is dead, it should be them, not some other company.

 

Agreed. Also, if they do win, this is probably a good thing for the BBC/Top Gear when you think about it. It's more attention to them, and it refreshes the mystery.

 

-Leadfoot

[Ryzza5]

Don't we already know who the Stig is? :)

 

 

If you don't want to know, don't click the Play button

[Who]

Offtopic: I've been to that mountain board centre :p

[Leadfoot[YT]]

Don't we already know who the Stig is? :)

 

Yes, and there are other vids and articles that back that up. But it's nice to pretend we can't find out, right? :)

 

-Leadfoot

[dredgy]

Don't we already know who the Stig is?

 

It's never been confirmed. In fact, Wilman denied it in the "He's Ours" post.

 

Only yesterday morning Stephen Glover wrote a very robust piece in the Daily Mail about Top Gear’s commercial affairs .... he doesn’t know who the Stig is, and sadly I can’t help put him right because we’re in the middle of a load of legal tussles, and I wouldn’t want to anyway, because it’s a secret.

 

Glover's article is here: Stop Picking on The Stig

 

Of course whether Wilman's trustworthy on this matter is debatable.

[pascallll]

Don't we already know who the Stig is? :)

You mean that the Stig is a 16 year old skateboarder?

:jk:

HarperCollins is just a stupid capitalistic company if they really reveal the secret of the Stig:p

[Camel]

You mean that the Stig is a 16 year old skateboarder?

:jk:

HarperCollins is just a stupid capitalistic company if they really reveal the secret of the Stig:p

 

Maybe the person driving the Bowler?

[Ryzza5]

You did see the :jk: sign, didn't you Mellors? ;)

 

 

I know it's never been confirmed, and I like the whole secrecy thing too. That's why I psoted that video instead of one of the conspiracy ones (it's fun to compare the driving style too).

[Camel]

Shush you. >.< I blame lack of sleep.

[Immelmann]

HarperCollins is just a stupid capitalistic company if they really reveal the secret of the Stig:p

 

Agreed. Capitalism bad. RISE, STALIN, RISE! :twisted: