Clarkson’s Farm

[Smollet]

PinkHouse said:

So he grows and sells tonnes of arable and livestock produce, supports the local economy, provides employment for locals & a destination people/families enjoy visiting, co-owns a successful brewery, whilst also providing hours of entertainment for us all to watch. But because it's Clarkson some people will never have a positive thing to say

Jealousy is a cruel and ugly mistress for some sad souls here.

[RB Will]

Flumpo said:

Yeah a bit weird. I like watching the young guy who fixes written off cars. He obviously makes a massive loss on the actual fixes, but makes his money off YouTube. I wouldn’t describe that as perverse because my local garage has to make profit off fixing cars.

Saw a podcast with him. Apparently it is rare that they make losses on the actual cars but he did say that no way could he operate the whole shebang as a business without the youtube money. Which is quite a lot. The sponsors / product placements pretty much pay him my monthly salary for 30-60 sec plug in an episode.

[Smollet]

RB Will said:

Flumpo said:

Yeah a bit weird. I like watching the young guy who fixes written off cars. He obviously makes a massive loss on the actual fixes, but makes his money off YouTube. I wouldn’t describe that as perverse because my local garage has to make profit off fixing cars.

Saw a podcast with him. Apparently it is rare that they make losses on the actual cars but he did say that no way could he operate the whole shebang as a business without the youtube money. Which is quite a lot. The sponsors / product placements pretty much pay him my monthly salary for 30-60 sec plug in an episode.

Which show is that?

[Dashnine]

SpeedBash said:

The Daily Mail are reporting three more series potentially in the pipeline.

Daily Mail said:

Now I'm told Amazon want another three series — and Clarkson and his team want to keep on making them.

Nothing is signed yet. However, the expectation is that a deal — thought to be worth at least $250 million — will be announced when the third series starts streaming in March or April next year.

At this point it's not clear whether Clarkson will carry on with The Grand Tour, also on Prime Video, or with Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? for ITV.

Friends of the presenter say they would not be surprised if, at 63, he decided to concentrate solely on Clarkson's Farm from now on. Filming runs from March to October.

And if S3 has finished filming, then S4 is already underway as a friend of mine went speak at a local community meeting this week to be greeted by an Amazon film crew with disclaimer form, and sat next to JC and Caleb.

[UTH]

jammy-git said:

Pflanzgarten said:

It’s a perverse business model in the extreme!

Clarkson can piss about making his farm lose money for sts and giggles on the TV, write off those losses against the tax man and then coin it in by showing his “mistakes and bad luck” for all us to watch.

I'm not sure Clarkson, rumoured to be about to get a $250m deal to make three more series, after already making bank via Top Gear, really needs to worry about paying a few thousand in tax in farm profits...

Bloody hell, that's not all money to him is it???

[Evanivitch]

PinkHouse said:

So he grows and sells tonnes of arable and livestock produce, supports the local economy, provides employment for locals & a destination people/families enjoy visiting, co-owns a successful brewery, whilst also providing hours of entertainment for us all to watch. But because it's Clarkson some people will never have a positive thing to say

He doesn't grow and sell tons of arable and (certainly not) livestock. He's pretty small fry in the scheme of things, has made numerous poor business decisions, some of which have been detrimental to the limited numbers of animals he has and poor land stewardship.

Any review of the "farm shop" makes it clear it's not a destination that stands on it's own two feet, absolutely no one would go there of it wasn't for Clarkson's association because there's nothing much to report.

I think it's fantastic what he's bringing to a wider audience about farming, about diversification and about the community aspects (both positive and negative).

But the actual farm business side of it is crap. But running an out and out farm business isn't very entertaining. Harry makes a good stab at it, but he's not getting paid the big bucks by Amazon.

[Evanivitch]

Smollet said:

Jealousy is a cruel and ugly mistress for some sad souls here.

Or perhaps the same folk that though CHM TopGear was all unscripted have fallen for the same trick with Clarkson again...

[Pflanzgarten]

Evanivitch said:

Smollet said:

Jealousy is a cruel and ugly mistress for some sad souls here.

Or perhaps the same folk that though CHM TopGear was all unscripted have fallen for the same trick with Clarkson again...

Is this aimed at me and my previous comment?

I certainly don’t think everything top gear and clarksons farm is unscripted, quite the opposite in fact.

My comment about it being a perverse business model is he’s wasting that land and produce in the name of entertainment. He doesn’t fk it up by accident, it’s largely on purpose to keep us all amused and watching.

Which I do by the way, and to enjoy it not to come on pistonheads and faux some outrage

[PinkHouse]

Evanivitch said:

PinkHouse said:

So he grows and sells tonnes of arable and livestock produce, supports the local economy, provides employment for locals & a destination people/families enjoy visiting, co-owns a successful brewery, whilst also providing hours of entertainment for us all to watch. But because it's Clarkson some people will never have a positive thing to say

He doesn't grow and sell tons of arable and (certainly not) livestock. He's pretty small fry in the scheme of things, has made numerous poor business decisions, some of which have been detrimental to the limited numbers of animals he has and poor land stewardship.

Any review of the "farm shop" makes it clear it's not a destination that stands on it's own two feet, absolutely no one would go there of it wasn't for Clarkson's association because there's nothing much to report.

I think it's fantastic what he's bringing to a wider audience about farming, about diversification and about the community aspects (both positive and negative).

But the actual farm business side of it is crap. But running an out and out farm business isn't very entertaining. Harry makes a good stab at it, but he's not getting paid the big bucks by Amazon.

Just because he's not running a PLC doesn't automatically mean he is small fry. When you compare to privately ownedfamily farms, I'll assume he's in the top quartile in terms of land area alone. With regards to produce, see the quote below:

clarkson said:

This year I will produce probably 300 tons of wheat, 700 tons of barley and 250 tons of oilseed rape
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-jeremy-clar...

The figures in the above figure were quoted in tonnes and I'm sure that amount of produce can't come from an allotment vegetable patch, so if it doesn't qualify as a farm with those figures then you'll also be invalidating most farms up and down the country.

Most businesses owners that own multiple businesses try to take advantage of synergies and cross-selling/promotion of their business interests. Vertical integration is a good example of this where you own and control every aspect of the supply chain. These aren't novel strategies and it's great to see that he's maximising every opportunity.

I'd bet that clientelle in most farm shops are making discretionary/luxury purchases to complement their weekly shops in chain supermarkets. These people are often driven by the brand/allure of the products, so it's also perfectly valid that Clarkson's brand attracts the massesnto his shop.

Finally, the farm may be loss-making but so are most newly formed enterprises. Even then, running the farm as a loss-leader is also a well-established and in this case, lucrative strategy, given the upside to the other businesses and the rumoured $250m contract size

[Dashnine]

My take on Clarkson’s Farm:

1. Clarkson buys a farm as a property / retirement investment, it's managed by a neighbouring farmer and continues in that way for several years.

2. Neighbouring farmer retires, Clarkson thinks 'How hard can it be', and sees an opportunity to use the farm as his 'solo' project from TGT contract.

3. He sets out to run the farm from a position of Joe Public with little or no knowledge of farming. There's no financial risk as the Amazon deal will cover any losses.

4. 'Real' situations are filmed, others are 'generated' for the cameras - e.g. the trout lake: JC has a botched go at creating it for the cameras, and then calls in the professionals who were waiting to do it anyway (as it appears afterwards beautifully sculpted).

5. JC realises that he enjoys working the farm and from S2 onwards I think you see a more genuine attempt to run the farm as a business (mainly the crops), the other avenues are for the cameras and are experiments with no serious financial outlay, e.g. the sheep, the cattle, the pigs, etc.

6. The farm shop is setup, again possibly just for the camera but then the number of people coming to 'see' it rather than for what it sells expands the shop into a TV friendly battle over planning permission. The restaurant was probably a similar vehicle to generate controversy which is very camera friendly.

7. Clarkson’s Farm becomes a hit (for an Amazon programme) and all sorts of different farming exploits can now be covered, after all no-one wants to see the welding every week on Wheeler Dealers (OK, sorry - some PHers want to see welding every week), and similarly this programme would be pretty dull with just the sow, spray fertiliser, spray weed killer, swear at the weather, combine and repeat cycle series in, series out.

CF has gone from an investment, via a camera friendly hobby to satisfy a contract to a self perpetuating income stream for as longs as JC wants and people keep watching.

[richhead]

Dashnine said:

My take on Clarkson’s Farm:

1. Clarkson buys a farm as a property / retirement investment, it's managed by a neighbouring farmer and continues in that way for several years.

2. Neighbouring farmer retires, Clarkson thinks 'How hard can it be', and sees an opportunity to use the farm as his 'solo' project from TGT contract.

3. He sets out to run the farm from a position of Joe Public with little or no knowledge of farming. There's no financial risk as the Amazon deal will cover any losses.

4. 'Real' situations are filmed, others are 'generated' for the cameras - e.g. the trout lake: JC has a botched go at creating it for the cameras, and then calls in the professionals who were waiting to do it anyway (as it appears afterwards beautifully sculpted).

5. JC realises that he enjoys working the farm and from S2 onwards I think you see a more genuine attempt to run the farm as a business (mainly the crops), the other avenues are for the cameras and are experiments with no serious financial outlay, e.g. the sheep, the cattle, the pigs, etc.

6. The farm shop is setup, again possibly just for the camera but then the number of people coming to 'see' it rather than for what it sells expands the shop into a TV friendly battle over planning permission. The restaurant was probably a similar vehicle to generate controversy which is very camera friendly.

7. Clarkson’s Farm becomes a hit (for an Amazon programme) and all sorts of different farming exploits can now be covered, after all no-one wants to see the welding every week on Wheeler Dealers (OK, sorry - some PHers want to see welding every week), and similarly this programme would be pretty dull with just the sow, spray fertiliser, spray weed killer, swear at the weather, combine and repeat cycle series in, series out.

CF has gone from an investment, via a camera friendly hobby to satisfy a contract to a self perpetuating income stream for as longs as JC wants and people keep watching.

This all the way, and dont forget farms are inheritance tax free, so if you have money a very smart move, but they must be working farms, and get paid loads by amazon to doit, win win, plus its a funny program, say what you like about clarkson, hes not stupid

[Mars]

Dashnine said:

6. The farm shop is setup, again possibly just for the camera but then the number of people coming to 'see' it rather than for what it sells expands the shop into a TV friendly battle over planning permission. The restaurant was probably a similar vehicle to generate controversy which is very camera friendly.

I agree with this summary, I love the show, and think Clarkson is an obviously astute business person.

But...

... I popped over to the shop a couple of weeks ago (I live relatively close) and I was quite disappointed in it. The car park is now a very deeply potholed hardcore, and the shop and seating area (open sided barn) sits in the middle of nowhere. There was none of the activity there you'd normally see on the TV programme, the prices are predictably daft, and the buildings were covered in graffiti (some people are horrible, aren't they?).

You could see the restaurant from the shop - it just sits a field away. I wondered what might become of it.

The good news was that there were no queues, even though it was half-term. I suspect it has more interest during the release window of the show.

[Evanivitch]

PinkHouse said:

The figures in the above figure were quoted in tonnes and I'm sure that amount of produce can't come from an allotment vegetable patch, so if it doesn't qualify as a farm with those figures then you'll also be invalidating most farms up and down the country.

Most businesses owners that own multiple businesses try to take advantage of synergies and cross-selling/promotion of their business interests. Vertical integration is a good example of this where you own and control every aspect of the supply chain. These aren't novel strategies and it's great to see that he's maximising every opportunity.

I'd bet that clientelle in most farm shops are making discretionary/luxury purchases to complement their weekly shops in chain supermarkets. These people are often driven by the brand/allure of the products, so it's also perfectly valid that Clarkson's brand attracts the massesnto his shop.

Finally, the farm may be loss-making but so are most newly formed enterprises. Even then, running the farm as a loss-leader is also a well-established and in this case, lucrative strategy, given the upside to the other businesses and the rumoured $250m contract size

You clearly know nothing about farming given your assumptions and examples of his numbers.

I've said nothing about him running a plc. His farm isn't particularly big and he's not particularly productive with it, largely from his own "mistakes".

[simonrockman]

I wonder if he'll try truffles:

https://plantationsystems.com/

Not very TV friendly as it takes six years from planting to first crop, but £20k per ha.

Simon

[Evanivitch]

Pflanzgarten said:

Is this aimed at me and my previous comment?

I certainly don’t think everything top gear and clarksons farm is unscripted, quite the opposite in fact.

My comment about it being a perverse business model is he’s wasting that land and produce in the name of entertainment. He doesn’t fk it up by accident, it’s largely on purpose to keep us all amused and watching.

Which I do by the way, and to enjoy it not to come on pistonheads and faux some outrage

I tend to agree. I don't dislike Clarkson and I don't dislike Clarkson's farm. But it's not very good farming. But it's very good publicity for farming, which it needs right now.

[PinkHouse]

Evanivitch said:

PinkHouse said:

The figures in the above figure were quoted in tonnes and I'm sure that amount of produce can't come from an allotment vegetable patch, so if it doesn't qualify as a farm with those figures then you'll also be invalidating most farms up and down the country.

Most businesses owners that own multiple businesses try to take advantage of synergies and cross-selling/promotion of their business interests. Vertical integration is a good example of this where you own and control every aspect of the supply chain. These aren't novel strategies and it's great to see that he's maximising every opportunity.

I'd bet that clientelle in most farm shops are making discretionary/luxury purchases to complement their weekly shops in chain supermarkets. These people are often driven by the brand/allure of the products, so it's also perfectly valid that Clarkson's brand attracts the massesnto his shop.

Finally, the farm may be loss-making but so are most newly formed enterprises. Even then, running the farm as a loss-leader is also a well-established and in this case, lucrative strategy, given the upside to the other businesses and the rumoured $250m contract size

You clearly know nothing about farming given your assumptions and examples of his numbers.

I've said nothing about him running a plc. His farm isn't particularly big and he's not particularly productive with it, largely from his own "mistakes".

Why does the size of his farm matter? You can't seriously be criticising him for not buying enough land.

Evanivitch said:

He doesn't grow and sell tons of arable and (certainly not) livestock......

On one had you say he doesn't grow and sell tons of anything, but it turns out he sells in excess of 1200 tonnes of produce. And you call it unproductive based on what assumption? Have you compared his yield per hectare to industry averages since he's been running the farm to come to that conclusion or was it based solely on your 'expert' opinion?

[Evanivitch]

PinkHouse said:

On one had you say he doesn't grow and sell tons of anything, but it turns out he sells in excess of 1200 tonnes of produce. And you call it unproductive based on what assumption? Have you compared his yield per hectare to industry averages since he's been running the farm to come to that conclusion or was it based solely on your 'expert' opinion?

you also said he sold tons of livestock, so i assumed you weren't being literal, but perhaps I gave you too much credit.

No, his yields are poor. Isn't that obvious just watching the show?

[FiF]

Evanivitch said:

PinkHouse said:

On one had you say he doesn't grow and sell tons of anything, but it turns out he sells in excess of 1200 tonnes of produce. And you call it unproductive based on what assumption? Have you compared his yield per hectare to industry averages since he's been running the farm to come to that conclusion or was it based solely on your 'expert' opinion?

you also said he sold tons of livestock, so i assumed you weren't being literal, but perhaps I gave you too much credit.

No, his yields are poor. Isn't that obvious just watching the show?

Just for record either talking twaddle or fibbing about his output.

If you take those suggested yield tonnes Wheat 300, Barley 700, OSR 250, then using average UK '20 yield per hectare, (Strutt and Parker)ignoring that it changes from area to area and season to season he'd need just shy of 250 hectares.

He farms 404 ha, (1000 acres). Obviously not all of it is under crops, that's also obvious from watching the show. Don't know the % area or which season those output figures are from. I picked a year of generally not brilliant yields for reference.

Sorry as you were, please continue arguing about Jeremy. Probably both he and I probbably find that side of things quite amusing in an odd way.

[popegregory]

Have Amazon addressed the post-Meghan claim that they had no further plans or intentions to work with him, or whatever it was they said?

[DeejRC]

Why would they?