BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
hyphen said:
Disastrous said:
hyphen said:
Disastrous said:
People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.
I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?
Commercial broadcasters in the UK pay more as they have to compete against the BBC.I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?
If the BBC did not exist/was privatised and lost its privileges (listed 1st in v listings by law) then they would not have this massive imbalanced competition.
They need to get these viewers from amongst other, but mainly, the BBC when it comes to some areas such as MOTD viewers to sign up for live. So they have no choice but to offer a contract to any agent who knocks on their door saying it is negotiation time for a BBC Star, as his profile will help them reach their financial objectives faster so its a sound business decision.
Agent then plays this offer off against the BBC and so Linekar gets what he gets.
It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
Disastrous said:
And yet if these presenters are such poor vfm, it's amazing that the commercial stations don't simply get 'anyone' in to do the job, save a fortune and STILL make much better programs. I wonder why that isn't what actually happens...
It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
Chicken Egg. Being on the BBC gives a high profile to presenters, this viewer recognition is what the commercial parties want.It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
Look at the many presenters who left the BBC and went downhill. Ofcourse the BBC as part of its programming needs to make programmes people like, but they are not driven by short term profit in the same way as commercial entities.
BBC can afford to bring in a young new presenter and support him to develop himself rather than compete against commercial broadcaster in a salary bid auction.
Disastrous said:
hyphen said:
Disastrous said:
hyphen said:
Disastrous said:
People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.
I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?
Commercial broadcasters in the UK pay more as they have to compete against the BBC.I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?
If the BBC did not exist/was privatised and lost its privileges (listed 1st in v listings by law) then they would not have this massive imbalanced competition.
They need to get these viewers from amongst other, but mainly, the BBC when it comes to some areas such as MOTD viewers to sign up for live. So they have no choice but to offer a contract to any agent who knocks on their door saying it is negotiation time for a BBC Star, as his profile will help them reach their financial objectives faster so its a sound business decision.
Agent then plays this offer off against the BBC and so Linekar gets what he gets.
It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
hyphen said:
Disastrous said:
And yet if these presenters are such poor vfm, it's amazing that the commercial stations don't simply get 'anyone' in to do the job, save a fortune and STILL make much better programs. I wonder why that isn't what actually happens...
It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
Chicken Egg. Being on the BBC gives a high profile to presenters, this viewer recognition is what the commercial parties want.It's almost as if having a well known presenter helps you get viewing figures. Are you saying the BBC should not be trying to make programs that people watch??
Look at the many presenters who left the BBC and went downhill. Ofcourse the BBC as part of its programming needs to make programmes people like, but they are not driven by short term profit in the same way as commercial entities.
BBC can afford to bring in a young new presenter and support him to develop himself rather than compete against commercial broadcaster in a salary bid auction.
The BBC doesn't exist in a vacuum. It operates in a competitive space and whilst they don't have to make profit, they still need to compete with commercial broadcasters.
Dazed and Confused said:
Commercial Stations don't exactly pay a fortune for big name DJs.
Does any commercial radio station have the audience numbers of BBC R1,2 & 4? Commercial radio doesn't really compete with the BBC. Apart from talkSPORT taking on R5. For a better idea on whether the BBC are overpaying their stars, you need to look at BBC TV and benchmark it against ITV, and in some areas Sky. C4 & C5.
In general, the level of debate on this thread is pretty low. Mainly consisting of "any idiot can read the news" to "I don't personally like him I fail to acknowledge he may have a value and therefore he's crap and overpaid."
The only consolation is the debate is even worse on Twitter. Complete outrage that an actor playing a nurse on Causality earns more than a real nurse. And that actors pay should not outstrip the pay of the person doing the real job.
So if that rule comes in, I guess Julia Roberts won't be playing any more hookers!
suffolk009 said:
This salary furore is the tip of the iceberg. The BBC is in crisis. It desperately needs to re-invent itself.
It cannot continue as it is. License fee payers will refuse to pay the fees if vast obscene salaries are paid to people who host shows they have absolutely no interest in watching. The license fee only works if the vast mojority of people see it as value for money.
Beyond the immediate salary issue, the BBC has to consider what it wants to be in the future. It cannot (and should not) compete with commercial organisations for ratings and popular shows. It will always come second to Independent TV, or new online services. My children don't watch regular TV. In a few years they will hopefully leave home, and I'd be suprised if they will even own a TV.
The BBC says it is unique - time to bloody well prove it.
Where are there vast and obscene salaries?!It cannot continue as it is. License fee payers will refuse to pay the fees if vast obscene salaries are paid to people who host shows they have absolutely no interest in watching. The license fee only works if the vast mojority of people see it as value for money.
Beyond the immediate salary issue, the BBC has to consider what it wants to be in the future. It cannot (and should not) compete with commercial organisations for ratings and popular shows. It will always come second to Independent TV, or new online services. My children don't watch regular TV. In a few years they will hopefully leave home, and I'd be suprised if they will even own a TV.
The BBC says it is unique - time to bloody well prove it.
I saw skilled, capable professionals getting paid sensible, professional salaries. A couple were a bit higher than I'd have thought they merited, most were a hell of a lot lower.
briang9 said:
A205GTI said:
However 9 pages and no one has mention Vanessa Feltz's Wage I mean really does anyone listen to her or like her!!?
She needs a lot of money for food I believe!!Edited by briang9 on Thursday 20th July 00:49
Edited by briang9 on Thursday 20th July 01:01
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
227bhp said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Bye bye Chris Evans.
How does that work? Do you think the BBC didn't know how much he was getting before the list was published? 
You're living in complete dream world. We live in an age of instant news, instant fury, almost instant boredom and quickly on to the next public outrage story.
Is was IS and London and Manchester bombings, something must be done. That's forgotten with Grenfell. Dangerous tower blocks, something must be done. Now it's balls to Grenfell, I give you BBC pay. How much do they earn...something must be done.
Something else will come along in a few days and you'll be so full of righteous indignation, won't even think about Chris Evans.
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Agree. The standard response on this thread is don't like him/her = not worth the money. Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
BoRED S2upid said:
Ian Beale gets almost a quarter of a mill a year! For being a crap actor. That guy must be the luckiest actor alive he's been living in Eastenders since he was a boy!
Always thought being in stuff like that (hollyoaks etc) was a cushy gig. So long as you can work your way into being a long-term character. My acting skills are abhorrent, so probably only good enough for the likes of Hollyoaks, but even still, if you can survive the many and drastic plot changes you can be on decent money for a long time just hamming it up with some terrible amateur dramatics.
Ian Beale has been canny... if he'd have branched out to a Hollywood future he could well have been shot down in flames and left empty of pocket. Or the gamble could have paid off and he'd be a mega star who makes a million before he lifts his head of the pillow every morning.
Instead, he's plumped for a relatively modest, safe and constant pay packet providing a grim street in the east end with acting that is perilously close to being a fire hazard. Not a bad play of the game IMO.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 20th July 14:50
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Commercial Stations don't exactly pay a fortune for big name DJs.
Does any commercial radio station have the audience numbers of BBC R1,2 & 4? Commercial radio doesn't really compete with the BBC. Apart from talkSPORT taking on R5. For a better idea on whether the BBC are overpaying their stars, you need to look at BBC TV and benchmark it against ITV, and in some areas Sky. C4 & C5.
In general, the level of debate on this thread is pretty low. Mainly consisting of "any idiot can read the news" to "I don't personally like him I fail to acknowledge he may have a value and therefore he's crap and overpaid."
The only consolation is the debate is even worse on Twitter. Complete outrage that an actor playing a nurse on Causality earns more than a real nurse. And that actors pay should not outstrip the pay of the person doing the real job.
So if that rule comes in, I guess Julia Roberts won't be playing any more hookers!
This has never been the case at the BBC.
48k said:
OK so let's follow that through. Pay gets capped at the BBC. The really good people realise that they can move up the ladder once the old fossils leave to feather their nests at Sky, and so on and so on, and the talent ppol of the Beeb is constantly being creative and renewed. Keeping them on the cutting edge.
.
EFA .
TwigtheWonderkid said:
towser44 said:
because people are tuning in for the actual highlights of the football irrespective of who presents it
In which case, just pick someone up at the job centre and pay them minimum wage. Why waste money on Gabby Logan or Mark Chapman. Lets just have a race to the bottom.Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Don't agree with that at all. I like a good many of the male newsreaders on the BBC - but they're ridiculously overpaid.Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Ms Feltz is, in my view, very poor at her job (far too patronising). She is also, in my view, paid far too much.
Robertj21a said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Don't agree with that at all. I like a good many of the male newsreaders on the BBC - but they're ridiculously overpaid.Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
The fact that so many people think it's so easy just proves how good the newsreaders are. They make a very tough gig look effortless. They are victims of their own success. They make it look like anyone can do it, when very few actually can.
Steve Wright is the standout for me. But I suppose they wouldn't keep him on if people didn't listen. I thoiught he was well past his sell by date a decade ago.
The gender gap is lollers - the hypocrisy from an organisation that seemingly preaches to others is stunning.
The ethnic BAME thing is pretty much in line with the UK's demographics so that's cool (not for the 5-Live caller last night who ranted about the percentages not being important and there should be black and muslim presenters in all the top roles to prove how diverse the UK is. Nope love, that would be bulls
t.
The gender gap is lollers - the hypocrisy from an organisation that seemingly preaches to others is stunning.
The ethnic BAME thing is pretty much in line with the UK's demographics so that's cool (not for the 5-Live caller last night who ranted about the percentages not being important and there should be black and muslim presenters in all the top roles to prove how diverse the UK is. Nope love, that would be bulls
t.Otispunkmeyer said:
MOTD doesn't even need a presenter. Just play a reel with edited highlights and a voice over if necessary (or just play the commentary feed). I know most people like to think footy fans are daft, but I'd suggest most who follow the game are perfectly capable of dissecting what went on on the pitch... they don't need some ex-has been to spoon feed some obvious analysis at them.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Why even have speaking on TV anyway?? I'd happily tune into nothing but Ceefax.
Disastrous said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
MOTD doesn't even need a presenter. Just play a reel with edited highlights and a voice over if necessary (or just play the commentary feed). I know most people like to think footy fans are daft, but I'd suggest most who follow the game are perfectly capable of dissecting what went on on the pitch... they don't need some ex-has been to spoon feed some obvious analysis at them.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Why even have speaking on TV anyway?? I'd happily tune into nothing but Ceefax.
Exactly. Why do we need moving pictures at all, do people realise how much that costs. And if we are going to have pictures, I don't need colour to tell the difference if Chelsea are playing Arsenal. Completely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers money.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff