BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings

[Disastrous]

Wiltshireman said:

Disastrous said:

Where do you think BBC salaries should be paid from, if not the licence fee?

The BBC should be trimmed down, as should the license fee (or at least menu priced depending on what you want to watch) I don't get why IT NEEDS TO COMPETE with ITV, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc - IT IS A PUBLIC INSTITUTION LARGELY FUNDED BY US !!

Ask most kids/Millennials what they watch these days and its not terrestial TV - this trend will only continue

Ok, but where should the salaries come from if not the tv licence?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Disastrous said:

Ok, but where should the salaries come from if not the tv licence?

I think in reality, the BBC is funded overall by a combination of income streams, one of which is the licence fee. They also have merchandising (sales of DVDs and the like), revenue from foreign broadcasters buying their programmes, etc.

[Adam B]

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.

I agree that a lot of above is bks based on personal taste

but I'll have a crack:

I enjoy Graham Norton and think he is excellent at what he does - probably worth the £850k or whatever
I enjoy MOTD and think Lineker is excellent at what he does - IMHO he is paid double what he is "worth"

[Halb]

Adam B said:

I agree that a lot of above is bks based on personal taste

but I'll have a crack:

I enjoy Graham Norton and think he is excellent at what he does - probably worth the £850k or whatever
I enjoy MOTD and think Lineker is excellent at what he does - IMHO he is paid double what he is "worth"

GN is OK< I don't watch his show, but sometimes I'll catch it is there is someone I particularly want to watch, he is his show/act. Everytime I see GL he comes across as a poor - moderate speaker and not insightful. I do not watch his show but I can't see how he is x2 (or more) the insight entertainment than others he shares the room with?

[Adam B]

Halb said:

Everytime I see GL he comes across as a poor - moderate speaker and not insightful. I do not watch his show but I can't see how he is x2 (or more) the insight entertainment than others he shares the room with?

yes but the challenge was to find someone you like and say they were overpaid

[Wiltshireman]

Disastrous said:

Ok, but where should the salaries come from if not the tv licence?

The salaries shouldn't be there in the first place, if part-funded by TV tax payers' money - in the same way there checks and balances on what other execs within public bodies are paid, and for MPs etc...

Explain to me why Alex Jones is paid what she is, by a public institution?

[C70R]

Dazed and Confused said:

C70R said:

Dazed and Confused said:

Hub said:

I don't really care how much they earn - but it reminds me that Radio 2 needs a MASSIVE cull. Loads of stale old stalwarts (Ken Bruce, Steve Wright) and other irritants (Vine, Feltz) that have too comfy seats and all need to go! Even Evans is dull too. Same jingles same time every day, usually some voiceover of his kid etc.

This is it. Much of the big money is going to Radio 2 presenters and it's duller than ditch water. Trouble with R2 is you're there until you die. Something has to give.

Are you talking about R2, the biggest and most successful radio station in the country, by an absolute country mile?

"I think it's dull, so it's a waste of money..."

Are you hard of understanding?

I'm merely questioning why Radio 2 gets so much money compared with everything else the BBC does. For those that don't know the UK particularly well there's fairly large swathes were R1 and R2 are pretty much the only stations that have a decent signal, so Evans's success is down to being not as st as Grimmy.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good.

Popularity is surely the benchmark for whether something appeals to a wide audience, and therefore is considered "good" by a large body of people?

Not only is R2 better than the next best station (actually R4 - despite your claims about widespread blackouts) by almost 50%, it's also better than every single commercial station.

If you can't see that this suggests that increased investment brings increased listening figures and widespread appeal, then you've no hope of grasping more complex concepts.

Edited by C70R on Friday 21st July 12:12

[C70R]

Halb said:

Adam B said:

I agree that a lot of above is bks based on personal taste

but I'll have a crack:

I enjoy Graham Norton and think he is excellent at what he does - probably worth the £850k or whatever
I enjoy MOTD and think Lineker is excellent at what he does - IMHO he is paid double what he is "worth"

GN is OK< I don't watch his show, but sometimes I'll catch it is there is someone I particularly want to watch, he is his show/act. Everytime I see GL he comes across as a poor - moderate speaker and not insightful. I do not watch his show but I can't see how he is x2 (or more) the insight entertainment than others he shares the room with?

Conversely, I've never watched a Graham Norton show (save for a YT clip of Will Smith and Alfono Ribero). However, he's ludicrously popular (it's the most-viewed evening chat show on TV), and he appears to get an incredible calibre of guest.

I don't watch because his style and schtick gets on my nerves (once you realise he ends half his sentences with "erm", he's unwatchable), but I'm certainly not angry that he gets paid what he does.

[droopsnoot]

Not-The-Messiah said:

From the reactions of many on here saying how they see the pay these presenters receive is fair. Then I most be old fashioned and still believe in a honest days work for a honest days pay.

I need to perhaps change my thinking. I remember a job I did a few weeks ago for a school. It involved me driving five minutes to Argos buying a £20 wireless door bell. Then driving five more minutes to the school. Spending 5 minutes fitting it and then my company charged them around £300 for the pleasure. £2000 for 3 extra smoke detectors also springs to mind the kit cost around £100 and took 2 hours to fit.

I just instantly feel guilty, I know my company has bills to pay but I just know when something isn't fair. And the only place that extra money is going is on the company owners new car.

I know it's the reason I will never be rich but at least I have clean conscience. Its quite apparent to me many people don't know what such a thing is anymore.

I sort-of get your point there, but look at it the other way. In your example (and I know it was only an example) of the wireless door bell, your company charged £300 for supplying and fitting the wireless door bell, which based on the cost of the item, and the cost of employing you, seems a lot. But your company would probably say "well, competitor 1 would have charged £350, and even competitor 2, cheapest of the cheap, who stick random adverts over all the products they install, still charge £250." Sure, many would say that perhaps the school should have a handyman who could do stuff like that, and their employment cost would be the money much better spent, others might point to that being yet another publicly-funded (presumably) body wasting money by paying over the odds for stuff. Yet another point of view is that by spending £300 and £2000 on stuff from your company, that's still way, way cheaper than the cost of employing their own handyman if that's the only jobs they needed in a year.

On the highlighted part, are you sure? I think back to stuff I've done in work, and compared what it cost in terms of my time, and the products needed (if any), and the price we charged for it and, like many people, thought how it was money for old rope. But then when you think about the building costs, business rates, NI, pensions, sick pay, all the support employees that are needed but don't actually bring money in, and it's not quite as easy as it seems.

Probably drifting off-topic. I don't think I can see that we should expect people to do work for a public company at a specific rate of pay which is much lower than they could get in a competing private company, whether it's broadcasting, or transport or anything else. Best case is that we get a public company staffed by willing newcomers who stay for a year or two, develop into something good and then leg it to the private sector as soon as they can, amid accusations of using the public company as a paid training course. Worst case is that we get it staffed by people who have no idea what they're doing, don't improve, but stick around because they're the only ones that will do it for the money.

Sure, some of this looks like money for nothing, but I've spent time on a film set with my car, and it's not a short working day. Sure, no-ones lives depend on it, it's not that kind of high pressure. But I don't think anyone is (or should be) surprised that people in TV and film get a lot of money. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd probably have a go.

I think it will be a pity if the publication results in sufficient arguments that people who are good at what they do end up leaving because they're not getting as good a deal as someone else. But then, all the established presenters were once the newcomer that stood in the back and did a short piece to camera, so maybe new people will come through. But they probably won't be any cheaper, and they'll probably have more going through private production companies, so all it will achieve is that the finances are actually a bit less transparent than this report appears to have made them.

[C70R]

Wiltshireman said:

Disastrous said:

Ok, but where should the salaries come from if not the tv licence?

The salaries shouldn't be there in the first place, if part-funded by TV tax payers' money - in the same way there checks and balances on what other execs within public bodies are paid, and for MPs etc...

Explain to me why Alex Jones is paid what she is, by a public institution?

Because, even though I don't watch/like it, The One Show is among the most-watched talk shows on any channel.
Shouldn't she be rewarded/remunerated commensurate with its success?

[Disastrous]

Wiltshireman said:

The salaries shouldn't be there in the first place, if part-funded by TV tax payers' money - in the same way there checks and balances on what other execs within public bodies are paid, and for MPs etc...

Explain to me why Alex Jones is paid what she is, by a public institution?

I don't know why this is hard to grasp.

The BBC is a broadcasting corporation, not a LA or an NHS trust.

What makes good programmes? People. That's it.

How do you get them? Pay them. Or they'll go to a channel that does.

It's literally that simple.

Just because you don't like Alex Jones is irrelevant. It's a massively popular programme so they have to keep their talent.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Wiltshireman said:

Explain to me why Alex Jones is paid what she is, by a public institution?

Explain why she isn't, without resorting to your own personal dislike of her, which is neither here nor there.

She fronts a peak time live tv show watched by millions. Live tv is incredibly hard work, and extremely stressful. My son occasionally does live national radio. He doesn't read the news, but will occasionally be one of the people the newsreader goes to for a 1 minute report from the scene. A lower audience than The One Show, and radio, not tv, so he can't be seen, but he says it's massively challenging, and it's always a huge relief when it's over and has gone well. That's 1 minute on live radio, so god knows how you'd multiply that for 30 mins live tv, with millions watching.

As I said before, the fact that it looks easy doesn't mean it's easy, it means the person doing is is very skillful at disguising how hard it is.

[stumpage]

But the One Show used to be fronted by Adrian Chiles and Christine Lampard (can't remember her maiden name). When they left for a higher pay packet it was all doom and gloom. Now the show remains just as popular with new presenters and the previous ones are hardly heard of. This is the same as programs like Blue Peter, Morning TV Shows etc. The same could be said for Top Gear which is now coming up to a good standard.

I remember Chris Evans saying on the radio when he took over from Wogan that the talent in the BBC is the quality of the teams making the programs and not the presenters. Which if I recall he also highlighted when stepping away from Top Gear. So I'm sure he realises what a lucky chap he is getting his wage.

[Halb]

C70R said:

Conversely, I've never watched a Graham Norton show (save for a YT clip of Will Smith and Alfono Ribero). However, he's ludicrously popular (it's the most-viewed evening chat show on TV), and he appears to get an incredible calibre of guest.

I don't watch because his style and schtick gets on my nerves (once you realise he ends half his sentences with "erm", he's unwatchable), but I'm certainly not angry that he gets paid what he does.

I can take or leave GN, if I watch I don't watch for him, but I can see how he is a draw for stars and he is the show. This seems opposed to GL who is a small cog in a machine, and no different or greater than any other part. Neither provokes anger for me, but it looks weird.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

stumpage said:

But the One Show used to be fronted by Adrian Chiles and Christine Lampard (can't remember her maiden name). When they left for a higher pay packet ......

How did that happen, if the BBC were overpaying them ridiculously in the first place?

[Randy Winkman]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

stumpage said:

But the One Show used to be fronted by Adrian Chiles and Christine Lampard (can't remember her maiden name). When they left for a higher pay packet ......

How did that happen, if the BBC were overpaying them ridiculously in the first place?

Exactly. Thanks Stumpage for the reminder.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

90% of the posts continue to be "I don't like Alex Jones/ Evans/ Zoe Ball/ Charlie from Casualty et al and therefore they shouldn't get paid as much (if at all)."

This thread is the lowest point in critical thinking since the Paranormal thread in the Lounge.

Because Evans and Zoe Ball's job is to play music and they know fk all about music and I think having worked in Air Studios, Abbey Road and Electric Lady in New York long before these cretins graced the airwaves I think I know what I'm talking about.

[AlexRS2782]

The whole debacle of how this was released / handled has just been one giant circle jerk for all the anti BBC / Daily Mail, etc readers.

I noticed the Daily Mail were running a, clearly clickbait and most likely exaggerated non existant, story about how, evidently, licence fee payers are funding Chris Evans lavish love of cars and his "upcoming" purchase of a brand new supercar (but don't say what the car is - probably because it isn't happening).

Similarly, the Daily Star had a front page story today featuring a picture of Gary Lineker on holiday with his family. The tagline being that "Smug" Lineker was, evidently, personally blowing thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money by using it to directly fund an expensive, lavish holiday for his family. Again I very much doubt it's the licence fee that directly paid for his holiday, but that wouldn't make for a crappy clickbait story, would it.

Even tosspot Piers Morgan had been wanging on about it too, saying it's a "disgrace", etc. Although, unsurprisingly, he again went quiet when a number of people kept asking whether he wanted disclose how much £££££ he makes in his current ITV contract doing 3 hours of sweet FA every morning, and how much £££££ he also made out of hacking peoples phones for headlines.

Edited by AlexRS2782 on Friday 21st July 18:38

[limpsfield]

Raygun said:

Because Evans and Zoe Ball's job is to play music and they know fk all about music and I think having worked in Air Studios, Abbey Road and Electric Lady in New York long before these cretins graced the airwaves I think I know what I'm talking about.

Wow. Maybe you should have the job. You sound great.

[DoctorX]

limpsfield said:

Wow. Maybe you should have the job. You sound great.

I think playing music is possibly only a small part of their job. I imagine being entertaining on the radio (whether you think these two are or not) is a lot more difficult than it appears, as evidenced by the ste presenters on commercial radio.