BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
Raygun said:
At home I've got 3 internet radios scattered round the house which are all set to Solar Radio when I turn them on shame Solar is unavailable in the car.
Get a mobile contract that offers a decent amount of data and connect your phone (Aux/ Bluetooth/ Android Auto/ Apple Carplay) into your head unit and problem sorted.
Sadly, next year all the stars will be paid via production companies or Worldwide, or whatever the fix is. So this will be the one and only time we will ever get information like this.
FWIW I think the BBC's deflection of the story from the obscene salary paid to some of it's staff to the gender pay gap is quite appalling. Classic magicians misdirection. They should be ashamed of themselves - this is the sort of thing that creates mistrust in the public - and it is us, the public, who directly pay them.
FWIW I think the BBC's deflection of the story from the obscene salary paid to some of it's staff to the gender pay gap is quite appalling. Classic magicians misdirection. They should be ashamed of themselves - this is the sort of thing that creates mistrust in the public - and it is us, the public, who directly pay them.
Randy Winkman said:
motco said:
Charles Moore in Saturday's Telegraph made a good point. The Beeb are playing up the embarrassment of pay inequality because it drowns out the public anger at the levels of pay they're all getting. What might happen is instead of the BBC reducing male pay to match women, they will raise the female pay and whole point of the mandatory revelation will backfire. BBC will waste more, not less, on 'talent'. An agent said on the news yesterday that the BBC don't understand just how furious the women are about this. He, in his turn, doesn't understand how bloody angry the licence payers are at the levels of pay across the board. A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable.
The Telegraph has more anti-BBC stories than anti-EU ones."A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable." Who said that? You or him? Do readers of backwater news bulletins get paid more than £150K?
A newly appointed consultant surgeon on the NHS (with no private lists) will not be getting £150k. It will be more like £70-80k. It takes twenty years of training to achieve that level. Don't even try to compare that with a bloody news reader.
motco said:
A newly appointed consultant surgeon on the NHS (with no private lists) will not be getting £150k. It will be more like £70-80k. It takes twenty years of training to achieve that level. Don't even try to compare that with a bloody news reader.
Yes yes, but according to the Beeb luvvies/employees on this thread it's really really hard and stressful work that none of us could ever do and so they 'totes' deserve every penny... For reading the autocue full of words that others researched, edited and produced.If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
BaronVonVaderham said:
motco said:
A newly appointed consultant surgeon on the NHS (with no private lists) will not be getting £150k. It will be more like £70-80k. It takes twenty years of training to achieve that level. Don't even try to compare that with a bloody news reader.
Yes yes, but according to the Beeb luvvies/employees on this thread it's really really hard and stressful work that none of us could ever do and so they 'totes' deserve every penny... For reading the autocue full of words that others researched, edited and produced.If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
BaronVonVaderham said:
Yes yes, but according to the Beeb luvvies/employees on this thread it's really really hard and stressful work that none of us could ever do and so they 'totes' deserve every penny... For reading the autocue full of words that others researched, edited and produced.
If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
What's so hard to grasp about people being paid market rates?If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
Is it fair that nurses and doctors are on less than them? No, but what choice have those people got? They are paid what their respective employers believe they are worth/can get away with, same with this.
If you look at these salaries in isolation, completely contextless, then yes they are extravagant. You could make an argument (not a particularly compelling one) that no one deserves much less needs three figure salaries to live. No one needs luxury cars, etc. How reductive do you want to get?
Each of the people on this list have agents who negotiated these salaries for them. Some of them probably could've got more, a few women certainly could've got more if they knew of the salaries of others - which isn't usually information any employee has.
The suggestion seems to be that the Beeb wants to pay these people this much, rather than feeling that they need to in order to keep them, and would pay them more if it could. Does that sound particularly realistic or familiar from a corporate fiscal strategy perspective?
Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 25th July 11:13
The BBC is spending public money - it has a duty to keep staff wages reasonable.
Anyone who has run a business will tell you, nobody is indispensable - despite what they think. When someone gets too greedy, you wave them out the door - and the number of times they come crawling back having found the grass wasn't greener and their wages expectations were not realistic. Unfortunately someone younger, keener, less greedy, less complacent, less arrogant, more flexible, and more talented - will have filled their position by then.
Anyone who has run a business will tell you, nobody is indispensable - despite what they think. When someone gets too greedy, you wave them out the door - and the number of times they come crawling back having found the grass wasn't greener and their wages expectations were not realistic. Unfortunately someone younger, keener, less greedy, less complacent, less arrogant, more flexible, and more talented - will have filled their position by then.
That's the point though, their 'talent' is not needed, they are but a mouthpieces and thus any remotely competent and confident person could do the job.
People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
BBC pay should be below market rates in order to encourage new 'talent' with the bonus being that their platforms are so widespread that the new 'talent' will become well known and thus more likely to land future roles...
The linekers etc should not be paid exorbitant sums by taxpayers to stay at the BBC. If they can earn more elsewhere then go elsewhere.
People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
BBC pay should be below market rates in order to encourage new 'talent' with the bonus being that their platforms are so widespread that the new 'talent' will become well known and thus more likely to land future roles...
The linekers etc should not be paid exorbitant sums by taxpayers to stay at the BBC. If they can earn more elsewhere then go elsewhere.
BaronVonVaderham said:
That's the point though, their 'talent' is not needed, they are but a mouthpieces and thus any remotely competent and confident person could do the job.
People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
BBC pay should be below market rates in order to encourage new 'talent' with the bonus being that their platforms are so widespread that the new 'talent' will become well known and thus more likely to land future roles...
The linekers etc should not be paid exorbitant sums by taxpayers to stay at the BBC. If they can earn more elsewhere then go elsewhere.
But Evans's "talent" isn't needed, especially on 20x the news readers wages. News reading is bit like shift work, weekends, evenings and nights. £150k doesn't seem that unreasonable, compared with everyone else on the list.People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
BBC pay should be below market rates in order to encourage new 'talent' with the bonus being that their platforms are so widespread that the new 'talent' will become well known and thus more likely to land future roles...
The linekers etc should not be paid exorbitant sums by taxpayers to stay at the BBC. If they can earn more elsewhere then go elsewhere.
BaronVonVaderham said:
That's the point though, their 'talent' is not needed, they are but a mouthpieces and thus any remotely competent and confident person could do the job.
People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
This is complete and utter nonsense. There are lots of things I haven't watched in the past because the presenter grated on me, even though the programme itself sounded interesting. I don't watch ITV News because I don't like Alastair Stewart. I prefer the BBC line up. Some shows I watch because the presented lured me in. I watch that fake art thingy that Fiona Bruce does, because I rate her as a presenter. I don't much care about fake art, but she makes it interesting. People watch the news and motd etc for the content, no one watches them for the presenter, they just want to be informed on the subject matter.
As for live TV, anyone who things the presenters are just mouthpieces of script readers, and anyone could do it, is quite frankly, an idiot.
Durzel said:
BaronVonVaderham said:
Yes yes, but according to the Beeb luvvies/employees on this thread it's really really hard and stressful work that none of us could ever do and so they 'totes' deserve every penny... For reading the autocue full of words that others researched, edited and produced.
If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
What's so hard to grasp about people being paid market rates?If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
Is it fair that nurses and doctors are on less than them? No, but what choice have those people got? They are paid what their respective employers believe they are worth/can get away with, same with this.
If you look at these salaries in isolation, completely contextless, then yes they are extravagant. You could make an argument (not a particularly compelling one) that no one deserves much less needs three figure salaries to live. No one needs luxury cars, etc. How reductive do you want to get?
Each of the people on this list have agents who negotiated these salaries for them. Some of them probably could've got more, a few women certainly could've got more if they knew of the salaries of others - which isn't usually information any employee has.
The suggestion seems to be that the Beeb wants to pay these people this much, rather than feeling that they need to in order to keep them, and would pay them more if it could. Does that sound particularly realistic or familiar from a corporate fiscal strategy perspective?
Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 25th July 11:13
Raygun said:
The Surveyor said:
Chris Evans' strong viewing figures are only due to the lack of alternative....
If we're all being honest that's exactly why his listening figures are strong.Durzel said:
BaronVonVaderham said:
Yes yes, but according to the Beeb luvvies/employees on this thread it's really really hard and stressful work that none of us could ever do and so they 'totes' deserve every penny... For reading the autocue full of words that others researched, edited and produced.
If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
What's so hard to grasp about people being paid market rates?If fact I think we should start a gofundme page to support them in their exceptionally stressful professional lives fraught with life and death decisions.
Won't somebody think of the presenters!
Is it fair that nurses and doctors are on less than them? No, but what choice have those people got? They are paid what their respective employers believe they are worth/can get away with, same with this.
If you look at these salaries in isolation, completely contextless, then yes they are extravagant. You could make an argument (not a particularly compelling one) that no one deserves much less needs three figure salaries to live. No one needs luxury cars, etc. How reductive do you want to get?
Each of the people on this list have agents who negotiated these salaries for them. Some of them probably could've got more, a few women certainly could've got more if they knew of the salaries of others - which isn't usually information any employee has.
The suggestion seems to be that the Beeb wants to pay these people this much, rather than feeling that they need to in order to keep them, and would pay them more if it could. Does that sound particularly realistic or familiar from a corporate fiscal strategy perspective?
Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 25th July 11:13
Or is the BBC 'thanks to the unique way we're funded' not negotiating too hard as to a large extent they're protected from commercial realities?
We know the BBC have a known, guaranteed budget thanks to the licence fee, therefore they can 'spend' up to the value of the collected fee. In fact in the tradition of public services everywhere, they will almost certainly spend up to the total budget, for fear of being allocated less in the future (ie. a lower licence fee when they're constantly lobbying for a higher one).
So I guess that begs the question, is the BBC actually driving salaries for presenters up by not trying to get the best VFM they can and not looking for cheaper 'talent' to front their programmes?
And if they are, that could explain the chicanery in trying to focus the spotlight on male/female disparity rather than the amounts themselves.
BaronVonVaderham said:
That's the point though, their 'talent' is not needed, they are but a mouthpieces and thus any remotely competent and confident person could do the job.
Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?Why not go be a tv presenter?
After all its so easy, anyone can do it! You'll be earning 6 figures by next week and on the BBC's 7 figure gravy train by Christmas surely?
Mark Benson said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mark Benson said:
Do we know what market rates are?
Yes, that would be what the competition pays. The competition whose talent rarely leave to join the BBC, and the competition the BBC often loses talent to.HTH.
So no, there will be no 'market rates' as everybody has a different 'worth' to different channels.
The Surveyor said:
Mark Benson said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mark Benson said:
Do we know what market rates are?
Yes, that would be what the competition pays. The competition whose talent rarely leave to join the BBC, and the competition the BBC often loses talent to.HTH.
So no, there will be no 'market rates' as everybody has a different 'worth' to different channels.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff