BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The Surveyor said:
Algarve said:
Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?
.........
That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads... .........
k off and do it. Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Tuesday 25th July 22:04
Yeah, talent, hard work and determination play no part.
Happily admitted to being a massive a
hole in the past, but not that bad now Claimed he was "all about the money" on Desert Island Discs.
Etc..
On iPlayer Radio.
Dazed and Confused said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The Surveyor said:
Algarve said:
Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?
.........
That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads... .........
k off and do it. Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Tuesday 25th July 22:04
Yeah, talent, hard work and determination play no part.
Happily admitted to being a massive a
hole in the past, but not that bad now Claimed he was "all about the money" on Desert Island Discs.
Etc..
On iPlayer Radio.
I can well believe everyone on the the BBC list is paid below the market rate.
But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
The BBC's money comes for free. They don't have to wrest it out of advertisers' pockets. But with that comes a responsibility to be prudent with it. If you earn your money you are perfectly free to be profligate with it. If it is given to you, you should be more circumspect and respectful.
But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
The BBC's money comes for free. They don't have to wrest it out of advertisers' pockets. But with that comes a responsibility to be prudent with it. If you earn your money you are perfectly free to be profligate with it. If it is given to you, you should be more circumspect and respectful.
SpeckledJim said:
I can well believe everyone on the the BBC list is paid below the market rate.
But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
The BBC's money comes for free. They don't have to wrest it out of advertisers' pockets. But with that comes a responsibility to be prudent with it. If you earn your money you are perfectly free to be profligate with it. If it is given to you, you should be more circumspect and respectful.
That is the whole point!But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
The BBC's money comes for free. They don't have to wrest it out of advertisers' pockets. But with that comes a responsibility to be prudent with it. If you earn your money you are perfectly free to be profligate with it. If it is given to you, you should be more circumspect and respectful.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The Surveyor said:
Algarve said:
Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?
.........
That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads... .........
k off and do it. Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Tuesday 25th July 22:04
Yeah, talent, hard work and determination play no part.
Happily admitted to being a massive a
hole in the past, but not that bad now Claimed he was "all about the money" on Desert Island Discs.
Etc..
On iPlayer Radio.
s off. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the working class boy done good. SpeckledJim said:
I can well believe everyone on the the BBC list is paid below the market rate.
But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
They have the same pressures to make TV that is either of high quality and / or popular. If a star can pull in £10M in ad revenue, that's because that star pulls in viewers. That's why the ad revenue is high. The BBC also have to pull in viewers. They can't ignore viewing figures just because they are not ad revenue funded. But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
Hasn't the BBC head promised universal equality by 2020, is this wise considering comments below?
"My own case isn’t entirely straightforward for this reason. I get paid around £130,000 to co-present the BBC 5 Live breakfast programme with my good friend and colleague Nicky Campbell, who is on around £400,000 for the same job (although he also presents arguably the country’s foremost daily phone-in as part of that). He’s been presenting on network radio for 30 years, and has a much greater public profile than me, thanks to his time at Radio 1 and hosting Wheel of Fortune (a fact we love reminding him about) among other things.
Should we be on the same money? Probably not. I have never argued for that. There has to be room for recognising experience and market value, I get that."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
"My own case isn’t entirely straightforward for this reason. I get paid around £130,000 to co-present the BBC 5 Live breakfast programme with my good friend and colleague Nicky Campbell, who is on around £400,000 for the same job (although he also presents arguably the country’s foremost daily phone-in as part of that). He’s been presenting on network radio for 30 years, and has a much greater public profile than me, thanks to his time at Radio 1 and hosting Wheel of Fortune (a fact we love reminding him about) among other things.
Should we be on the same money? Probably not. I have never argued for that. There has to be room for recognising experience and market value, I get that."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
They have the same pressures to make TV that is either of high quality and / or popular. If a star can pull in £10M in ad revenue, that's because that star pulls in viewers. That's why the ad revenue is high. The BBC also have to pull in viewers. They can't ignore viewing figures just because they are not ad revenue funded.
Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
To a large extent they can and should ignore viewing figures. Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
In fact, the value of the BBC is that it doesn't have to chase ratings but is free to spend it's money on programming for people who ordinarily wouldn't have programmes made as the viewing figures wouldn't be high enough to justify advertising - much of BBC4's output for instance. Also where advertising is inappropriate - CBBC and CBeebies are advert-free and generally of high quality.
More importantly, if you don't have to turn a profit you can experiment and innovate, so when I look at Saturday evenings on the BBC and see the same talent shows and celeb-fests I can get on every other channel at that time, I despair.
I don't think the whole of the BBCs output should be BBC4 and CBeebies, but I do feel that chasing ratings is not where our money is best spent. If I want to see a talent show or another panel game with the same dozen comedians I have plenty of choice.
The BBC can do some things very well, but pulling in viewers should be secondary to other things; innovation, opportunity for new talent, quality of programming and value for (other people's) money.
hyphen said:
"My own case isn’t entirely straightforward for this reason. I get paid around £130,000 to co-present the BBC 5 Live breakfast programme with my good friend and colleague Nicky Campbell, who is on around £400,000 for the same job (although he also presents arguably the country’s foremost daily phone-in as part of that). He’s been presenting on network radio for 30 years, and has a much greater public profile than me, thanks to his time at Radio 1 and hosting Wheel of Fortune (a fact we love reminding him about) among other things.
Should we be on the same money? Probably not. I have never argued for that. There has to be room for recognising experience and market value, I get that."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
a refreshingly sensible point of viewShould we be on the same money? Probably not. I have never argued for that. There has to be room for recognising experience and market value, I get that."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
Edited by Adam B on Wednesday 26th July 15:11
Mark Benson said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
They have the same pressures to make TV that is either of high quality and / or popular. If a star can pull in £10M in ad revenue, that's because that star pulls in viewers. That's why the ad revenue is high. The BBC also have to pull in viewers. They can't ignore viewing figures just because they are not ad revenue funded.
Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
To a large extent they can and should ignore viewing figures. Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
They cannot win. Pay good people and compete...waste of money. Don't pay the going rate and lose viewers....waste of money.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
SpeckledJim said:
I can well believe everyone on the the BBC list is paid below the market rate.
But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
They have the same pressures to make TV that is either of high quality and / or popular. If a star can pull in £10M in ad revenue, that's because that star pulls in viewers. That's why the ad revenue is high. The BBC also have to pull in viewers. They can't ignore viewing figures just because they are not ad revenue funded. But the BBC is not in the market in the same way as every other competitor. They don't have the same pressures to make money as every other player in the market. If the best presenter is one that earns his channel £10m a year, and so is worth his £8m salary then that's simply irrelevant to the BBC.
Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
The BBC, unlike the commercials doesn't earn more money from increased ad revenue, The BBC is under no commercial pressure to pull in big ratings.
Did you answer my question about why Evans doesn't get the same money as Grimmy? 300k. Or what Evans had ever done that was any good?
Edited by Dazed and Confused on Wednesday 26th July 13:59
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mark Benson said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
They have the same pressures to make TV that is either of high quality and / or popular. If a star can pull in £10M in ad revenue, that's because that star pulls in viewers. That's why the ad revenue is high. The BBC also have to pull in viewers. They can't ignore viewing figures just because they are not ad revenue funded.
Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
To a large extent they can and should ignore viewing figures. Depending on the programme, that star name might also help sales of that programme to foreign tv, which is crucial for the BBC.
They cannot win. Pay good people and compete...waste of money. Don't pay the going rate and lose viewers....waste of money.
And personally I already question the funding principles of the BBC. I think it should be funded from general taxation, albeit as a cut-down version of what it is now (perhaps BBC1 BBC2 and a Children's channel) with the remainder on subscription. The notion of a broadcast tax in the 21st century is completely outdated.
Sky have managed a subscription service for years and now Netflix are commissioning content there are real alternatives (in fact, we watch Netflix more than anything else these days - it may even replace the TV license in this house - costs less per months also has no adverts).
Dazed and Confused said:
Did you answer my question about why Evans doesn't get the same money as Grimmy? 300k. Or what Evans had ever done that was any good?
No, because your or my personal opinion on the talent or lack of re Evans, Lineker, Hugh Edwards or anyone else is completely meaningless. Don't you get it?Edited by Dazed and Confused on Wednesday 26th July 13:59
That's why the whole "I think he's rubbish and so isn't worth the money" argument is so bloody infantile.
I'm guessing that over the last 50 or so years David Attenborough had had fortunes from the BBC. Probably still doing very nicely, thru an independent production company so hence unpublished. Anyone lining up to tell us what a waste of money it's been and how he has ridden the gravy train?
'Talent' is overrated and overpaid. Plenty of it about. Sky, BBC, ITV etc... just look for names, which they think will bring in viewers.
Sometimes it is legit. I have some faith in Martin Brundle's opinions in V/O on F1... but Lineker is just an anchor. Plenty could do it just as well, for a % of the price. Just ask Dan Walker.
Sometimes it is legit. I have some faith in Martin Brundle's opinions in V/O on F1... but Lineker is just an anchor. Plenty could do it just as well, for a % of the price. Just ask Dan Walker.
GetCarter said:
Sometimes it is legit. I have some faith in Martin Brundle's opinions in V/O on F1... but Lineker is just an anchor.
That's complete rubbish. Lineker fills much the same role as Brundle. He provides insights an opinions, that carry weight based on the fact that he's been there and done it. Lineker will have a limited shelf life, based on the increasing gap from when he stopped playing and the game today. Which is why Hansen and Lawrenson have made way fro Shearer, Murphy et al. Sooner or later he will be replaced by the likes of Lampard who has more recent experience.
But well spoken, presentable, intelligent, former top flight footballers is not a large pool, believe me.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
GetCarter said:
Sometimes it is legit. I have some faith in Martin Brundle's opinions in V/O on F1... but Lineker is just an anchor.
That's complete rubbish. Lineker fills much the same role as Brundle. He provides insights an opinions, that carry weight based on the fact that he's been there and done it. Lineker will have a limited shelf life, based on the increasing gap from when he stopped playing and the game today. Which is why Hansen and Lawrenson have made way fro Shearer, Murphy et al. Sooner or later he will be replaced by the likes of Lampard who has more recent experience.
But well spoken, presentable, intelligent, former top flight footballers is not a large pool, believe me.
Lineker is an anchor and speaks for the equivalent of one lap of a formula one race. Brundle talks for over 3 hours before during and after. Don't get me wrong, I think Lineker is fine and does a great job, he's just not 5 times better than others that do the same job for 1/5 of the money. IMHO of course.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Did you answer my question about why Evans doesn't get the same money as Grimmy? 300k. Or what Evans had ever done that was any good?
No, because your or my personal opinion on the talent or lack of re Evans, Lineker, Hugh Edwards or anyone else is completely meaningless. Don't you get it?Edited by Dazed and Confused on Wednesday 26th July 13:59
That's why the whole "I think he's rubbish and so isn't worth the money" argument is so bloody infantile.
I'm guessing that over the last 50 or so years David Attenborough had had fortunes from the BBC. Probably still doing very nicely, thru an independent production company so hence unpublished. Anyone lining up to tell us what a waste of money it's been and how he has ridden the gravy train?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff