[Closed] BBC Talent pay

Granted ... but that would have been about his 90th Birthday....
The point is he was actually really good in his day..(but never earned anything like that).. but then so are lots of the newer people in BBC documentaries/drama but they don't even make the list.

It's no fun when you have to explain a joke. Google [u]Richard[/u] Attenborough.

You don't need a tv licence just because you own a tv either.

Not quite sure in what universe Jeremy Vine can ever be valued at 700K+

It's worse because that's paid into a Ltd company, to avoid PAYE as well.

I hope when he's trying to embarrass some Sleb, they bring that up.

But it's still money from you as a consumer that, Sky, BT, BBC, Netflix, Amazon etc are spending on 'Talent'. You are paying for it one way or another ... or is it the fact that the Licence Fee is a mandatory 'tax' that people object to? Genuinely interested.

Not really because I actively avoid buying anything advertised by big celebs... or "advertised" if possible.
When I do its usually directly inversely proportional to the amount of advertising. If I'm going to buy a car, washing machine, group set I'll do so on the basis of reviews etc. not advertising

(I'll continue after ...)

Not even mandatory, if you don't have a TV and don't use iPlayer, you don't have to pay.

I don't use lots of things I'm taxed for but I don't mind paying [u]if the costs are kept reasonable.[/u]
ITV, Sky etc. have investors and sell advertising.
They need to justify salaries with income.

BBC doesn't sell advertising and gets the same income regardless.
If you want to pay more to watch a football match with Gary Lineaker then I don't have any objections .. but if you want ME to pay when you could have had one of thousands of ex managers/players who can do nearly as good a job then I object.

Commentating can't REALLY be worth more than 1/4M a year ... (or half year really) and honestly I think you'd find plenty of people who were [u]not at all bad[/u] for 50k for 6 months a year of 1 day a week.

As far as I can work out most people don't watch a match because of the presenter but because they want to watch that team play... (or another team lose) ... but I've never heard anyone say "Lets watch another game on XX channel because Gary is presenting"

Jings, that's some amount of money!
Just how 'special' are their needs?

That aside, the salary issue highlights some problems...

Most of the money earned will be spent in London, thus reinforcing any housing/ infrastructure pressures.

Maybe it's about time that the BBC moved out of London altogether. Liverpool/ hull? (Albeit with a 'regional' news service in our nations capital.

More of that money should be sent back down the line to support more emerging talent.
Seems like a lot of eggs in a very small basket.
Heaven forbid that Isis or whoever should take out all our top presenters at a charidee gala, who would fill Chris Evans shoes?

if these presenters jumped ship to the commercial sector, wouldn't that mean that the BBC could redistribute more cash to their regional stations?

[quoteIt's no fun when you have to explain a joke. Google Richard Attenborough.

Fair cop I was thinking of his brother 😀 and missed the explicit "Dick"

Commentating can't REALLY be worth more than 1/4M a year

I've never heard anyone say "Lets watch another game on XX channel because Gary is presenting

It's worth putting this in context, it's £147 per year for the licence fee, under 50p per day. Yes, they may pay a few people a lot but I still think it's the think that represents the best value for money that I spend but a huge distance. I mean FFS, it's the same cost as 3 good tyres for my bike, or 2/3 of a Garmin 520...

If you want to pay more to watch a football match with Gary Lineaker then I don't have any objections .. but if you want ME to pay when you could have had one of thousands of ex managers/players who can do nearly as good a job then I object.

Agreed - and I'm in a similar position regarding my broadband with BT. Over the past few years they've increased charges to cover some of their foray into the world of 'content' specifically football. And I resent this.

So why not change to a different broadband/content provider you ask?. Well they all seem to be as bad as each other at paying over the odds for vacuous, facile, presenters and content in which I had no interest.

Up until recently I didn't mind so much with the BBC as it still made some ok programs and broadly speaking provided [relatively] balanced political commentary so seemed ok for the £147 per year it cost me.

However, I'm not sure how much longer this can be tenable though - I watch less [scheduled broadcast] television these days.

Many people seem happy to pay up to £600 per year to Sky etc

I can't help thinking that the BBC's purpose was to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain' whereas the purpose of Sky etc is to increase Shareholder value.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

Agreed - and I'm in a similar position regarding my broadband with BT. Over the past few years they've increased charges to cover some of their foray into the world of 'content' specifically football. And I resent this.

So why not change to a different broadband/content provider you ask?. Well they all seem to be as bad as each other at paying over the odds for vacuous, facile, presenters and content in which I had no interest.

Up until recently I didn't mind so much with the BBC as it still made some ok programs and broadly speaking provided [relatively] balanced political commentary so seemed ok for the £147 per year it cost me.

However, I'm not sure how much longer this can be tenable though - I watch less [scheduled broadcast] television these days.

Many people seem happy to pay up to £600 per year to Sky etc

I can't help thinking that the BBC's purpose was to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain' whereas the purpose of Sky etc is to increase Shareholder value.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

Yep .....
I didn't resent the £147 when it's being used broadly to 'Inform, Educate and Entertain'
and to be fair at commercial rates I'd be getting that in "Value" for a few things a year...

In the past I'd have paid £50 isn for the BBC/HBO Rome Series 1 .... (but not season 2)
but now to try and take something similar I'd get the Vikings on NetFlix for £8/mo along with BBC Documentaries etc.

For something like the same cost I get Sky and Netflix and the quality of BBC has gone off the bottom of the scale on quality.

Chris Evans though ... wtf

However the point I don't really get is WHY they think they need to compete with advertisers?

It would be interesting to see how much similar sized countries pay presenters etc. (e.g. France/Germany/Italy)

Out of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

'Gender details' released 4-5 hours before the disgustingly high figures.

Talk about 'burying bad news' !

Scrap the license fee completely and replace with a mix of advertising and subscriptions.

tomhoward - Member
Out of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

If they are in the public sector then there should be a cap, they simply cannot siphon off public funds just because they can.

Non of them should earn more than 100K per year or more than the PM.

If they don't like that then they can go fly kite nobody cares.

There are many who can do their job and better for less.

£2.5 mil for Evans! 😯

£1.8 mil for Lineker! 😯

No wonder there are so many people starving ...

[quoteOut of interest, how much do the outraged think the talent should be paid? A £ figure please.

Surely that has to depend on how much work is involved and how much the BBC is paying them indirectly as well??? (If they own the production company on top of a salary) and if the BBC is able to sell the "product" directly.

e.g. If they can sell episodes outside the UK because they pay more and can prove it brings net revenue.

If they aren't able to prove actual net revenue then surely they are not worth more than a specialist surgeon or consultant per hour ???

In the private sector nobody cares.

This was kinda my point earlier ... why [b]don't[/b] people care when it's in the private sector - you [the consumer] are still ultimately 'paying' for it one way or another unless you yourself are the actually commodity that is being sold ... in which case you are being used to a certain extent - (yes, I'm looking at you Facebook).

If we are aiming for transparency then surely this must apply to both public and private sector ... but this seems to go against some kind of British notion of fair play where we feel uncomfortable about other people knowing about our income etc. Director's remuneration is frequently disclosed so why not extend that to other management tiers?

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

Scrap the license fee completely and replace with a mix of advertising and subscriptions

The advertising and the commercial breaks are the reason why I haven't watched any of the TdF for the past couple of years - not from any socio-political standpoint ... just the fact that they annoy me. I don't really go in for watching many sports on TV but Wimbledon is like a breath of fresh-air thanks to the lack of major headline sponsorship/branding.

Nick knowles is a ****.

worth repeating.

See also Adrian Chiles.

@footflaps my point about Norton and Evans is they are presenting light entertainment which should be done on a commercial basis, ie paid for by ads. The licence fee should fund specific high quality programmes which are differentiated from commercial content.

I knew these salaries would raise eyebrows, a partner at an accountancy makes £500k-£1m and a lawyer £2m-£3m. Ed Balls brother makes £10m at PIMCO (asset manager). As I said HMRC should post some banded summary data

Junkyard I read part of your post by mistake, the UK's "top teacher" can absolutely get paid a lot if they work in private sector or at a University for example. In the state sector they are capped at something like £150k (plus £30k-£50k in pension value) as a Head but that still not bad especially outside London.

Wimbledon is like a breath of fresh-air thanks to the lack of major headline sponsorship/branding.

It's just as bad as all the rest. Stories of folk being threatened with being thrown out for eating a different yoghurt to the official yoghurt sponsors product on centre court etc

why don't people care when it's in the private sector - y

This just isn't true, it's frequently a story. The issue of bankers bonuses and c-level/executive pay comes up regularly. Indeed what everyone earned in all areas and by all high level categorisations seems to be a national obsession in the UK.

I couldn't care less what 96 people in the BBC earn but I do care that in general in any society the bigger the gap in wealth between top and bottom (the Gini Coeffecient) the more that society suffers from violent crime.

This was kinda my point earlier ... why don't people care when it's in the private sector - you [the consumer] are still ultimately 'paying' for it one way or another unless you yourself are the actually commodity that is being sold ... in which case you are being used to a certain extent - (yes, I'm looking at you Facebook).

It depends what you have in the way of choice.....

I can choose to have netflix or not..... same with amazon prime or sky

I can't choose my water company though .... but I can choose my gas/electricity supplier or car insurer within reason

In Norway you can't choose much of anything....or suppliers are controlled so you can't buy wine unless it's from a government shop .... you can't choose gas.... (at all) and you can't choose our electricity supplier...

TV licensing is decided by if you can or cannot receive NRK1 ... if you can't receive NRK2 or 3 then you still have to pay.

The spookiest thing I remember was phoning a taxi for work one morning as for some reason I couldn't cycle that day.... (As I remember it was probably when I tore my meniscus.... but can't remember exactly)

I phoned from the house and they answered ... yep Taxi to work at 06:30 (or whatever) then hung up...

I called them back and said "don't you need my address"... nope they have that
"Well don't you want to know where I'm going?" - Yes we have that and as your wife doesn't work it must be these offices.

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

Norwegians are trained from childhood that nothing is personal from government appointed agencies or companies....

On the other hand I remember going in one Monday and asking one the the blokes who worked for me "So what did you do at the weekend" ....(or something like that)
He got alleviated and asked "What right did I have to ask about his weekend"

It might have been less strange if on the Friday I hadn't thought he must be going for a weekend away as he had a whole load of live bullets on his desk.... but he (and most Norwegians) just has a different idea of personal/private/secret to me.

A bit later on (but before the taxi) we had out yearly review and this bloke was the most promising person to take over from me.... he did a good job, reliable etc. so I said something about him getting training... but his answer was immediately "but you earn less than I do and have to do far more work".....

I can't say if that is good or bad.... it's just DIFFERENT

Odd point about the private sector especially given the relative transparency on pay data

Now for Auntie, we finally have some transparency and then genuine discussions can be have re VFM etc, plus the glaring anomalies are exposed to see. It's like Uni fees, now that they are semi transparent at least sensible discusssions can take place. Before it was a black hole.

Anyone complaining about the salaries can always apply for the job and offer to work for considerably less. Worth a try, if it's that easy? Unfortunately I don't look as good as Tess Daley in a dress but I can ad lib better. Chances.....?

Contrast this with tax returns in Norway ... but then it's easy to have transparency when the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is not quite so large.

The gap is actually larger in pretty much every Scandinavian country

[img] ?itok=XzTU75kt[/img]

Mark Chapman must be on about 50p an hour

When can radio 2 be axed? What does it deliver that a million other stations for the under developed sales rep demographic don't? (Apart from a well feathered departure lounge for radio bores of yore?)

Turns out Little Ted was on three times what Jemima was paid. Bloody disgrace.

The gap is actually larger in pretty much every Scandinavian country

Mmm I was refering to 'Gini' but I also meant 'perceived' wealth gap

Gini:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries ]https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries[/url]

Odd point about the private sector especially given the relative transparency on pay data

Pretty much every private company I've worked for in the last 30 odd years has had a culture of privacy surrounding an individual's salary etc. Yes, everyone is obsessed with what other people are earning, but it's still regarded as very personal information. Genuine question - where is this transparency you refer to? (apart from what is required by law - SI 2015/980 repealed the Companies Act 2006 which required disclosure of Directors remunerations in companies with t/o < £10.2m)

Regarding Wimbledon:

It's just as bad as all the rest

A comparison of google images of courts between Wimbledon and say Roland-Garros will show the former with blank green hoardings and the latter plastered with BNP Paribas as the 'headline' sponsor.

Mmm I was refering to 'Gini' but I also meant 'perceived' wealth gap

That is Gini, but for wealth rather than income, it raises the interesting question if income is more equal, does wealth stick to those who have always had it?

Unfortunately I don't look as good as Tess Daley in a dress

Dont be so down on yorself, post a pic in your best frock and we'll let you know what we think!

Is that 10 Claire Baldings for 1 Gary Linaker ?

You people watch television? Or see adverts? Or pay a licence fee?

How quaint.

it raises the interesting question if income is more equal, does wealth stick to those who have always had it?

Slightly on a tangent, but in the recent past, with the exception of lottery, winners, footballers and rock stars if you were born poor then you would more than likely remain poor. i.e. The only way to be wealthy was to be born into a wealthy family.

The middle classes that formed during the last industrial revolution have only been around a relatively short time - but I would say yes, wealth probably does [and always will] stick to those who have always had it.

Some of those salaries are quite shocking. Laura Kuenssberg on £250,000 from the BBC?? I thought she got paid straight from Tory HQ.

In all seriousness thought I can now see where all the BBC money goes. I would also be interested in seeing just how much profit BBC Worldwide brings into the BBC and what the total cash pot is when combined with license fee.

Although there are some very good BBC programs I do think the overall output quality has gone down over the last few years. There are a hell of a lot of repeats in the schedule. Look at the amount of people who work in that s****y open plan newsroom and then think of the number of news stories they report each day. There must be 30 people working on one story and the 24hr rolling news, well that can go as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe instead of some crappy Saturday night karaoke contest the BBC should do "Search for a radio presenter" or "MOTD host" and offer the winner a job on £60,000 p/a.

I would also say that this news was released the same day as news that some of us are going to work another year before pension age but I haven't heard anyone at work discussing that, just the BBC pay story.

I just can't believe how much John Humphreys and the Welsh news presenter get, 500-600K for essentially news broadcasting.

I don't mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i'm not paying, but licence fee money? Which i will go to prison potentially for if i don't pay?

Maybe it's about time that the BBC moved out of London altogether. Liverpool/ hull? (Albeit with a 'regional' news service in our nations capital.

In all seriousness thought I can now see where all the BBC money goes.

Really? Do you know what the TV licence fee collection comes to? A smidge under £4bn. The £31m paid to these 'stars' equates to 0.7% of the total. I'm not sure that helps to see where the other 99.3% goes.

According to the accounts BBC worldwide puts circa £200m back into the BBC annually.

just can't believe how much John Humphreys and the Welsh news presenter get, 500-600K for essentially news broadcasting.

Got to say I was quite surprised at that one - more that he was paid so much more than the other today programme presenters. Maybe he does substantially more shifts than the others - not sure. To call what he does as news broadcasting is a bit disingenuous though - he is no news reader. Sounds like he had a mare with Konta and at 73 I do wonder if he is loosing touch a bit. Always had a bit of respect for him though - not your usual public school/oxbridge background.

[img] [/img]

Laura Kuenssberg on £250,000 from the BBC?? I thought she got paid straight from Tory HQ.

Broadly speaking, despite the alleged leftist leaning of Auntie Beeb, I think the BBC News and current affairs is balanced.

Interestingly Stephanie Flanders the former BBC Economics Editor now works for JP Morgan with a rumored salary of £400k (before bonus).

I don't have a problem with the market rate approach to a certain extent - I think the likes of Laura, Mishal Husain, Martha Kearney, Justin Webb and Eddie Mair could all probably earn more in the 'private sector'.

Apart from John Inverdale though ... he's just a ***t 😉

Let's be honest - many of the people on the list have despite being born with a silver spoon in their mouth, probably grafted and worked hard to make themselves a viable commodity rather than just riding bikes and arguing on a forum. Their loss I reckon! 🙂

I don't mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i'm not paying

Yes you are ... just more indirectly. #FollowTheMoney

Got to say I was quite surprised at that one

Mastermind

@Digby rumoured to be is almost always an exaggeration.

Laura K is very gentle on Corbyn. The right see the BBC as institutionally biased to the left.

Really? Do you know what the TV licence fee collection comes to? A smidge under £4bn. The £31m paid to these 'stars' equates to 0.7% of the total. I'm not sure that helps to see where the other 99.3% goes.

According to the accounts BBC worldwide puts circa £200m back into the BBC annually.

That figure does not include the salaries that are paid to people via production companies. A vast number of BBC programs are made this way now. The released list is a very small section of the total the BBC must payout. And then all the people who are on a fraction less than £150k and do not need to be named.

In 2014/15, BBC Worldwide generated headline profits of £138.6m and headline sales of £1,001.8m and returned a record £226.5m to the BBC.

To be having sales of £1 billion on productions that have already been paid for to be consumed here at home, before being sold to the worldwide audience, and only profit £138 million seems not quite right to me.

That figure does not include the salaries that are paid to people via production companies.

Given the huge number of companies, with deep pockets, commissioning programs, the BBC will be paying market prices for such content, so no real opportunity to cut back. The production companies can offer their wares to the market and the highest bidder gets the program.

They compete with Channel 4, ITV, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Sky, etc etc

To be having sales of £1 billion on productions that have already been paid for to be consumed here at home, before being sold to the worldwide audience, and only profit £138 million seems not quite right to me.

I think the normal BBC has to buy the content from BBC Worldwide first and then sell it on.

If you don't like a particular presenter/broadcaster/host/compare/pundit what you have to accept is that plenty of people do which is why they are employed. If they don't get the ratings then usually they do not keep their jobs.
Storm in a teacup IMHO, there's far more corruption/wrongdoing/injustice going on in other areas of UK society to get excited about.

Laura K is very gentle on Corbyn.

If my reading of the situation was correct she was given a body guard in the run-up to 8th June because of the death threats she received for being biased [b]against [/b] Jeremy Corbyn