When I employ a plumber to do a job, I'm quite intrigued what other people pay a plumber. It kind of helps me to work out if my plumber is good value for money or I'm getting shafted.
It all depends on the plumber....
You can pay a call out and hourly rate + parts for example.... or pay a flat fee for a certain job.
If its an emergency you might pay more on a callout .... but your value might be that you don't flood the house even though you paid more...
I personally have little or no value from Sky.... but I pay for amazon Prime and NexFlix because I feel it's worth the value.
That's not saying ... there is nothing I'd watch on Sky.... but that the cost is nowhere near worth it.. (I had a year fee family and at the end of the year £40/mo vs more like £15/mo for both Prime and Netflix....
I personally wouldn't pay the same for Sky.... even if it was £15/mo I wouldn't pay for it.
As such I'm not interested in what they pay .... and I'm sure that differs hugely but in what I pay for it.
The BBC on the other hand is paid for out of extorted money.
When I cancelled Sky I didn't get threatening letters saying they were going to take me to court and ruin my life.
The entire history of TV licensing has been based on lies... but in the past I guess broadcasting lies about detector vans was only reaching people who were actually attaching LIVE TV (and hence should have a license).
Now they are using other channels because they want to target people who don't watch live TV.
The only reason I have a license is because my OH succumbed to the threats and paid.... we don't even have an arial and as far as I know the iPlayer app on the Amazon box hasn't actually been used since it was installed 3 yrs ago .... but there are websites that stream BBC and she was scared even though we don't so she paid it on my bank card after I told her not to (which is fraud but heck)
I'm only half pissed about though because I actually do listen to BBC radio and sometimes watch world service.... but i am pissed they throw license money they have extorted about like water.
TV licensing CLAIMS it recovered 1Bn.... (as i understand)
The BBC feel they exist in a competitive environment and want to attract TV stars to enable them to compete with the other main channels - they'll look bad if their share of TV viewers is too low and justifying the amount given to them from the TV license becomes harder.This idea of talent is a tricky one. Clearly footballers exist in a competitive environment and the best will attract lots of money as they're deemed to be worth so much to certain clubs - image rights, attracting supporters and sponsors, TV money....
TV companies know that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton attract lots of viewers and build TV shows around them - they heavily influence the size of TV audiences. TV companies will pay lots of money for these people in the same way football clubs do for players. Going down the salary list less people will watch a show just because, say, Nick Knowles, is involved; perhaps they love his property renovation show but do they watch a TV quiz as he's the presenter? Maybe they do or maybe in order to keep Nick working for the BBC they give him more money and get him to do other stuff to justify?
But they don't exist in a competitive environment .. that is almost entirely their making and perception....
they'll look bad if their share of TV viewers is too low
but they still get the license money ....
This idea of talent is a tricky one. Clearly footballers exist in a competitive environment and the best will attract lots of money as they're deemed to be worth so much to certain clubs - image rights, attracting supporters and sponsors, TV money....
Again, their perception .... why do we need "the best" footballers to provide commentary ???
If they cover a match I even doubt who the commentator is has any real effect on viewing figures....
People either watch that match or not.... surely if someone supports Chelsea and they are on BBC but Liverpool are playing someone they don't care about on Sky with Gary Lineaker commenting on Sky they are not going to watch Liverpool play someone else rather than the team they support ???
TV companies know that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton attract lots of viewers and build TV shows around them - they heavily influence the size of TV audiences. TV companies will pay lots of money for these people in the same way football clubs do for players. Going down the salary list less people will watch a show just because, say, Nick Knowles, is involved
What does it matter ????
Clarkson disappeared off BBC .... some other program is in the place of Top Gear .... life goes on...
If Sky offer Ross more then he leaves .... what does it matter ???
Less people watching at a specific time ??? They are not selling advertising so why bother....
Genuine question - would you care if you subscribed to Sky (assuming you don't)?When I employ a plumber to do a job, I'm quite intrigued what other people pay a plumber. It kind of helps me to work out if my plumber is good value for money or I'm getting shafted.
You are correct I don't subscribe, but if i did i wouldn't mind paying and I wouldn't care, as i made the decision it was a worth while expense, and then entered into an agreement to pay for it. i have no option with the TV licence if I watch a couple of programs on ITV and 4 occasionally, if i don't i [i]could[/i] go to prison.
If you describe this as North Korea some would reply, "bloody dictator" but in 2017 we have to pay for a TV licence to help fund a state run broadcaster and if you don't you go to prison.
Its very odd when you think about it...
but they still get the license money ....
Maybe they wouldn't be able to justify so much - or any - if viewing figures are down. The BBC could well disappear if they're not interested in viewing figures - why should they pay for sports rights and to show expensive TV programs made abroad?
I don't really care what they do as not much money involved really - though I do watch some of their output.
BTW, my bit about footballers was to compare clubs paying for top players v TV companies paying for top presenters.
Maybe they wouldn't be able to justify so much - or any - if viewing figures are down. The BBC could well disappear if they're not interested in viewing figures - why should they pay for sports rights and to show expensive TV programs made abroad?
So this is a question.... The problem is the BBC seems to have self created his.
To me this is similar to other budgets I often see in private companies where spending the money is compulsory or next year you get less.
However the thing here is how much less .... We are not talking about a project that has been tightly controlled and there is £1000 left at the end that pays for 20 people to have a meal out....
I don't really care what they do as not much money involved really - though I do watch some of their output.
I beg to differ .. £4Bn is significant.... one figure I got say's total spend on Pre-Primary and primary education is £0.7Bn so that is (according to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_education_spending_20.html ) more than 4x the total budget spent on Primary and Pre-Primary education
BTW, my bit about footballers was to compare clubs paying for top players v TV companies paying for top presenters.
Yes but my point is football teams are trying to Win .... and premier league clubs exist to provide revenue for shareholders that is linked to winning against competitive teams.
The BBC isn't (or shouldn't) be competing with Sky ..... in order to generate shareholder profits like the Library is not competing with Waterstones or WH Smiths.
If BBC wants funding from public money then it shouldn't even try to be a Sky alternative ...
Equally if it (sadly IMHO) does want to go down this path then it shouldn't get a penny from public money and generate it's own income.
beg to differ .. £4Bn is significant.... one figure I got say's total spend on Pre-Primary and primary education is £0.7Bn so that is (according to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_education_spending_20.html ) more than 4x the total budget spent on Primary and Pre-Primary education
Your source clearly has made an error somewhere in its calculation. Kind of obvious when you give it a moments thought - roughly the same number of kids in pre-primary & primary as there are in secondary yet your source thinks 38 times as much is spent on secondary.
Try this:-
[url= http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-spending-on-public-services-in-the-uk/ ]Office for national statistics[/url]
Secondary education accounted for £36.8 billion of spending on education in 2014/15, or 44% of the total. [b]Primary education accounted for £26.0 billion, 31% of the total, and education for the under fives accounted for £5.2 billion, 6% of the total.[/b] Spending on these three categories has remained similar since 2010/11.
So that will be 40 times less as a proportion of primary/pre-primary than you thought.
a sound byte
You need to get out more.
Could be worse, they could be earning 150 - 250k for media content while supposedly representing constituents...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-gove-paid-150000-a-year-times-column-a7437061.html
I beg to differ .. £4Bn is significant
Well I mean my contribution - similar to what I give the NT - both doing great things and give me some entertainment.
Could be worse, they could be earning 150 - 250k for media content while supposedly representing constituents...
Good job Gove got sacked from the cabinet despite Mr Murdoch's support ...
... oh hang on a minute ... 😯
So that will be 40 times less as a proportion of primary/pre-primary than you thought.
I did say I had my doubts over the source but its still pretty significant if you take £4Bn and divided that up into the primary schools... or applied that to a NHS trust...
Im trying to avoid references to the NHS and buses and this is excluding other non licenses sources of funding for the BBC... but I bet its a lot more than my total local council tax but that doesn't mean they should spend it willy nilly.
I did say I had my doubts
Did you?
We'll clearly never agree. When all is said and done I'm glad we, the British population, have a the BBC. I'm glad it has circa £4bn a year to spend to do what it does and I'm far happier about my contribution to that than the similar amount spent on trident. No, I don't personally consume the vast vast majority of the output (inc Lineker and Evans) but the stuff I do consume be that visual, audio or online I consider better value than a lot of other things I pay £147 a year for. I would like to see the funds raised in a different way through a different sort of taxation but I'm not going to loose any sleep about the present method for now.
The BBC isn't (or shouldn't) be competing with Sky
But it is and should. If the BBC was just churning out crap and employing cheap and crap presenters and nobody watched the content, then us licence fee payers would be questioning what the hell are we paying our licence fee for. In order to get the viewing figures it has to compete with the commercial channels, which means it has to bid for the 'talent' (hate that word) in a competitive environment. Now if the BBC is correct in what it says about there being a 'BBC effect' that means people are willing to earn less just for the pleasure of working for the BBC then that seems to me we're (the licence fee payer) are getting a good deal.
The shock here is not how much people are earning - though it is a bit of an eye opener, but the gender pay gap.
It's all a complete irrelevance; as pointed out several times ^^^ there is no context; are the contracted working hours comparable? are the programme profiles comparable? what additional income do they receive for their beeb broadcasting work?
Nothing more than a distraction.
But it is and should. If the BBC was just churning out crap and employing cheap and crap presenters and nobody watched the content, then us licence fee payers would be questioning what the hell are we paying our licence fee for.
But how does not paying Chris Evans or Gay Lineaker huge sums equate with "crap presenters" and churning out crap ??
TV SCRIPTED (DRAMA AND COMEDY)£150,000 – £199,999 Laurie Brett – Actor Letitia Dean – Actor Tameka Empson – Actor Guy Henry – Actor Linda Henry – Actor Scott Maslen – Actor Diane Parish – Actor Hugh Quarshie – Actor Jemma Redgrave – Actor Tim Roth – Actor Catherine Shipton – Actor Gillian Taylforth – Actor Lacey Turner – Actor
£200,000 – £249,999 Peter Capaldi – Actor Danny Dyer – Actor Emilia Fox – Actor David Jason – Actor Rosie Marcel – Actor Adam Woodyatt – Actor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3pF9MtQXRXjYwsrtXjJZ5Mr/drama-from-the-bbc
The football is the football.... regardless of who's commentating.... if its a boring game .. it's a boring game but the drama/comedy that the BBC used to be so good at with a very modest budget was world class.
It's my personal opinion of course but anything with Chris Evans or Graham Norton is resoundingly crap....
The shock here is not how much people are earning - though it is a bit of an eye opener, but the gender pay gap.
I have no idea about the BBC's gender pay gap.... I only saw the figures on page 1 ... this doesn't include hours nor anything other than a direct salary... and if you cut off at a sensible but still very good rate women seems adequately represented ...
if Claudia Winkleman is being paid less than Chris Evans then it's irrelevant ..she's still being paid too much ... its just Chris Evans is being paid more... that's not a pay gap its a Reality Gap...
BBC wouldn't be worse for either of them leaving ... (or really any of the names over 250k)
What gender pay gap?
What next unfunny comedians getting paid the same as the funny one
Shitty heart surgeons getting paid less than the good ones?
The general public worker wanting to be paid the same as the guy running the business?
Somr BBC presenters are complete crap do they want paying the same as good ones who get ratings?
It's got sod all to do with women vs men pay and more to do with modern society and it's ability to complain about every single thing based on wether your a man or woman
If your crap at something it's simple you won't get paid the same as someone who is good at something.
Jeez
the easily documented one supported by the facts.What gender pay gap?
true but the problem here is it seems that if you are equally good you will get more if you own a penis than if you do notIf your crap at something it's simple you won't get paid the same as someone who is good at something
the easily documented one supported by the facts.
Which facts?
I don't see the salaries of BBC researchers or camera men-women on that list ....
If your crap at something it's simple you won't get paid the same as someone who is good at something
true but the problem here is it seems that if you are equally good you will get more if you own a penis than if you do not
Still have no idea where you are getting the facts from?
All I can see from the facts [u]as released [/u]are that sports personalities and game/chat show hosts get paid more (way way more) than serious actors by the BBC...
Surely even a mediocre East Enders actor or actress is worth 10x Graham Norton or Chris Evans ???
Surely the researchers should be on close to what the political commentators (etc.) are making?
There seems to be an enourmous gap ... that has nothing to do with Gender... but rather dead weight like Linnaker, Norton or Evans vs people who are actually providing value to the BBC.
It's entirely possible that once that is removed it may transpire that owning a penis pays more than breasts but based on what they released it simply illustrates a fantasy pay-gap between people with talent and those without .. (or in the case of linneaker someone with talent in a completely different area to what he is being paid for)
Still have no idea where you are getting the facts from?
If you look at the published list, there are examples of presenters doing similar jobs, but getting a huge difference. (Claire Balding vs Gary Lineker, several Today presenters vs John Humphrys). The pay difference would appear to be gender based.
Whether CB is as good as GL is another debate, but I think most would say she is at least 1/10 as good. (CB gets 1/10 of GL's pay).
What gender pay gap?
The one that is supported by the data that on average a women earns less than a man for doing the same role.
Your 'analysis' of that would suggest that on average women are not as good at the same job as the man, is that what you are trying to say?
The one thing nobody on here has asked is what different presenters generate through global syndication for the BBC. In that case, I could well imagine Lineker, Evans etc being more desirable to a foreign audience, so getting the BBC higher licencing payments, in turn making them more valuable and so demanding higher fees.
As someone else very wisely said, these are not people, they are tradeable commodities. The smart ones come to terms with that and leverage it at negotiation time. Maybe the men do it better, maybe they have better agents, I don't know. But I do know that if someone makes more money for their employer (or over indexes on another performance metric like viewing figures for example) than a colleague, then they're justified in earning more.
Until viewing figures, syndication revenues etc are all out for comparison vs respective salaries, this is an oversimplified argument.
Your 'analysis' of that would suggest that on average women are not as good at the same job as the man, is that what you are trying to say?
well Gary Linekar can talk about football in a much better way than Clare Balding lets just say that eh?
Do you see Nick Grimshaw complaining Vanessa Feltz is earning the same for doing the same job.
EDIT , THIS IS ALSO A THREAD ABOIUT GENDER PAY GAP IN THE BBC, just in case you hadn't noticed so the average woman in the street isn't a tv star is she?
The entire history of TV licensing has been based on lies... but in the past I guess broadcasting lies about detector vans was only reaching people who were actually attaching LIVE TV (and hence should have a license).
You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver, there was a time when you needed a licence just to listen to the radio as well. You need a license to go fishing in many places, fail to produce one and you can get taken to court and fined.
You need a licence to be able to drive a car, fail to produce one and you can be taken to court and fined.
It's just that the Beeb, a public service broadcaster, derives its income from the licence fee that some seem to find so irksom; if it's to remain a public service broadcaster, how else is it to be funded? Cant be advertising, because then, clearly it ceases to be public service, and is then at the whims of the advertisers.
As regards the gender pay gap, looking at the small list posted above of scripted drama and comedy, I'm unfamiliar with most, and I'm not entirely sure about the gender of a couple, but there appears to be a rough 50/50 split between the genders there, so I'm not seeing inequality, and I'd be interested to hear the opinions of those going on about the gender pay gap when Keaveny gets roughly half of what Lauren Laverne gets.
Although she does do other presenting jobs, which Keaveny has never managed to do.
Can't for the life of me see why...
You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver, there was a time when you needed a licence just to listen to the radio as well. You need a license to go fishing in many places, fail to produce one and you can get taken to court and fined.
You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver
Well not quite ... you need a license to USE a TV receiver to receive broadcast channels
I own several TV receivers because the damned things come built into TV's....
I don't use any of them.... or any digital set top boxes either.... neither do I have an ariel connected (there is one on the roof and the cable terminates inside the 'toilet/room with consumer unit' .. doesn't even go into any of the rooms with a TV ....
However if you watch the link someone posted earlier this doesn't stop them connecting up an arial and then tuning a TV that's never been tuned if they can con you into pressing the buttons ...
The vid linked to earlier actually shows them coin this - the arial wasn't plugged in but they connected up a cable then turned it on and then tried to get the house owner to tune it in so thy could slap him with a fine...
I've got the same possibly of using a web browser as anyone with internet has to watch streamed TV...
The difference is no-one comes and tells lies to gain access to my house to see if I have a fishing rod ... or more to the point none is publishing media saying they can drive past my house and find if I've been sneaking off at midnight to catch the odd trout or carp .... and then force entry and drop a goldfish on my kitchen table
The only reason I have a license is because when I didn't renew my OH became scared .... we were not watching live TV... but the tone of the letters scared her so she went and paid ...
It's just that the Beeb, a public service broadcaster, derives its income from the licence fee that some seem to find so irksom; if it's to remain a public service broadcaster, how else is it to be funded?
PPV would be one option but then they discounted that ....
I'm quite happy to pay for the radio usage.... (a reasonable fee) and also I watch BBC world on occasion when I'm in a hotel (and wouldn't mind a reasonable price for that either)
But that doesn't change the fact licensing has been based on lies and deception ....
All the way back to the pretend TV detector vans... but like I said ... I guess putting scary info-ads on the BBC was a fair enough thing... as obviously you needed to be watching it
Now however they are flooding alternative media.... I don't know if they still flood their own channels with it but what's the point of making targeting people who have obviously chosen not to watch live TV
My whole reason for not watching is it because a while ago my ex was away at uni for 3 months.... and when she left the TV wasn't connected (been moved for a party and arial unplugged) .. When she came back and asked why I'd unplugged it again and I realised in 3 months I'd not bothered plugging the arial back in even though I'd moved the TV back.... then I ended up with one with the OH ... when we got our first proper house together and I bought a TV ....
Buying a TV just seemed like a setting up home thing... and we had a baby on the way etc.
After a couple of years it just wasn't being used as a TV .... BIG monitor yes.... for a year we got satellite in my OH's native language... after a year cancelled as she didn't watch it....
[quote="rich mars"]If you look at the published list, there are examples of presenters doing similar jobs, but getting a huge difference. (Claire Balding vs Gary Lineker, several Today presenters vs John Humphrys). The pay difference would appear to be gender based.
Whether CB is as good as GL is another debate, but I think most would say she is at least 1/10 as good. (CB gets 1/10 of GL's pay).
[quote="kerely"]
The one that is supported by the data that on average a women earns less than a man for doing the same role.
Your 'analysis' of that would suggest that on average women are not as good at the same job as the man, is that what you are trying to say?
Nope I'm saying the salary has no connection whatsoever with their ability or not to be presenters.
If it reflects gender for GL that would seen to be based on some [u]perceived value [/u]of an ex-footballer not some value of a presenter.
If the BBC wrote a proper job description and advertised the job then interviewed properly I'm confident they could find someone at least a bit under the £1,750,000 – £1,799,999 (like for £50k a year .. it is after all a couple of days a week for 6 months a year) there must be thousands of retired people who are good presenters who know enough about the rules of football.. surely more than one would want the job for 50k a year?
Equally it's unclear to me why say Victoria Derbyshire or Sue Barker earns double John Simpson...
BBC presenter Jane Garvey says she would be "delighted" if high-earning men took a pay cut - which is all well and good but then of course some of those ridiculous womens salaries need to be cut as well...
[quote="BBC"]The letter continues: "Compared to many women and men, we are very well compensated and fortunate.
"However, this is an age of equality and the BBC is an organisation that prides itself on its values.
The two seem completely different statements ... given they are being paid from public money I think they need to address the former before the latter ..
If they simply just paid according to a value and job description then they would find it much simpler to say if this is gender bias or not...
For the life of me I can't see why a football presenter is intrinsically at a higher pay grade than any other sports presenter .. if they set a job pay scale then people apply and the ones most qualified and who do the best interview get the job.
When I see Gary's salary I get the impression that was not the process ... or actually the process was asking him how much he'd do the job for?
In most instances I would rather watch a male presenter than a female one. I am sure a lot of women will agree with this.
Why should the high earning men with high ratings take a pay cut to fund pay increases to women who are not as good at fronting shows with poorer ratings.
The first thing to go on the BBC should be Women's Hour.
Who said women are not as good, you may not like women presenters but that doesn't mean they are not as good.
Sounds like you are part of the problem to me...
