BBC Salaries - progress

[french frank]

And didn't he once present adverts for junk food of some kind? Well qualified, then...

But leaving aside whether he is well qualified (if those who watch MotD say he is, okay) and whether he does the job impeccably (and those who watch MotD say …), the point at issue is surely whether this particular job is worth £1.8m pa of public money. Should the small minority of the public which watches the programme with huge appreciation decide that that is a 'fair' amount of public money to pay someone who is qualified and does his job very well? How do they decide on that amount? Does it matter how much anyone else is paid by a commercial company for doing approximately the same job?

In short, isn't £1.8 m an outrageous sum for anyone to be paid - from public money or not? If not, why not?

[Stanfordian]

But leaving aside whether he is well qualified (if those who watch MotD say he is, okay) and whether he does the job impeccably (and those who watch MotD say …), the point at issue is surely whether this particular job is worth £1.8m pa of public money. Should the small minority of the public which watches the programme with huge appreciation decide that that is a 'fair' amount of public money to pay someone who is qualified and does his job very well? How do they decide on that amount? Does it matter how much anyone else is paid by a commercial company for doing approximately the same job?

In short, isn't £1.8 m an outrageous sum for anyone to be paid - from public money or not? If not, why not?

My view is how the BBC arrive at these orbital figures and how honourable and realistic are dealings of the people are who do the commissioning with Public money. What Planet are they on! There should be an immediate enquiry! How on Earth can Lineker for example get paid so much for speaking for barely two minutes once a week on MOTD? How any viwers would be lost if Lineker was replaced; barely any I'd wager. Gabby Logan does ok and I doubt the viewing figures drop much if at all when she is presenting and not Lineker. Why does the presenter of MOTD have to be an ex-footballer as there are at least two others on the show as pundits; even if they all look wooden? Personally I'd rather have Ian McMillan, Will Self, Arthur Smith or maybe Francesca Cumani or Ed Chamberlin as I like their voices they and can probably read auto-cues better. If an ex-player is thought obligatory then why not Danny Higginbotham he is marvellous! Let other TV companies poach favoured presenters if they wish and just get others to do it. There are lots of potentially excellent presenters out there. It's not Brain Surgery they are doing but mainly reading an auto cue!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think the sum is obscene.

BUT

If the commercial channels can offer more (and, unless their payments are made equally public, we won't know this) then they will "poach" the most popular talent from the BBC. In that respect, I think that it does matter what the "going rate" is. Leaving aside individual personalities, if the commercial stations are able to take the most popular presenters away from the BBC, then the BBC will lose viewers in at least some programme areas. If this is repeated across many popular programmes, then this is further ammunition for those want to abolish public-funded broadcasting completely - if the small minority who watch BBC only for MotD (or Bake-Off, or Strictly, or University Challenge) have their requirements catered for on the commercial stations, it is reasonable for them to question why they are compelled by law to pay to watch television when they never watch BBC.

Of course, the enemies of public-funded broadcasting will be hoping to use these outrageous sums to batter the BBC anyway - that's why not knowing what equivalent "talent" is being paid is dangerously misleading.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And lowering the salaries of BBC presenters will, of course, make it cheaper than it is now for the commercials to "poach" them.


(All sorts of puns on "mollycoddled", "grilled" etc suppressed.)

[Richard Tarleton]

Leaving aside individual personalities, if the commercial stations are able to take the most popular presenters away from the BBC, then the BBC will lose viewers in at least some programme areas.

Not necessarily - it may spur them to discover new talent, or foster it from further down the food chain - look at the former Bake-off winner currently garnering excellent notices for her food programme. So she moves to ITV or Channel 4 in due course - so what ? There'll be another winner along shortly. There are some excellent newsreaders and presenters languishing on BBC News 24 who could step up in several areas.

If this is repeated across many popular programmes, then this is further ammunition for those want to abolish public-funded broadcasting completely - if the small minority who watch BBC only for MotD (or Bake-Off, or Strictly, or University Challenge) have their requirements catered for on the commercial stations, it is reasonable for them to question why they are compelled by law to pay to watch television when they never watch BBC.

I've been leaning towards this view for some time . But I don't think all the examples you give are equal. I think there's an excellent case for MOTD - and sport generally - being subscription-only. I hate seeing umpteen millions of license money being handed over to the premier league, or whoever it is....Strictly is a commercial programme which could easily finance itself without the help of the license payer. Whereas Bake-off (filmed in a tent) and University Challenge are classic public service broadcasting fare, IMV...... I'd like to see the Beeb concentrate on less commercial stuff which is not replicated elsewhere - though with history, nature etc. etc. also to be found on pay-to-view, it's becoming harder to justify even that.....

[french frank]

Of course, the enemies of public-funded broadcasting will be hoping to use these outrageous sums to batter the BBC anyway - that's why not knowing what equivalent "talent" is being paid is dangerously misleading.

And one might say dangerously unfair to insist that the BBC reveal how much they pay when taking no interest in what the commercials pay.

BUT

Do you also argue that if the commercial 'going rate' for women is lower, then the BBC can still use the 'going rate', or must they pay above it on equality grounds? If the BBC is in a market which pays 'obscene' rates, what can be done about it? Should anything be done about it? Can one legitimately complain about bankers et al getting huge pay cheques and not complain about anyone else getting huge amounts e.g. footballers?

[Stanfordian]

And lowering the salaries of BBC presenters will, of course, make it cheaper than it is now for the commercials to "poach" them.


(All sorts of puns on "mollycoddled", "grilled" etc suppressed.)

I'd like to see many of them 'poached'. Poaching of the well done kind!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And one might say dangerously unfair to insist that the BBC reveal how much they pay when taking no interest in what the commercials pay.

???

EDIT: (took a while to "settle" )

Do you also argue that if the commercial 'going rate' for women is lower, then the BBC can still use the 'going rate', or must they pay above it on equality grounds?

No.

If the BBC is in a market which pays 'obscene' rates, what can be done about it? Should anything be done about it? Can one legitimately complain about bankers et al getting huge pay cheques and not complain about anyone else getting huge amounts e.g. footballers?

Footballers - a minority of them - get paid eye-wateringly high salaries, most of them for a limited period of time (nobody is going to hire Wayne Rooney for as a commentator/presenter for very long once he has to retire). They are responsible for the huge "audiences" that pay tickets to come and see a club play - they are entitled to a share of the profits that they are largely responsible for. Sportspeople are not essential to the general economy in the way that Bankers are: they do not sell mortgages/loans/Insurance in the same way (although some of them sell themselves in television advertising). Banks should, of course, be in public ownership (as the nation is put at risk when their greed results in the nation having to bail them out of the difficulties they have created) - sports teams need never be; nobody will lose their house if Forest Green Rovers goes bust. Curbing bankers' excesses is in the country's interests - curbing footballers' (or Pop stars, or TV personalities) isn't.

[pastoralguy]

But isn't the argument that the best banking 'talent' may be poached by those prepared to pay huge salaries and bonuses. (I've often wondered why if these people are so 'talented' WE ended up having to bail them out to the tune of almost £900 billion which to me, sounds like a lot of money!)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But isn't the argument that the best banking 'talent' may be poached by those prepared to pay huge salaries and bonuses. (I've often wondered why if these people are so 'talented' WE ended up having to bail them out to the tune of almost £900 billion which to me, sounds like a lot of money!)

I think that that is the - for want of a better word - argument, yes. I always considered that it might have been better all round to let those financial geniuses pi ... go away and f ... mees up someone else's economy at their expense. (Which, of course, isn't how it "works".)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd like to see many of them 'poached'. Poaching of the well done kind!

I wish Classic FM would poach ... to keep to footballers' initials ... Kenny Dalglish.

[P. G. Tipps]

I completely fail to see why the BBC should be compared to the commercial channels ... surely it should aspire to something better than that? It should be there, as a tax-payer funded channel, to educate and be a vehicle for top-class documentaries, the arts and culture in general. I'm not even sure there should be a MOTD these days as football and other sports are now almost exclusively covered by commercial channels. In fact, one can see highlights for many a game for free on YouTube long before MOTD appears late on a Saturday night.

And what on earth is the importance of 'viewing figures' when everyone who owns a TV set should be paying the BBC anyway? To heck with a horridly philistinic majority public, the BBC should be influencing it, not the other way around!

I say bring back a Lord Reith figure who will get rid of all this 'equality' and 'diverse' nonsense and concentrate on providing the public with quality programming. Working for the BBC should be part-vocation not an opportunity for any Clare or Gary to jump on a publicly-funded career gravy train.

Are there really no stern, no-nonsense Calvinistic-type figures, with public-service at heart, left these days ... ?

[gradus]

Oddly in all the blather about equal pay no one has actually asked the BBC if it actually uses any form of salary/benefits surveys and if it does, exactly how the relative judgements that inform its pay decisions are reached. Needless to say in this age of consultancy 'remuneration experts' abound and mostly use survey data to establish, as far as possible, the going rate. Presumably the BBC follows this approach but which consultancy(ies) provides the data, which organisations are surveyed and who in the BBC decides how to use it? Is there a remuneration committee as in the private sector?

[french frank]

Is there a remuneration committee as in the private sector?

I think the now defunct BBC Trust had one, so I presume the new 'BBC Board' does too.

[Although it isn't clear that they also advise on staff other than executives.]

[teamsaint]

I think the sum is obscene.

BUT

If the commercial channels can offer more (and, unless their payments are made equally public, we won't know this) then they will "poach" the most popular talent from the BBC. In that respect, I think that it does matter what the "going rate" is. Leaving aside individual personalities, if the commercial stations are able to take the most popular presenters away from the BBC, then the BBC will lose viewers in at least some programme areas. If this is repeated across many popular programmes, then this is further ammunition for those want to abolish public-funded broadcasting completely - if the small minority who watch BBC only for MotD (or Bake-Off, or Strictly, or University Challenge) have their requirements catered for on the commercial stations, it is reasonable for them to question why they are compelled by law to pay to watch television when they never watch BBC.

Of course, the enemies of public-funded broadcasting will be hoping to use these outrageous sums to batter the BBC anyway - that's why not knowing what equivalent "talent" is being paid is dangerously misleading.

If the enemies of public funded broadcasting are given an open goal such as Lineker's unnecessarily high salary, we can't really blame them for shooting at it.

I don't think the public are all that worried about who gets what among the apparently irreplaceable TV presenting community, whether in the commercial sector or BBC, but I think they do care when they see their money being needlessly frittered on people doing rather pleasant and in demand jobs.
In any case , the BBC in many ways behaves like a commercial organisation.

( Was talking to some young people who work on the technical side on two national BBC radio stations this weekend, at some length, and they tell me that the shift patterns are quite ridiculous, to the point where they are starting to think about leaving their dream job........I doubt they are all that happy about some of the big management and presenter salaries floating around.)