BBC salaries revealed !!

VincentHanna · 20 Jul 2017 at 19:01

Johno please? said:
I think when your wages equal that of a lottery win every year, things have maybe got a bit out of hand.

I agree. But there's other professions that earn a lot more. Actors, bankers and footballers for instance.

Vonhelmet · 20 Jul 2017 at 19:20

Rossi~ said:
Claudia Winkleman does what 2 hours a week television and who the hell is she in comparison.

Not entirely fair. She does the film program, strictly in the autumn/winter, has a weekly radio show and does other bits here and there. As for who she is... she's been on tv for over 20 years.

Johno please? · 20 Jul 2017 at 19:58

VincentHanna said:
I agree. But there's other professions that earn a lot more. Actors, bankers and footballers for instance.

Uh huh, I mean across the board, whether you're an oil tycoon or a footballer.

Eugh, just googled some footballers wages, just unfathomable to be earning that kind of money, glad I don't pay towards it, nor towards the BBC "talent".

V F · 20 Jul 2017 at 20:00

Vonhelmet said:
Not entirely fair. She does the film program, strictly in the autumn/winter, has a weekly radio show and does other bits here and there. As for who she is... she's been on tv for over 20 years.

Film programme? Thought that was him with the glasses? Kermode.

VincentHanna · 20 Jul 2017 at 20:01

Vonhelmet said:
Not entirely fair. She does the film program, strictly in the autumn/winter, has a weekly radio show and does other bits here and there. As for who she is... she's been on tv for over 20 years.

She left the Film show last year....

Her Sewing Bee program (6 shows a year!) has been axed

She does 2 hours of radio on a Sunday...

Vonhelmet · 20 Jul 2017 at 20:04

I stand partially corrected.

dowie · 20 Jul 2017 at 21:08

a1ex2001 said:
Strictly is a tricky one, yes on the face of it she is doing the same job, scoring a dance but there is more too it than that each judge has a value to the show and some would be more difficult to replace than others and all have significantly more experience as reality TV show judges which is after all what really matters here not dancing experience! If I was her I'd be sending my agent in with a polite request for more money but I don't think is diabolical sexism that she is paid less.

I don't think it is necessarily sexism either in that case but her agent failing to ask for more - though re: the fame thing I mean look at Gary Lineker it wasn't the fact that he was experienced as a presenter that leads to him earning more but his fame in the relevant field before he started presenting. None of the judges were initially TV presenters and all were picked for being (relatively) well known in the dance world.

I reckon the BBC would be hard pressed to justify any pay gap there if they didn't now pay her more and she wanted to take them to court.

DIABLO · 20 Jul 2017 at 21:44

It has nothing to do with sexism, these people's pay i imagined are negotiated by an agent, so in a capitalist sociality some people can leverage a better deal over others... If these women think they are worth more than they are currently paid they should negotiate a better deal not cry sexism.

a1ex2001 · 20 Jul 2017 at 23:28

dowie said:
I don't think it is necessarily sexism either in that case but her agent failing to ask for more - though re: the fame thing I mean look at Gary Lineker it wasn't the fact that he was experienced as a presenter that leads to him earning more but his fame in the relevant field before he started presenting. None of the judges were initially TV presenters and all were picked for being (relatively) well known in the dance world.

I reckon the BBC would be hard pressed to justify any pay gap there if they didn't now pay her more and she wanted to take them to court.

Gary Lineker is a massively experienced tv sports presenter you can bet he was on nothing like his current salary when he started out but has worked his way into an anchor role with a salary to match. The same goes for strictly I guarantee all the judges salaries have increased as they have grown in experience and importance to the show. Darcy is the least experienced of the judges and I would say the least important personality wise, the BBC could easily defend the position at a tribunal on those grounds and expect to win.

dowie · 20 Jul 2017 at 23:45

a1ex2001 said:
Gary Lineker is a massively experienced tv sports presenter you can bet he was on nothing like his current salary when he started out but has worked his way into an anchor role with a salary to match. The same goes for strictly I guarantee all the judges salaries have increased as they have grown in experience and importance to the show. Darcy is the least experienced of the judges and I would say the least important personality wise, the BBC could easily defend the position at a tribunal on those grounds and expect to win.

well we'll see over the next year - I reckon over the next couple of years the BBC will be making sure that there are some adjustments here

a1ex2001 · 21 Jul 2017 at 08:22

dowie said:
well we'll see over the next year - I reckon over the next couple of years the BBC will be making sure that there are some adjustments here

Hopefully we will see the end of the really ridiculous salaries news readers should not be on 150k and nobody should be earning multiple millions for working on air for the BBC sadly I think the focus on gender inequality for non comparable jobs will mask the real issue of the BBC hosing vast amounts of tax revenue up the wall on overrated over paid talent!

Slam62 · 21 Jul 2017 at 08:36

Private companies can pay people what they like, but very poor People have to pay the license fee or be branded criminals

Scam · 21 Jul 2017 at 14:20

a1ex2001 said:
Hopefully we will see the end of the really ridiculous salaries news readers should not be on 150k and nobody should be earning multiple millions for working on air for the BBC sadly I think the focus on gender inequality for non comparable jobs will mask the real issue of the BBC hosing vast amounts of tax revenue up the wall on overrated over paid talent!

Why shouldn't a newsreader be on £150k? I've been on film sets and it's unbelievable stressful, I can't imagine how bad it is on live TV. These people do that every day, at unsociable hours and on top of that they are the face of the channel. They are the spokesperson, they are the one that will be up on YouTube looking like an idiot if something goes wrong etc.

At the end of the day, the BBC is a creative media organisation. Companies like that are nothing without the talent. Zero. Kaput. Say they get £500m/year from the licence fee and they currently use £200m of that on talent. What exactly would they achieve by dropping all that talent and saving £150m? Are they going to spend the leftovers on new fancy cameras and microphones? I'm sure Mrs Bloggs up the road will notice that when she streams on her 24" SD TV? No, Mrs Bloggs wants to see cheeky chappy Graham Norton every Friday night, and listen to Chris Evans on a weekday morning.

DrToffnar · 21 Jul 2017 at 14:41

^^^

Bob on Scam. I think it was Kit Harrington who said something like:

"I don't get paid for the work I do. I'd do that for free. I get paid for the complete loss of anonymity that I'll likely have to live with for the rest of my life."

chroniclard · 21 Jul 2017 at 14:57

I have no problems with these salaries.

CircleFaust · 21 Jul 2017 at 15:22

Slam62 said:
Private companies can pay people what they like, but very poor People have to pay the license fee or be branded criminals

true. salaries should be capped at well under £1M. while we are forced to pay the license no-one should be earning anywhere near that, it's ridiculous
the money saved will go to keeping the license fee down . when the ordinary hard working individual, that is struggling to pay everyday bills, knows their money is not going to some fat cats pockets they are more likely to pay the fee.

VincentHanna · 21 Jul 2017 at 18:14

CircleFaust said:
true. salaries should be capped at well under £1M. while we are forced to pay the license no-one should be earning anywhere near that, it's ridiculous
the money saved will go to keeping the license fee down . when the ordinary hard working individual, that is struggling to pay everyday bills, knows their money is not going to some fat cats pockets they are more likely to pay the fee.

Really? These wages are ¼ of 1% of the BBC license fee. Completely blown out of proportion.

Slam62 · 21 Jul 2017 at 18:32

VincentHanna said:
Really? These wages are ¼ of 1% of the BBC license fee. Completely blown out of proportion.

Tbh god knows what else they waste money on.
The presenter of a radio 2 show can never be worth 2 mil.
Same goes for a match of the day presenter.
I should have the choice.

Scam · 21 Jul 2017 at 21:22

CircleFaust said:
true. salaries should be capped at well under £1M.

And what would be the point of that when the competition ends up paying double for star talent? You'd end up with a BBC fronted by the Nick Grimshaws of the world, it'd be terrible. Then everyone would complain they're paying a licence fee for endless cheapo reality shows and X Factors.

dowie · 21 Jul 2017 at 22:59

Scam said:
Why shouldn't a newsreader be on £150k? I've been on film sets and it's unbelievable stressful, I can't imagine how bad it is on live TV. These people do that every day, at unsociable hours and on top of that they are the face of the channel. They are the spokesperson, they are the one that will be up on YouTube looking like an idiot if something goes wrong etc.

plenty of jobs are stressful and there are plenty of BBC news readers who aren't paid over £150k - like pretty much every regional newsreader

Some BBC news readers are on more like 500k, I think at that point why not just let them go to the competition? Unless you think all the other news readers the BBC employees are incompetent there would seem to be a big pool of potential replacements and no shortage of people willing to undertake that job.

Really they're paying for 'fame' not 'talent' and frankly, as a public sector broadcaster, they shouldn't need to. If someone gets a name for themselves reading the news and wants to demand big bucks for it then let them got to ITN and allow someone else to take their place.