Bbc To Reveal Salaries - Good Or Bad?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40633241
I think probably bad, it can only lead to a larger wage bill.

[ludwig]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and It's difficult to see what the purpose these revelations will serve, or who will benefit from them.

[Ellipsis]

{shrieks} OMG, Bruno and Len are paid more than Craig and Darcey!

[-Talbot-]

Nobody watches MOTD to see Lineker or Shearer, why on earth do they get paid so much?

[Deskdiary]

The fact that we all must pay the license fee is entirely irrelevant - what these people earn has absolutely nothing to do with us, it should have been kept as a private matter between them and their employer.

[-Talbot-]

We are their employer.

[Deskdiary]

"We are their employer."

No we are not.

We pay a fee that enables them to be employed, but we are not their employer - the BBC is.

When we shop as Sainsbury's we provide the money that enables the check-out girl to be employed - doesn't mean we're her employer.

[-Talbot-]

If I choose not to give a penny to Sainsbury I can do that and still shop elsewhere.

If I choose to not give the BBC a penny I am not allowed to own a television therefore cannot view other channels ... how is this right?

[Deskdiary]

It isn't right - but it doesn't mean I'm Fiona Bruce's employer.

[Bazile]

This '' can lead to a larger wage bill '' is highly unlikely - they can demand more money - but that does not mean that the BBC needs to agree .

If any of these presenters threaten to flounce - the BBC should call their bluff ( most of them are rubbish anyway ) and see how many actually leave .
It's not as if there are other broadcasters out there desperate/ lining up to employ them .
They know they are on to a good thing

[-Talbot-]

When the BBC employs an 'opt-out' system they can then say it is none of my business. Until then I want to know what the overpaid are being paid.

I would rather have Fred and June present MOTD for hundred grand between them and spend the rest on a good wildlife documentary.

[youngmafbog]

OK then DEsk, we pay their wages. Happy now?

[Old_Geezer]

Good. It is our business, we pay for them via licence fee, it's not like they are a commercial concern. Now we know how overpaid some entertainers are compared to those on normal wage levels. And the claim is that it's ok because, apparently, those broadcasters with ads or subscriptions (that we still end up paying for) pay even more ! Talk about looking after your own; the TV industry should be ashamed to defend and support these sorts of salary demands.

[Bazile]

It should be a choice as to whether or not i contribute directly to the wages of these presenters .

Then you can pay whatever you like .
Then i can decide if i want to contribute or not

At the moment i'm forced to pay a fee to an organisation , in order to access the output of other organisations .

Why am i denied a choice - How is that right ?

[ludwig]

Yeah.. still not quite sure how this helps anyone or anything. Ok, so I know Graham Norton's overpaid, but I already knew that before I knew how much he got.

[vulcan42]

Whether the presenter is good or bad, what the likes of Vine, Wright, Evans are being paid is hardly good value. Ken Bruce, in my opinion, the best on Radio two isn't worth the quarter million he gets considering he's on the radio for just twelve and half hours most weeks.

[Ellipsis]

They're paid "the going rate", i.e. a fee similar to what they could get elsewhere if they left.

If somebody replaced them, then they too would be paid a fee similar to what they could get elsewhere if they left.

In the end, the only way the BBC could pay smaller fees is

a) if the recipient couldn't get more elsewhere (because they were really crap, for example), which would leave the BBC with the problem that nobody would watch/listen because the best talent would be on other channels, or
b) the recipient was some kind of altruist who wanted to work for the BBC for some kind of higher purpose than money, and there's not many of those about.

It's worth noting that some names aren't on the list because they're paid through a production company, e.g. David Attenborough, Benedict Cumberbatch and Matt LeBlanc.

What really takes the biscuit is that Graham Norton's £850-900K is just for his Eurovision and Radio 2 work and does not include his Friday night chat show, for which he's paid through a production company.

[Bazile]

^^^^
And where are all these jobs elsewhere ?
If they exist why don't they go to this elsewhere

The BBC could pay far less to some of these so called entertainers .

As I stated in my other posts , they know which side their bread is buttered

[vulcan42]

Agree Bazile, these so called celebrities wouldn't stay a minute longer with the BBC if they could get their millions elsewhere.

[sp1814]

I don't think this is a smart move.

It's commercially sensitive information which can now be used by other broadcasters looking to swipe talent.

And then there's the question of 'worth', which is difficult to quantify. For instance, Dwayne Johnson is the highest paid actor in the world right now. His value is easily quantifiable, because you pay money to see his films, so you can work out his 'draw'.

However, it becomes muddled when it comes to the BBC, because we pay an annual licence fee, we don't pay for individual shows.

So even if Graham Norton or Gary Lineker's shows get good ratings, we can't tell whether it's the presenter, format or guests that are the drivers.

[andy-hughes]

It's a tricky one.

The BBC as a publicly funded corporation needs to be seen to be transparent, but publication of salaries, which are quantifiable, leads to notions of 'value for money' - which are not, and simply sends everyone down the - I think presenter A is worth every penny / a waste of every penny (delete as appropriate).

It's pointless saying that, for example, Graham Norton is 'paid over two million pounds" when that fee is actually paid to the company that produces his shows, and not to him personally, because that gives a grossly distorted view of the facts, and opens Mr Norton to accusations of greed which are without foundation.

I would far rather see a breakdown of the job descriptions and tasks of the shadowy management wonks behind the scenes who are paid by the licence payer - that would be a better place to start.