For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
By JoeC
#1547590
Miscellaneous wrote:
If you believe what Chris Evans', Gary Lineker and co do is worth what they are paid then I'll not bother trying to change your mind. :wink:


Ha! ha! Hardly :wink:

I think we all know that this charade is a politically motivated Tory attack on the lefty beeb. I like the lefty beeb as it is. Salaries are a side-show.

The Beeb is incredibly efficient at getting out nationally popular programming (TV, radio and online) that more often than not is informative, educational and entertaining. It should be applauded not denigrated in this way. Look at how the same approach of demonisation by the Tories has left the NHS in the shoite.
By JoeC
#1547596
eltonioni wrote: Chris Evans must be earning a lot more than £2m to run the lifestyle he does, and so it seems he is, but his real BBC earnings are hidden behind the technicality of what the report includes. .


I don't think the BBC funds his 'lifestyle' - hidden or not. he sold his own media group in the early 2000's for £250m netting him a dividend of about £75m.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1547597
JoeC wrote:The Beeb is incredibly efficient at getting out nationally popular programming (TV, radio and online) that more often than not is informative, educational and entertaining.


So, Joe, explain how you conclude the Beeb IS efficient. :lol:


Of course efficiency in one area does not justify or offset inefficiencies in others. :D
By chevvron
#1547607
Bill Haddow wrote:I remember a year or two back when the Beeb revealed the pay of it's higher earning employees (not just presenters) being astonished at the sheer number of 6 figure salaries.

I saw the Head of News was on a nice salary, fair enough, news is an important part of Beeb output, but further down the list was Head of Current Affairs, Head of TV News (followed by Head of Radio News) then of course Sport News, Political News, Business News, Foreign News and so on.

Heading out to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, they had management positions more or less duplicating the Heads of News (various), Drama, Radio, TV, Comedy, Sport, yada, yada, yada, that Beeb national had.

I'm far from convinced that all these people (and their supporting secretariat) are necessary.

Bill H

Yes it's the number of so called 'management' people they also have on over inflated salaries not just those who appear on our screens.
The BBC has multiple (some of them unnecessary) layers of 'management' and they need to publish how much these people are getting too .
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1547648
Dave W wrote:There are a lot of faces that you do see very frequently, yet who did not appear on the list. Either they are on salaries less than £150k, or (more likely?) they are recompensed in a different way, such as maybe personal service companies.

If the latter, why are they on screen so often? What's in it for the Beeb c.f. another face who is on salary and hence more cost-effective to cast?

From what I can tell many programmes they are made by third party production companies .... so my impression is that this is less about personal service companies (albeit that is probably in the mix), rather that the whole series has been bought in, and another party has employed or contracted the actors. Like any job, I'd assume that those that are employed are employed for a specific role/number of hours .... and would cost more if they were asked to do more roles.
I've got two relatives in the sector, one has been in Corrie since 2000 so to all intents and purposes a 'normal job; the other is a 'proper actor' - regularly on TV in tertiary roles across a range of stuff, but it is all ad-hoc contracts with production companies - no permanent salary.

I'm not sure how it works with salary vs royalties too, as I understood that many roles were done on a royalty basis - i.e. low salary, but royalty each time it is shown or sold to another network - which might explain why many of the high salary roles disclosed are in news/sport - as they wouldn't suit the royalty model.
Dave W liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1547658
chevvron wrote:Yes it's the number of so called 'management' people they also have on over inflated salaries not just those who appear on our screens.
The BBC has multiple (some of them unnecessary) layers of 'management' and they need to publish how much these people are getting too .


The BBC does publish those figures, and has done for a number of years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidet ... ographies/
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1547723
JoeC wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:
So, Joe, explain how you conclude the Beeb IS efficient. :lol:



Through knowledge rather than belief. Try it sometime.


http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ ... review.pdf

(older but shows the scrutiny and process the BBC is under) https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 607183.pdf

There's a lot to go through, which chapter has the misogyny efficiency savings?
User avatar
By Rob P
#1547736
Interesting to read that in one year Ant and Dec earned more working for not the BBC than all the twenty something talents listed by the beeb combined.

Rob P
By JoeC
#1547737
There's a lot to go through, which chapter has the misogyny efficiency savings?



I thought you preferred cold, hard facts rather than emotional knee-jerk reactions to revelations.

Do you really think misogyny rather than cultural norms that will hopefully change or the old boys network? Wouldn't you prefer some fact based investigation reported by professionals before prounouncing such conclusions? - Only joking. I know you're just trolling.
By Cessna57
#1547761
Miscellaneous wrote:
For Cessna to conclude they are 'brilliant value' leaves me bewildered. :? :lol:



It's just not that much money in the big scheme of things. The license fee is pretty cheap compared to the many other subscriptions available.

£3,700,000,000 raised by TV license fees, (apparently)

makes it 0.8% of the total cash available.

There's enough entertainment on the TV for me to justify £147 a year. Couldn't take your family to watch a football match for that.

Whole thing is good value, as has been commented on, the commercial channels pay a LOT more. Anyway, I thought Jonathon Ross said he was on £6 million at one point ? So each number was much lower than I thought.

Can't get excited about Lineker earning a couple of million, that's the sort of money that celebs lose down the back of the sofa.

Odd that they bother to pay Gary Barlow though, he's such a narcissist he'd do it for free.
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1547767
Cessna57 wrote:
It's just not that much money in the big scheme of things. The license fee is pretty cheap compared to the many other subscriptions available.

£3,700,000,000 raised by TV license fees, (apparently)

makes it 0.8% of the total cash available.

There's enough entertainment on the TV for me to justify £147 a year. Couldn't take your family to watch a football match for that.



I must admit I can't get excited about the absolute value of the numbers being talked about, as C57 says the total payments to the £150k+ talent is such a small proportion of the licence fee receipts to me it just doesn't figure as a significant amount.

Now as for the back story about the representation and reward for female 'talent' then I think these recently released figures provide much that should be a concern, well certainly to me anyway. I guess I'm particularly aware/sensitive to this because I have two 'professional' daughters in the workplace.

I wonder how many of us here, who are still involved in working for a living, would be prepared to walkway from a remuneration offer that was just way over the top? Can anyone say that they have turned down an offer of additional money in the working environment. Has anyone really ever said "no I can't take it, I'm not worth it"?
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1547785
avtur3 wrote:I must admit I can't get excited about the absolute value of the numbers being talked about, as C57 says the total payments to the £150k+ talent is such a small proportion of the licence fee receipts to me it just doesn't figure as a significant amount.


Can't say I follow the logic in determining a presenter's worth as a percentage of licence fee receipts, or total revenue.

Tell you what though; I sincerely wish some could see a single landing fee as a percentage of earnings! :lol:
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1547807
Miscellaneous wrote:
Can't say I follow the logic in determining a presenter's worth as a percentage of licence fee receipts, or total revenue.


I have no idea how the presenters' worth is determined, all I'm saying that however that figure is calculated then the resulting 'cost' to the Beeb appears to be a relatively small sum in terms of the Beeb's income from licence fee payers. So in terms of the Beeb's financial operating efficiency I wonder if there aren't more significant targets than the £150k+ talent's wage bill. I'm only making that point because many people are expressing opinions (here and elsewhere) along the lines that these stars are not worth it.

Joe publics views on how much the talent are paid is always going to be a huge mixed bag of thoughts and opinions... but I do come back to my other point how many people in any walk of life are going to say "please keep the money, I'm not worth it"
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1547817
JoeC wrote:
There's a lot to go through, which chapter has the misogyny efficiency savings?



I thought you preferred cold, hard facts rather than emotional knee-jerk reactions to revelations.

Do you really think misogyny rather than cultural norms that will hopefully change or the old boys network? Wouldn't you prefer some fact based investigation reported by professionals before prounouncing such conclusions? - Only joking. I know you're just trolling.

Old boy's network mi eye, it's old fashioned do as I say not as I do.

Image

The one on the left earns five times more salary than the one on the right. The only cold hard fact discernible difference to the viewer is the trouser junk on the left and the higher viewer / listener figures on the right. I dont care much for either's style so there's no hair splitting from me about the highest male / female salaried employees.

On the one hand, that's not especially cold hard efficient (like I actually could care) but on the emotional other hand it feelz like misogyny at best, discrimination at worst (I do care a bit about that as it happens).

It's a struggle to see a defence beyond the BBC falling back on the shoddy excuse lines they used before, eg that the culture is different now everyone knows that the kiddies' presenters were peadophiles.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7