Top earners at the BBC and elsewhere

jdevil

I'd be interested in what the private sector pays, I'm sure Sky, ITV and Channel 4 pay as just much if not more. So I'm not really shocked at all, top talents ain't going to work for free and audiences follow where ever they go.

Goooner

My argument is the BBC is a public service broadcaster that shouldn't be chasing ratings so doesn't need to employ big-name talent.

Bl4ckGryph0n

From a slightly different angle, I wonder by how much the BBC increases its income through foreign sales etc by having talent make and front it's programmes. I have no idea about the figure as I've never looked into it. But shows like top gear and planet earth to name a few are broadcast around the world aren't they? Likewise I'm sure match of the day was popular when I grew up abroad (I never liked football so I could be wrong on that one.)

RiceRocket

To be fair, they'd face criticism if their shows didn't get good ratings. So talent is key to that for some shows.

But I'd support them introducing new talent more often. Lineker could be replaced with someone like Gabby Logan. Or promote the guy from MOTD2 or the football league show.

Greg Hook

Certainly in football punditry (excluding Gary Lineker here as he's more a presenter) the pay gap is much much wider eg Alan Shearer gets 400k whereas it's believed Thierry Henry gets 4m from Sky! Neither are particularly good but Gary Neville is & gets 1.5m.
In show business I suppose you could notice that Paul Hollywood has 2-4x his pay and Ant & Dec are on 5m each a year.

I think the interesting comparison would be what the newsreaders/journalists salary differences are, can't imagine John Humphrys getting 650k elsewhere!

Jonstone

Clearly a lot of BBC haters reveling in this news.
For me I have no problem with what they are paid. I enjoy watching the BBC and the stars they currently employ.

I've no interest in watching some nobody with no charisma front a TV or Radio programme, just because they were cheaper as it's a public service broadcaster.

jdevil

BBC worldwide handles foreign sales etc and brought £222m worth of revenue to the BBC last year.

They deal with wages and programme funding separately though, which is why a lot of the BBC's stars do not show up on the list at all.

If you look at the salaries quoted here most are for people fulfilling roles at the BBC in programmes that do not generate much, if any, income outside the UK.

It can be argued that many of these presenters could earn much more in the private sector. If that is true then why aren't they in the private sector?

In general commercial broadcasters will offer large salaries to acts that will guarantee them viewing figures, and hence the revenue required to pay such salaries.

In some cases, Thierry Henri for instance if he does get £4m a year, Sky are obviously overpaying and wasting their subscribers money. I don't think a single sky sports customer would stop subscribing for instance if he wasn't there. The fact that other broadcasters waste money is no excuse for the BBC doing the same.

Lets take Matt Baker, £500,000 per year from the BBC. I cannot believe the private sector would be falling over themselves to hire him. I don't blame these stars for taking the money, who would turn it down?

The inflated salaries, and clear gender gap just demonstrate just how badly the BBC is run.

The Director General Tony Hall earns in excess of £500,000 for running an inefficient organisation that is clearly not an equal opportunities employer.

Sonic67

If they don't get the ratings than folks will switch channel and go elsewhere. You can waste public money on unwanted tv shows, that's even more disastrous than paying high wages.

Goooner

And? The BBC wouldn't lose advertising revenue. It has the license fee and it gets that regardless.

IronGiant

Which was, I though, the whole purpose of a public service broadcaster. To show things commercial stations would shy away from, because if they don't attract viewers, they lose advertising and go out of business.

The BBC shouldn't be ratings driven, although it obviously is. What possible reason could there be for say putting Strictly up against the X Factor each year? It wouldn't make any difference to the BBC what time they put Strictly on because ratings shouldn't matter, but they deliberately put it on so it overlaps X Factor.