BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Psamathe
Posts: 10607
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby Psamathe » 5 Mar 2014, 11:02am

pete75 wrote:Commercial broadcasting is paid for largely by adverts. The cost of this advertising is added to the price of goods so even those without a television are paying for commercial broadcasting.
There's no way of avoiding this charge either because if you don't have a TV you won't even know which goods to boycott if you don't want to pay for TV advertising.


I think many companies allocate an advertising budget and then decide where to spend it. So if there were no TV advertising then undoubtedly more would be spent on press/internet/billboards/etc. At the end of the day, companies spend to try and push their product to us all. They might select particular media because they believe it particularly effective for their market/demographic. But there are plenty of other media all calling out for their advertising money. So with or without TV ads we will all still be paying at least the same for their marketing.

Ian

pete75
Posts: 12007
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby pete75 » 5 Mar 2014, 11:22am

Psamathe wrote:
pete75 wrote:Commercial broadcasting is paid for largely by adverts. The cost of this advertising is added to the price of goods so even those without a television are paying for commercial broadcasting.
There's no way of avoiding this charge either because if you don't have a TV you won't even know which goods to boycott if you don't want to pay for TV advertising.


I think many companies allocate an advertising budget and then decide where to spend it. So if there were no TV advertising then undoubtedly more would be spent on press/internet/billboards/etc. At the end of the day, companies spend to try and push their product to us all. They might select particular media because they believe it particularly effective for their market/demographic. But there are plenty of other media all calling out for their advertising money. So with or without TV ads we will all still be paying at least the same for their marketing.

Ian



Maybe but this particular thread is about television and payment for the same. TV advertising is also vastly more expensive than the other media you mention.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Mar 2014, 11:43am

pete75 wrote: ... At least only people with a TV have to pay for the BBC. Commercial broadcasting is paid for largely by adverts. The cost of this advertising is added to the price of goods so even those without a television are paying for commercial broadcasting.
There's no way of avoiding this charge either because if you don't have a TV you won't even know which goods to boycott if you don't want to pay for TV advertising. ...


I'd agree that advertising is a hidden cost in a lot of stuff people buy and even stuff that's promoted as avoiding such costs - own brands - is still advertised. The retailer whose motto was "good wine needs no bush" might not prosper. It's abour as weak an argument for the TV licence as I'
ve heatrd.

I like your sense of irony - former police officer describing BBC management as flabby :D


yep: it's canteen humour and it's a bad thing. :oops: But I don't hide behind the internet to do my sniping. I can (usually) take it as well as dishing it out.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16971
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Mar 2014, 12:17pm

Surely one of the arguments for the BBC is that the existence of channels without advert breaks moderates the quantities of adverts on other channels.

I am pretty close to dropping both payTV and the license fee itself. There is *so* little we actually watch now - and we could reasonable spend that money on BBC (etc) DVDs for the small people.
iPlayer is still available for non-live viewing (and I can't remember the last time I watched anything live - except for the 6 nations, I'll go and buy a pint to watch that)
itvPlayer, 4OD, 5 On Demand.

Obviously I need to "test" my in-laws SkyGO connection as well ;)

Just need to convince the wife...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

pete75
Posts: 12007
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby pete75 » 5 Mar 2014, 2:53pm

thirdcrank wrote: The retailer whose motto was "good wine needs no bush" might not prosper.



Actually you'd be surprised. We have a brewer around here called George Bateman and Son. I'd guess few from outside their largely Lincolnshire trading area have ever heard of them and they rarely, if ever , advertise yet their good beer attracts many into their thriving pubs.

kwackers
Posts: 13841
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby kwackers » 5 Mar 2014, 3:18pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Surely one of the arguments for the BBC is that the existence of channels without advert breaks moderates the quantities of adverts on other channels.

5 minutes watching TV in America will convince you of how horrible it can get. Even Sky with their American bias find the BBC to be moderating - hence Rupert's continuing sniping at them.
Lose the BBC and even non beeb watchers will suffer.

I'm of the opinion it's small change and well worth it for R4 alone (although giving it the occasional trim isn't a bad idea).

As for presenters salaries, theoretically they're set by market forces but like a lot of jobs I suspect the streets are overflowing with folk who can replace them so I don't see why the beeb should pay them so much. If they leave then get someone else in - simples. Eventually there'll be a surplus and the cost will fall...

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Mar 2014, 4:20pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Surely one of the arguments for the BBC is that the existence of channels without advert breaks moderates the quantities of adverts on other channels....


But the BBC has plenty of advert breaks advertising the BBC. (And burnt fingers with all those nasty "Auntie is watching you" ads for TV licence enforcement.) There are all sorts of ways of financing telly, and an annual tax on television sets is long overdue for change. IMO.

kwackers
Posts: 13841
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby kwackers » 5 Mar 2014, 4:38pm

thirdcrank wrote:But the BBC has plenty of advert breaks advertising the BBC. (And burnt fingers with all those nasty "Auntie is watching you" ads for TV licence enforcement.)

Do they amount to over 20 minutes per hour of TV?
Do they suddenly cut into the program with no warning so you're often confused as to whether or not you're still watching the same program?
Do they have more ad breaks, short ones dotted all over and double length long ones with clips in the middle usually from a previous or even the next episode to remind you of what you're watching?

Unless you've sat and tried to watch American TV you've no idea how bad things can be when there's no moderation.

IMO if the alternative to the TV license is simply advertising then I'd rather they left it alone. If there's a viable alternative then I'm all ears...

Ron
Posts: 1189
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby Ron » 8 Mar 2014, 11:28am

Psamathe wrote: Personally I don't care who reads the news as long as they speak clearly, etc.. I don't need a celebrity and to meet my needs the BBC could find many hundreds of newsreaders who would be more than happy on normal salaries (normal for an office job wearing a suit).

Has the BBC ever gone out to look for a celebrity to read the news?
It appears to me the reverse is the case in that it is the newsreaders who become celebrities.

Psamathe
Posts: 10607
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby Psamathe » 8 Mar 2014, 11:33am

Ron wrote:
Psamathe wrote: Personally I don't care who reads the news as long as they speak clearly, etc.. I don't need a celebrity and to meet my needs the BBC could find many hundreds of newsreaders who would be more than happy on normal salaries (normal for an office job wearing a suit).

Has the BBC ever gone out to look for a celebrity to read the news?
It appears to me the reverse is the case in that it is the newsreaders who become celebrities.


Maybe so, I have no idea about the histories of the various presenters. So all the BBC have to do is find a capable (sensible salaried) person and get them to read the news. And when that person decides they are a celebrity and demands a £250000+ salary, BBC just say no and that presenter either leaves (making space for a new but capable sensible salaried person) or they stay on a reasonable salary.

BBC does not have to pay the mega presenter salaries because they have access to a vast pool of people capable of doing the job on sensible pay. It is the BBC's perception on needing "celebrity" that skews everything.

Ian

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby thirdcrank » 8 Mar 2014, 12:16pm

We had an example of this on the Harold Bird Show, AKA the regional BBCNes Programme, Look North. Several years ago, in an attempt to win viewers from the ITN equivalent Calendar, the BBC poached one of the Calendar presenters at a salary reported at the time to be several multiples of the quite generous norm for BBC regional news presenters (this is seen as a step to presenting the national news.)

I've no idea how successful this ploy was, but eventually, the presenter concerned mysteriously disappeared from the programme while still being shown as a member of the team on the website. Rumours circulated and the local press carried reports, which were more in the line of what's happening? Meanwhile, the salary continued to be paid to somebody who was effectively on garden leave, and who even appeared in the meantime in a cameo role playing themselves as a newshound in an episode of a television series.

I see it's now being reported that non-payment of the Licence fee is going to be treated as a civil debt, rather than a criminal matter, enforced in the magistrates' courts, with imprisonment being the ultimate sanction. Long overdue. I'm sure all the fair-minded people who work for the BBC will agree with this progressive measure, even if it means some of them feel a slight financial draught. IMO it's indefensible that people should go to prison for having an unlicensed telly.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10773
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 8 Mar 2014, 12:30pm

Hi,

Hip hip horah......................scrap the Licence fee..................

I see that the fear is that a 1 % non payment will mean a drop of £ 35 million in the BBC coffers..........but I see a raft of non payers and a serious problem for the Gov as a boycott would see the BBC disapear overnight as any Gov wanting to keep office will NOT put it on the tax payer through income tax :?

When the BBC started it was probably OK but how much propagander from GOV :?: Well it was the only thing to watch.

BBc is a job for mates or the boys which ever way you look at it, their news is just entertainment for the stars of their freinds, and recycled news is on the increase........final salary pensions........... :?:
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

kwackers
Posts: 13841
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby kwackers » 8 Mar 2014, 3:49pm

Psamathe wrote:BBC does not have to pay the mega presenter salaries because they have access to a vast pool of people capable of doing the job on sensible pay. It is the BBC's perception on needing "celebrity" that skews everything.

Ian

The BBC's perception?

I think you'll find the concept of 'celebrity' has little to do with the BBC and more to do with the 'fawning' general public who elevate these people to that status be they footballers, news readers or indeed - cyclists. ;)

Susan Whatserface left because the beeb wouldn't match the offer from some other channel - which to my way of thinking is exactly what you'd hope they'd do??? I've no idea what she was earning before but she's been there for a good few years - perhaps her salary predates the current mentality...

Psamathe
Posts: 10607
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby Psamathe » 8 Mar 2014, 4:38pm

kwackers wrote:
Psamathe wrote:BBC does not have to pay the mega presenter salaries because they have access to a vast pool of people capable of doing the job on sensible pay. It is the BBC's perception on needing "celebrity" that skews everything.

Ian

...
Susan Whatserface left because the beeb wouldn't match the offer from some other channel - which to my way of thinking is exactly what you'd hope they'd do???


Not "hope" but it is her choice. If BBC is regularly getting in new talent and allowing them to make their name and then move-on (when their salary expectations exceed what a public broadcaster can pay), then that is fine. In fact you could regard the BBC as providing a type of "apprenticeship". A lot depends on the detail of the role but at the end of the day people in all types of job in all sorts of sectors with all sorts of companies end-up moving on to progress their careers/incomes faster than their company can manage to provide. There seems no reason why the BBC should be any different just because they are spending our money. There is plenty of talent out there with sensible income expectations.

Ian

User avatar
BeeKeeper
Posts: 1265
Joined: 29 Apr 2011, 6:45am
Location: South Devon

Re: BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

Postby BeeKeeper » 8 Mar 2014, 6:32pm

I'm going to "out" myself and say we rarely watch anything but BBC plus a bit of Channel 4. ITV is mostly rubbish for me and I dislike the adverts. We also watch some of the Freeview channels showing old BBC and Channel 4 stuff like Time Team.

The salaries of the presenters don't bother me, the "stars" get high pay because they can and though I don't watch Top Gear it has been sold all over the world and no doubt the presenters have been suitably rewarded. People who sing and dance can get payed huge amounts, what's so special about presenters they need to be singled out for attack? We normally watch the BBC's breakfast show for a while each morning while chewing our wheatybangs, the presenters make it interesting. I wouldn't watch it if we had the sort of presenter you see say in North Korea or like they probably had in Soviet Russia.