BBC PRESENTERS SALARIES !

[hondated]

Given that in recent days there has been talk of a BBC presenter moving over to Itv for a million pounds its got me wondering why we the licence payer are paying presenters who each work probably three days a week 250k a year.
Just like when Rooneys salary is discussed some would say its market forces but how can that be the case in this instance.
Hopefully one of you will convince me that paying the presenters so much can e justified.

[Mark1978]

It can't be justified simple as that really. If commercial stations want to pay their talent a fortune then fine but the BBC as a public body should not be paying mega salaries. Sure you can pay a good salary to keep talent but there is no need for multi hundred thousands.

[freeflow]

I'm sure the BBC is paying the smallest salary it can. The sour grapes from those who have been unable to make themselves special enough to command similar salaries is inevitable.

[thirdcrank]

The green-eyed monster isn't the only reason to have an opinion on BBC pay policy. The fact that this is partly financed by a substantial tax on every household with television receiving equipment installed, whether they watch the BBC's output or not, entitles anybody to express an opinion.

[Psamathe]

I think a lot of the mega salaries is driven by the western cult of celebrity. 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). Same applies to all programs. It is down to what the person on-screen does, not what year they were on Big Brother.

But something about our society these days seems to admire celebrities who have done and achieved nothing other than being famous. And for some reason the BBC feels it needs celebrity and will pay (dearly) for it. Anyway, it's not like the BBC executives who are handing out (and receiving) these massive salaries are actually paying for it.

It is a prime example of spin over content and reflects poorly on our society.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... I don't care who reads the news ...

And I'd be very pleased if they did read the news more often, rather than organising bulletins around "eye-catching" footage and using so many redundant graphics. While I'm on, I don't like trailers for BBC programmes presented as news items. ("You can see more about this.....")

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Classic BBC blow you own horn or blow it for one of your BBC mates......................"The One Show".....some one will explain what that's all about

I hope before I die that the BBC is scrapped and Queens Medals for Kate's favourite parents web site along with the one who delivered the Prime M's and Golden Will's baby are not publicised to the public at all.

[horizon]

I looked at it like this:

Presenter of one hour show gets £1m per year and attracts 1 million viewers per show. That's £1 per viewer per 5O shows or 2p per show. That's cheap and good VFM.
Presenter of one hour show gets £100,000 per year and attracts 50,000 viewers per show. That's £2 per viewer per 50 shows or 4p per show, double the price.

(You can vary the figures but you can see where I'm coming from.)

[pete75]

The green-eyed monster isn't the only reason to have an opinion on BBC pay policy. The fact that this is partly financed by a substantial tax on every household with television receiving equipment installed, whether they watch the BBC's output or not, entitles anybody to express an opinion.

Substantial?? Don't know how much it is where you live but round here it's minuscule - 145 quid a year - a pint of beer a week. The seems good value for money - several TV channels, quite a few good radio stations both nationally and locally. Radio 4 alone is worth the 3 quid a week the licence costs.

[thirdcrank]

The licence fee may be excellent value for those who watch the BBC, especially if they have bourgeois cultural tastes, when their choice of entertainment is often heavily subsidised, but for anybody who doesn't watch the BBC it's a rip off. There's a lot more to this than the programmes: in management terms, the BBC seems to be about as flabby as it gets.

[Mark1978]

I'm sure the BBC is paying the smallest salary it can. The sour grapes from those who have been unable to make themselves special enough to command similar salaries is inevitable.

Not so, I'm not interested in presenters jobs. I just want to see good value for the money I'm paying. For every well known presenter who asks for £500,000 the BBC can bring on it's own on £100,000 - a substantial wage as it is.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
The BBC is independant of the government...........Yes......I will say it again the BBc is independant of the Government............No

Well if the BBC is trully Independant of the government then why do the Government set the Licence fee

And why are we forced to pay just because its there

The argument is always said that the BBC produce good programs...............

[Psamathe]

And why are we forced to pay just because its there

The argument is always said that the BBC produce good programs...............

If they really do produce good programs then they should be in a very strong position in a commercial situation and should have no difficulties were they switched to a voluntary subscription basis. But if their programs are not up-to-scratch then in a commercial subscription market they would go bust. But if their programs are not up-to-scratch then what justification is there for us all to be forced to subscribe (whether we watch or not).

It does seem a complete logical absurdity in the current broadcasting market place that one broadcaster just sits there racking in vast sums of money making no effort to attract subscriptions or revenue. There was maybe some justification for the licence fee system when the BBC were producing programs that were of special interest, or educational value, etc. But these days they are after ratings; so we end-up with straight-up Saturday evening competition with the commercial broadcasters; "me too" programs that make life harder for those who are trying to earn their revenue.

And when we see the salaries and pay-offs they award each other ...

Ian

[Mark1978]

That sounds sensible, but then look at the output of the main commercial station, ITV. Almost without exception their output is dire, shows it's not always commercial pressure which drives good programming.

[pete75]

The licence fee may be excellent value for those who watch the BBC, especially if they have bourgeois cultural tastes, when their choice of entertainment is often heavily subsidised, but for anybody who doesn't watch the BBC it's a rip off. There's a lot more to this than the programmes: in management terms, the BBC seems to be about as flabby as it gets.

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