BBC salaries published. Oh dear...

Fretwired

eSully said:

Fretwired said:

The BBC's on the wrong side of technology and unfortunately it is run by liberal idiots who can't see the writing on the wall.  In 20 years time the BBC won't exist as young people don't buy TV Licences as they don't watch the BBC. Neither of my sons have a TV licence. They are the Netflix generation.  The BBC needs to embrace change and face up to the fact that people consume media via the net. The iPlayer app is the future of the BBC with a subscription.

I disagree with your first statement here, I don't think the BBC are on the wrong side of technology.

The BBC have admitted as much. iPlayer is little more than a catch-up TV service. They launched the BBC Store in 2012 which allowed people to buy and download programmes from the BBC archives. It's been a total failure and the BBC has lost a lot of money and has decided to close it. People are buying streaming services like Netflix which has loads of content for a flat fee. The BBC is expensive, out of touch and makes poor TV drama. There's nothing to compete with the best of US TV and when Ripper Street returned (due to a hook up with Netflix which put in a new writing team and and more money) the programme was unrecognisable from the poor BBC version.

The BBC needs to change and improve the quality of what it offers or its finished.

Bridgehouse

Handsome_Chris said:

I want to use this thread to launch into a rant about Michael MacIntyre, but I really have got better things to do.

Such as??

Handsome_Chris

Bridgehouse said:

Handsome_Chris said:

I want to use this thread to launch into a rant about Michael MacIntyre, but I really have got better things to do.

Such as??

Attend a wedding that I have get totally destroyed at.

Drew_TNBD

Question - did the published list show job types and hours worked???

Evilmags

Drew_TNBD said:

Question - did the published list show job types and hours worked???

Nope just job titles. It's already causing unrest and anxiety at the Beeb though. 

Fretwired

The BBC's answer to the the pay gap .. replace expensive men with women ... you couldn't make this up. Maybe if the BBC only employs women the problem will go away ... I shan't be renewing my TV licence .. the BBC makes shite TV these days ..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/exclusive-bbc-plans-shunt-male-stars-shows-close-gender-pay/

Drew_TNBD

Evilmags said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Question - did the published list show job types and hours worked???

Nope just job titles. It's already causing unrest and anxiety at the Beeb though. 

Then the whole thing is fucking stupid. Someone doing 50 hours should get more than someone doing 35, and someone in front of the camera should get more than someone behind.

Bidley

Drew_TNBD said:

Evilmags said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Question - did the published list show job types and hours worked???

Nope just job titles. It's already causing unrest and anxiety at the Beeb though. 

Then the whole thing is fucking stupid. Someone doing 50 hours should get more than someone doing 35, and someone in front of the camera should get more than someone behind.

Nah nuance is such a patriarchal concept.

Evilmags

Drew_TNBD said:

Evilmags said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Question - did the published list show job types and hours worked???

Nope just job titles. It's already causing unrest and anxiety at the Beeb though. 

Then the whole thing is fucking stupid. Someone doing 50 hours should get more than someone doing 35, and someone in front of the camera should get more than someone behind.

Thing is none knows. The stuff they sell and make money on is easy to attach a value to. The rest of it is an unknown quantity. How much it is worth is speculative at best. How much would songs of praise earn on a commercial channel? 

Do people with proper Internet connections and a cable TV service watch it at all?

Fretwired

Evilmags said:

Thing is none knows. The stuff they sell and make money on is easy to attach a value to. The rest of it is an unknown quantity. How much it is worth is speculative at best. How much would songs of praise earn on a commercial channel? 

Do people with proper Internet connections and a cable TV service watch it at all?

The BBC should publish what they make from the sale of programmes and the ratings.  For example, the Graham Norton show gets sold to other countries and generates revenue. The Hollywood A-listers he gets on his show like him and his show gets high ratings. Therefore it can be argued that Norton is worth £850K. The same with Doctor Who - sold worldwide and generates additional income through the sale of merchandise.

However, its hard to justify a high salary to Emily Maitliss and co as Newsnight's ratings have fallen and not that many people watch it.

BigMonka

Fretwired said:

Evilmags said:

Thing is none knows. The stuff they sell and make money on is easy to attach a value to. The rest of it is an unknown quantity. How much it is worth is speculative at best. How much would songs of praise earn on a commercial channel? 

Do people with proper Internet connections and a cable TV service watch it at all?

The BBC should publish what they make from the sale of programmes and the ratings.  For example, the Graham Norton show gets sold to other countries and generates revenue. The Hollywood A-listers he gets on his show like him and his show gets high ratings. Therefore it can be argued that Norton is worth £850K. The same with Doctor Who - sold worldwide and generates additional income through the sale of merchandise.

However, its hard to justify a high salary to Emily Maitliss and co as Newsnight's ratings have fallen and not that many people watch it.

Do the BBC actually earn money from things like Graham Norton? I thought that Graham Norton's production company made it and sold it to the BBC, and then also sold it to other countries - so the production company earning the money rather than the BBC? Does anyone know for certain how it works?

Fretwired

BigMonka said:

Fretwired said:

Evilmags said:

Thing is none knows. The stuff they sell and make money on is easy to attach a value to. The rest of it is an unknown quantity. How much it is worth is speculative at best. How much would songs of praise earn on a commercial channel? 

Do people with proper Internet connections and a cable TV service watch it at all?

The BBC should publish what they make from the sale of programmes and the ratings.  For example, the Graham Norton show gets sold to other countries and generates revenue. The Hollywood A-listers he gets on his show like him and his show gets high ratings. Therefore it can be argued that Norton is worth £850K. The same with Doctor Who - sold worldwide and generates additional income through the sale of merchandise.

However, its hard to justify a high salary to Emily Maitliss and co as Newsnight's ratings have fallen and not that many people watch it.

Do the BBC actually earn money from things like Graham Norton? I thought that Graham Norton's production company made it and sold it to the BBC, and then also sold it to other countries - so the production company earning the money rather than the BBC? Does anyone know for certain how it works?

BBC makes money from the Graham Norton show .. his 'production company' is merely being tax efficient.

mellowsun

The public wants what the public gets.

People watch garbage such as the Graham Norton Show and so he gets paid a lot.

People will complain about salaries but still watch this stuff.

Fretwired

mellowsun said:

The public wants what the public gets.

People watch garbage such as the Graham Norton Show and so he gets paid a lot.

People will complain about salaries but still watch this stuff.

Not sure that's right - Clarkson and co earned millions on Top Gear but they owned the production company and Top Gear earned the BBC zillions, so people understood the pay. Norton is probably worth his £850K, but I really don't get Lineker's £1.7 million.

scrumhalf

I'm waiting for the day when the Beeb fills every representation criterion that the massed ranks of Tristrams and guardianistas deem to be politically acceptable, only for someone to do a double-take and say "hang on a minute, our prgorammes are absolute shit" and be shouted down.

Steffo

All the journalists earning 6 figures salaries are overpaid. None of them should earn enough to be on the "list" when their job description is mostly "read autocue".
With regards to the entertainers if the bring the money in then they should be rewarded.

chillidoggy

scrumhalf said:

I'm waiting for the day when the Beeb fills every representation criterion that the massed ranks of Tristrams and guardianistas deem to be politically acceptable, only for someone to do a double-take and say "hang on a minute, our prgorammes are absolute shit" and be shouted down.

Anyone else catch the irony there?

capo4th

I don't get what people are up in arms about.

Some people are more talented than others. Some people generate more viewers and profits than others.

People saying everyone should all be paid the same are deluded idiots probably working in a shit role with poor pay.

ThePrettyDamned

I think they need to be very, very careful about comparing like - for - like. 

10 years on eastenders male vs 10 years on eastenders female - what is the difference, and do they otherwise work the same? If so, the difference should be small. 

Comparing claudia winkleman to graham norton doesn't make as much sense as, although the roles are similar, the output and responsibility is very different (longer chats with a list celebs vs... Strictly?). Strictly is a successful show and she is paid very well for co-presenting it. 

I don't really get Gary L though. Perhaps he does more than I realise. 

Fretwired

ThePrettyDamned said:

I think they need to be very, very careful about comparing like - for - like. 

10 years on eastenders male vs 10 years on eastenders female - what is the difference, and do they otherwise work the same? If so, the difference should be small. 

Comparing claudia winkleman to graham norton doesn't make as much sense as, although the roles are similar, the output and responsibility is very different (longer chats with a list celebs vs... Strictly?). Strictly is a successful show and she is paid very well for co-presenting it. 

I don't really get Gary L though. Perhaps he does more than I realise. 

Although Winkleman does a few BBC shows - Film, the Great British sewing bee, Strictly come dancing and the Makeover show - so on a work rate basic she's probably value for money.