BBC top earners

[Dasit]

Where are the Racial inequalities?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/bbc-a...-are-paid-a-fraction-of-white-talent-6790926/



I couldn't care less it is a market place and supply and demand dictates price. Just ironic when you see the BBC pay structure compared to the message they give.

 

[SocketRocket]

Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot. Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry. The likes of Wogan and Forsyth were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Now this is where is gets subjective. Forsyth had a major negative effect on Strictly for me. It is much improved since Claudia joined up. It would be even better if Tess was kicked off. They are all presenters. Presenting looks easy, watch Ant & Dec, but then you get a bad presenter, Tess and you realise why good ones get the big money. A presenter holds a show together, making it look seamless and smooth.

These people are paid the market rate, actually likely to be less than the market rate, so trying to compare or validate is like asking whether a footballer is worth their salary, a council leader their salary etc. They are paid what the rate is in that industry.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot. Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry. The likes of Wogan and Forsyth were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.

They are presenters so they don't need to be able to dance , they don't need to act - they just need to be able to present the program and looking at the responses from the public ( apart from old men on a golf forum ) appeared to do very well . I certainly enjoy Strictly with Winkleman presenting and think she is very good , she was very good on it takes two as well along with the other dozen programs she has present over various channels.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

People can apply to not pay for the Telly License but obviously then you won't be able to use one single BBC service including website , radio , television channels - not bad for £100 a year

The wages being paid to certain presenters im sure will be based on the program's and the amount they present - Linekar i agree shouldn't be paid as much based on one highlight show but it's popular - Winkleman fronts one of the most popular programs on telly and in confident that millions love her being on telly - for me she is worth the money but that's where it's all subjective when people "judge talent" - reckon there are a couple of million out there disagreeing with "questionable talent" remarks.

Don't forget iPlayer...gotta be a licence payer to use that...

And if you don't pay the licence fee should you be able to go to any free live events or be in the audience for any programmes. If you don't pay then no say...?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot. Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry. The likes of Wogan and Forsyth were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.

So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience. Course there are......

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...

 

[SocketRocket]

So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience. Course there are......

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...

OK 'Millions' might be a slight exaggeration but there are people as or more talented than the likes of Winkleman and Daly in their droves, lets face it, it doesn't take much to be better than those two. They don't exactly 'Hold the Audience' the show is managed by others and they more or less stand around on the sidelines talking rubbish. Brucey had so much more personality than the two put together.

 

[SocketRocket]

They are presenters so they don't need to be able to dance , they don't need to act - they just need to be able to present the program and looking at the responses from the public ( apart from old men on a golf forum ) appeared to do very well . I certainly enjoy Strictly with Winkleman presenting and think she is very good , she was very good on it takes two as well along with the other dozen programs she has present over various channels.

I can believe you have that opinion.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I can believe you have that opinion.

And by that you mean ? Are you judging someone based on the program and presenter they enjoy watching ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience. Course there are......

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...

The good ones are very good and I agree they make it look simple. Ant & Dec are masters of their craft and can make a live show seem very easy. I don't think Winkleman in particular is as adept (my opinion) and doesn't add anything to the presenter role on Strictly. Daly is effiecient but again lacks a certain warmth.

There are probably many other very good presenters of live TV out there but it's finding the right people for the right format and that's what the BBC commissioning staff do well a lot of the time and it is then a case of paying the going rates to secure your preferred presenter

 

[BristolMike]

The good ones are very good and I agree they make it look simple. Ant & Dec are masters of their craft and can make a live show seem very easy. I don't think Winkleman in particular is as adept (my opinion) and doesn't add anything to the presenter role on Strictly. Daly is effiecient but again lacks a certain warmth.

There are probably many other very good presenters of live TV out there but it's finding the right people for the right format and that's what the BBC commissioning staff do well a lot of the time and it is then a case of paying the going rates to secure your preferred presenter

Thats the issue. The best people cost a lot of money. The BBC wouldn't be able to afford Ant and Dec now and lots of others would chase the riches elsewhere. the list wasn't that surprising to me really, yes there are a higher percentage of men on that list, but if you look at the highest earners, they have all been around a long time and all working on the most popular shows.

I'm not a fan, but isn't Strictly one of the BBCs top earning shows? I'm sure I read that they sell the access worldwide, the same as Top Gear. If I was on that show I would expect to be paid more than other shows as it's revenue generating.

 

[SocketRocket]

And by that you mean ? Are you judging someone based on the program and presenter they enjoy watching ?

By that I mean I can believe you would take that opinion. Would you prefer me to say I cant believe you would take that opinion.

 

[Hacker Khan]

OK 'Millions' might be a slight exaggeration but there are people as or more talented than the likes of Winkleman and Daly in their droves, lets face it, it doesn't take much to be better than those two. They don't exactly 'Hold the Audience' the show is managed by others and they more or less stand around on the sidelines talking rubbish. Brucey had so much more personality than the two put together.

I like Claudia, she brings a warmh and a sense of silliness and humour to what is essentially a silly premise of a program. Brucey was good at the start but at the end he was a bit of an embarrassment and went on for 2 series too long. And they are not producers of the show or the on set show runners, they are the presenters, it is not their job to manage the show. And for as long as TV has existed the people in front of the camera have been and always will be paid more as they are the ones that often make or break the show in the eyes of the public. I meant hold the audience as in keep the viewing figures high.

But it's all opinions and the only opinions that matter in this case are the people who decide who does these programs and decide how much to pay them.

 

[drdel]

The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.

Aren't a lot of these presenters already the new guard and have taken over from long standing presenters ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.

I don't think the likes of Winkleman and Daly are new talent and have been around for years. I like the idea of giving new talent it's head and sometimes it works and sometimes (especially live) it doesn't

 

[Hacker Khan]

The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.

Well they tried with getting rid of the old guard with Dr Who but that seemed a step too far for some. I'm sure the BBC hold auditions for these top positions and don't just give them away.

And as for luck then most people in a top well paid position in all walks of life are there down to an element of luck.

 

[Sweep]

Well you don;t seem to like the Beeb do you. Me? perfectly happy with the service provided on TV, Radio and through free Live events - and for £2.80 a week...what a bargain.

I don't think we should be forced to pay for the BBC. If I had the choice I wouldn't pay and I wouldn't use it. It's living on past glories when it had vertually no competition and a captive audience. When you see what can be created and offered by the commercial broadcasters it puts the BBC to shame. If you are not into Strictly or Eastenders there really isn't much left. They couldn't even keep hold of Bake Off much to HK's horror. Just look at Sky's Open coverage or what they create on Atlantic. The world has moved on and the BBC is a thing of the past.
Lets face it, if the Beeb was any good, you wouldn't spend your evenings foaming at the mouth and rocking backwards and forwards listening to LBC would you?

 

[Sweep]

I love the fact people equate the low level of public wages on the fact a minute handful of BBC employees are paid slightly less then they would get at a commercial station. Nothing to do with government policy.

As someone said earlier, when we have the government suddenly finding a billion that apparently did not exist earlier so they could pay the public sector more, then I'm not 100% sure the fact that Chris Evans is paid well is quite the nub of low public sector pay conundrum. Unless I suppose you are Dacre or Murdoch of course who need to keep their readers enraged about this. For purely altruistic reasons of course :smirk:

In fact the more it annoys Daily Mail and Murdoch the more I will listen to advert free, non advertiser influenced music on 6 Music, great live sport and podcasts from 5 Live and Radio 4 (try out the Seriously podcast or The Infinite Monkey Cage, they really are excellent), watch great music and science documentaries from BBC 4 or crime dramas on BBC 1 and 2. And all for less than the price of a pint a week. Bargain in my book.

And I love it when faced with yet more waste of public money the rabid left justify it by pointing at some government policy they don't agree with. The BBC were never going to get another billion (thank God). As you said, it has nothing to do with government policy, so what has finding another billion got to do with it?
This is about the public getting value for money. £550k for an autocue reader does not represent value for money.
Are you really saying you cannot see the connection in paying these vast sums of money to entertainers with public money and the amount we pay to the emergency services with public money? Only a couple of weeks ago you were saying how lucky we were to have the NHS. Are we equally lucky to have the BBC? Who is worth more?
I have to say, I don't really think Murdoch or anyone at the Daily Mail gives two hoots if you use the BBC or not. Do you think you may be getting a little obsessed with Mr Murdoch and his evil empire? Do you think they are spying on you? 😀

 

[Sweep]

Don't forget iPlayer...gotta be a licence payer to use that...

And if you don't pay the licence fee should you be able to go to any free live events or be in the audience for any programmes. If you don't pay then no say...?

Now don't be silly. That would mean that the Question Time audience would be full of lefties.... oh hang on...