« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC Trust report on presenters' pay.

Eddie Mair | 13:05 UK time, Monday, 2 June 2008

We'll talk about it tonight. You can read the Trust's conclusions here, the BBC News coverage is here.

money.jpg

If you'd like to read the full report, this is the link and there is oodles more from the BBC Trust about all this here.

Comments

  • 1. At 1:21pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    I'd love to know how much OLIVER & OHLBAUM ASSOCIATES charged - for what is really a pointless report.

    After skipping through some of it - I wonder why the BBC has to be so hugely competitive - when resources could often be used to better uses elsewhere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 1:24pm on 02 Jun 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    I was watching a programme the other night about the Spike Milligan and the stormy relationship he had with the BBC. What strikes me from that is that the "suits" who know nothing about the TV/Radio business should have no say in who gets hired/fired or how much they get paid.

    If someone is worth that mount of money then fine. If now, if it's just a ploy to stop "the other side" getting the person then that's just stupid, petty and irresponsible.

    Just think how things might have turned out for Tony Hancock if he'd been paid the equivalent of JR. Might he have realised that what he did really was appreciated and not topped himself? Who knows? The point is, the money might conceivably be OK, but it has to be the right people making the decision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:42pm on 02 Jun 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    I watched the whole of the BBC trusts Sir Michael Lyons being grilled on BBC breakfast (available on the bbc website). He made interesting points about confidentiality over naming stars and prices.
    What I would like to know is that why not let the audience know the real range of salaries? i.e. x number in the 75,000 to 100,000 UKP and y number in the 100,000 to 1,000,000 UKP.etc

    Its interesting to note that if Woss does get 500,000 UKP per month, then that is an hour of top end drama that we miss out on.

    I firmly believe that the Beeb should be the number one talent spotting and opportunity place in the media spectrum. Sadly it's often the case that those who shout the loudest get the opportunity rather than the quieter thoughtful voices with something interesting to say.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 2:39pm on 02 Jun 2008, miraculousginger wrote:

    i would have no major issue with the licence fee as it stands, if it wasn't for the sort of money the bbc throw at the likes of Ross, Norton, and Moyles.

    prime time tv/radio it may be, but prime time advertising money it is not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 2:51pm on 02 Jun 2008, grumps wrote:

    So the 'BBC Trust' thinks the 'BBC' pays it's presenters at a reasonable level - well there's a surprise.
    Could it have anything to do with the word BBC I wonder.
    I'm not really au fait with what presenters get but I remember reading that Angus Deyton used to get £50,000 for each episode of Have I got News For You.
    If this is true, and representative, then the 'BBC Trust' believes that presenters of a 2 hour program are entitled to receive an amount that it would take someone on the national average wage, TWO YEARS to earn.
    Is there anyone unassociated with the word BBC that agrees with that?

    There are two problems here.
    1. The Trust.
    Obviously too deeply associated with the BBC, and too out of touch with the real world, to provide any meaningful reviews.
    We really need some 'normal' people involved in the reviews to get a realistic outcome.

    2. The Media generally.
    Too full of themselves and too self promoting.
    Look at how many of the 'Rich and Famous' today are people that are paid too much for doing very little - and most of them from the media - and many of them just autocue readers.

    As an enforced licence payer I would like to see the salary of each BBC employed presenter appear on the screen next to their name.
    What an eye-opener that would be for the hard-working people of this country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 2:53pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    It's not only the Ross's and Moyles of this world.

    I find it hard that Five can pay such a huge figure for Natasha Kaplinsky.

    It of course means that people are viewing the programme because Natasha is fronting it?

    Have we really turned into a nation that chooses it's news reader over the content of the News?

    This is of course how RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana) Italy's public service broadcaster has always conducted business - but it does seem that the UK including the BBC is choosing the same road

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:00pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    For example - I happen to know that this woman is paid a fortune :-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKmMpwjrIFs

    But I'd rather have Huw Edwards personally

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 3:05pm on 02 Jun 2008, DI_Wyman wrote:

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........................Natasha Kaplinsky

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 3:24pm on 02 Jun 2008, miraculousginger wrote:

    if a normal channel pays a presenter a massive salary it is because they attract viewers which in turn allows them to increase advertising fee's.

    in the bbc's case, its spend spend spend, so that they can justify increasing the licence fee again and again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 3:37pm on 02 Jun 2008, Prodnose wrote:

    I agree with much of what has gone before, here.

    It does seem that the BBC Trust have asked the wrong questions, being concerned with whether or not they were paying the market rate and whether they were distorting the market. What they should have been asking was whether acting in this way fulfills its remit as a Public Service Broadcaster, which surely it cannot be.

    I don't have an issue with how much Natasha Kaplinsky is paid by Five: if that is what they wish to pay for her services then good luck to them: it's not my money they're spending and, presumably, they believe it is money well spent.

    I do have an issue with the likes of Messrs Ross and Moyles being paid such large sums by the BBC. If these people can earn these large sums of money elsewhere, as the report implies, then let them. It strikes me that the entertainers would still be getting their large fees; the commercial broadcasters would increase their audiences and hence their advertising revenues; those people who wanted to watch/ listen to these people would still have the opportunity to do so and the BBC would have millions more to spend doing what it’s supposed to: producing interesting, high-quality programming. Everyone wins.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 4:02pm on 02 Jun 2008, DI_Wyman wrote:

    jonnie, 7, being welsh, she deserves every penny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 4:11pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    I agree with both miraculousginger and prodnose.

    I n the case of Terry. It's rumoured he's paid around 800K - I trust that includes the Eurovision evening.

    Terry gets on average 8 million listeners.

    I say Terry, however it is Radio 2 with a very specific music format, broadcasting to a hauge drivetime audience.

    My point is, if say Roger Sawyer was to stand in for Terry and talk about glassboxes and animals between the discs - and read out all the letters and witter on I wonder if the figures would take a tumble?

    It'd be interesting to see, though obviously impracticle for PM.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 4:19pm on 02 Jun 2008, Bigsyboy wrote:

    Just imagine how much Jonathon Woss would be worth if he could speak properly!! :o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 4:22pm on 02 Jun 2008, grumps wrote:

    So the 'BBC Trust' thinks the 'BBC' pays it's presenters at a reasonable level - well there's a surprise.
    Could it have anything to do with the word BBC I wonder.
    I'm not really au fait with what presenters get but I remember reading that Angus Deyton used to get £50,000 for each episode of Have I got News For You.
    If this is true, and representative, then the 'BBC Trust' believes that presenters of a 2 hour program are entitled to receive an amount that it would take someone on the national average wage, TWO YEARS to earn.
    Is there anyone unassociated with the word BBC that agrees with that?

    There are two problems here.
    1. The Trust.
    Obviously too deeply associated with the BBC, and too out of touch with the real world, to provide any meaningful reviews.
    We really need some 'normal' people involved in the reviews to get a realistic outcome.

    2. The Media generally.
    Too full of themselves and too self promoting.
    Look at how many of the 'Rich and Famous' today are people that are paid too much for doing very little - and most of them from the media - and many of them just autocue readers.

    As an enforced licence payer I would like to see the salary of each BBC employed presenter appear on the screen next to their name.
    What an eye-opener that would be for the hard-working people of this country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 4:23pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    Re;- DIY
    Remember Barbara Edwards our weather lady yonks ago?

    This is the Italians version ;-)

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B51p0kJam7A&fmt=18

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 4:25pm on 02 Jun 2008, jonnie wrote:

    Actually I think she was doing traffic ;-(

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 4:34pm on 02 Jun 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    The problem really boils down to fear at the top end of the commissioning / editorial pyramid. If you are not a risk taker, then it is very easy to say I'll recommission even when a series is well past it's sell by date or not at all entertaining...(please blog suggestions that fit this category!!). You have to have a culture that allows a certain percentage of failures without recrimination. If you don't have that culture in a broadcaster you are doomed to sausage factory looky likies. You are also doomed to have the same 'old faces' instead of nurturing some new. Lower cost production techniques should have allowed this, but they have never been properly embraced. Digital mutichannels has just meant speading the jam even thinner until there is no jam. Solving these problems is possible but requires intelligent thinking and the sweeping away of bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:05pm on 02 Jun 2008, Fifi wrote:

    I too agree with Prodnose. Didn't the BBC pay Noel Edmunds several million to stay OFF the telly for a few years? That's just sickening.

    And Jonnie, when Terry is on one of his many holidays, the supply of amusing correspondence dries up ... and what is read out by the stand-in presenter loses much of its pith because the delivery isn't right.

    Some talent really IS irreplaceable, I guess.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:15pm on 02 Jun 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    Fifi (18) Couldn't disagree with you more. Talent has to be
    (1) found
    (2) nurtured
    (3) given regular work.
    I can't tell you how many people I have seen that would be very good on a telly or radio slot, but will never get the chance because the risk takers are not there. There is another Wogan / Ross / Moyle but the people who gave these people their first break simply do not exist IMHO at the moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 5:24pm on 02 Jun 2008, Fifi wrote:

    mygloriousleader - Not sure we are actually disagreeing! I agree with your 3 points. :o)

    However when I worked at an independent radio station, the understanding was that would-be presenters would generally get a grounding with us, spend a year or two enduring relatively low pay at the BBC to get it on their CV, and then take their pick of the jobs either at the Beeb or an independent station where there were more realistic budgets.

    Hazel Irvine got it the wrong way round though: went from being a production assistant (with no prospects of promotion) at Radio Thingy, to maternity cover sports presenting at Scottish Telly, then was snapped up by Auntie where she's been ever since!

    For the talent whose already huge salaries we're discussing, there is no shortage of regular work (maybe not all of it at the BBC).

    It's the up-and-coming new talent who suffer from the fact that money for risk taking on newbies isn't there any more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 5:27pm on 02 Jun 2008, tmarkfleming wrote:

    What a shame the Conservative spokeman spouts such nonsense; can he truly mean that the BBC should wait until everyone has been offered a job in the private sector and only then look to see if there is anyone left with talent to do some public broadcasting? A supreme example of how to lower standards to the very bottom. To be enjoyed the BBC needs to have broad appeal. If it is demoted to only a dull PBS look-a-like, it will be a disaster. We need the BBC as is. Neutral news is essential, amongst other things. Please let us hope the Tories buck up their ideas before they get in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 6:09pm on 02 Jun 2008, Sid wrote:

    Mr Prodnose - you say you don't care how much Channel Five pay Ms Kaplinsky, as it's not your moeny they're spending.

    But it IS, dear chap - the cost of advertising adds to the cost of what you buy in the shops. You pay for the BBC through your licence fee, and for other channels at the supermarket till ...






    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 7:30pm on 02 Jun 2008, festivalboots wrote:

    The so-called "top talent" have an income which is hundreds of times more than average. But, emphatically, these people are not hundreds of times more talented than average. This makes them vastly over-paid, no matter where they work.
    In this context it is difficult at best and probably quite vulgar to
    say that this income is "earned", for the recipients are paid more
    than their work is worth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 9:17pm on 02 Jun 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    i posted here, I thought, and my comment appeared in the Glass Box! no idea how that could happen, sorry about that.

    festivalboots @ 23, someone once wrote that value is not an absolute and what something is worth is all to do with how much some sucker will pay for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 08:40am on 03 Jun 2008, RJMolesworth wrote:

    The thing I find strange is that if JR is so talented why put his show on when half the population have gone to bed. I watched him when he was cheap and he's no better now than he was then. Possibly not as good.

    I have never seen Moyles, don't know who he is or when he is on so, to me, he's not worth a penny.

    If Angus Deyton did get 50K a show then then Talkback must be saving a fortune by paying guest presenters an appearance fee. Did that saving get passed on to the BBC? The fact that Deyton has never been replaced shows that he wasn't worth the money and that it wasn't necessary to pay that amount in the first place. I bet he'd come back for less now if they'd have him.

    I have always wondered what Bruce Forsyth gets paid. I have a theory that it's because he's relatively inexpensive ( I could never say cheap about Mr. Saturday Night).

    The problem we and the BBC face is that all this is very subjective. I can't stand Terry Wogan on the radio burbling away to himself but he is hugely popular. Even people I respect for their wit and intelligence like him. Beats the hel out of me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 09:33am on 03 Jun 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    RJ (25): Possibly because he's funnier if you've just spent the night getting p*ssed? ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 10:22am on 03 Jun 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    I have to say I'm with molesworth. Wossy is a far cry from the past chat show hosts. I watch snippets and I'm constantly disappointed by the calibre of his questions and the lack of intelligent follow through questions. I guess as big sis said it could be construed as tv for drunks but then doesn't that job usually fall to 4 or 5? Shouldn't the BBC be taking the higher ground?
    I think it was very interesting what Kevin Spacey said about the Lloyds Webber casting shows. Where is the equivalent show for the theatre? Should an audition be a game show?
    There is a lot of twaddle talked about that this is what the audience wants.
    Really?

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:18am on 03 Jun 2008, RJMolesworth wrote:

    I've just noticed that it is USD in that briefcase. Do you think Eddie is moonlighting for NBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 12:33pm on 03 Jun 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Molesworth (25):

    Re: Angus not being worth the money.
    I disagree. Even with the wonderful Paul Merton, I simply can't watch HIGNFY any more. On the the hand, I think Terry Wogan's great.

    If we want to cut down on huge wasted sums spent by the BBC, why not drop all the foopball? Anyone who wants to see it can just go along to their local waste ground or playing fields and watch the kids kicking the ball around. It's all the same isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:10pm on 03 Jun 2008, vainly_here wrote:

    SSC (29) Hear, hear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 3:05pm on 03 Jun 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    Hasn't the beeb just flogged off the tv ob department. So I guess sport will now be more expensive to cover for the corporation, won't it?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.