back to article Stop all news – it's time for us plebs to be told about BBC paycheques!

The BBC is trembling with excitement following the enforced publication of the annual salaries of on-screen stars earning more than £150,000 at the tax-funded broadcaster. Exclusive to all news outlets everywhere this morning (actual figures were embargoed until 11am to ensure that the key lunchtime news rush would be …

  1. ForthIsNotDead Silver badge

    Scrutiny...

    Of course, the ones paying REALLY close attention to this publication will be the nice people at HMRC.

    I bet there's some loose sphincters at the BBC "talent" dept. today.

    1. 2460 Something

      Re: Scrutiny...

      Nah, they are routing it through their off-shore accounts, nobody will be looking at them too closely.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Scrutiny...

      Alex Jones, I can't help thinking she'd be earning £20K max in any other job.

      1. silks

        Re: Scrutiny...

        Looks like she gets £500K for co-presenting the One Show. Not sure that's great value for the BBC tax payer.

    3. gandalfcn

      Re: Scrutiny...

      The whole thing is pointless unless all media are required to publish the details of how much they all pay. Starting with the Murdoch media and the Daily Wail.

      Will they? Will they f**k.

      So it is a waste of time you BBC bashers, aka Tories and the right wing media.

      1. rh587

        Re: Scrutiny...

        The whole thing is pointless unless all media are required to publish the details of how much they all pay. Starting with the Murdoch media and the Daily Wail.

        Indeed. Many were wailing as to whether Chris Evans is worth 10 Clare Baldings (who earned a paltry £150-200k), but conveniently ignored the fact that she doesn't actually do much work for the BBC. Although Balding seems to be ubiquitous, a huge amount of her work is for ITV, C4 or BT Sport (Horse Racing, Paralympics, The Clare Balding Show, etc). Despite T May's assertions, it is not "like for like" work. Some of the people on the list do one show a week, others are full time.

        Balding's only regular BBC gig is the Sunday Hour on R2, which puts her well amongst other niche output radio presenters.

        Evans/Lineker are outliers who we don't care about for purposes of overall gender analysis - what's more concerning is there are no women in positions 3-7 - where 5 men block out the £500k-£1Mil bracket.

    4. PatientOne

      Re: Scrutiny...

      People paying attention would have noticed this is payment from the license fee only: This isn't how much they earn in total, or how much the BBC are paying them in total - they could be paid in part (or in the case of some missing names, fully) from the commercial arm of the BBC which isn't included in the list, in addition to earnings from other sources, such as (as is mentioned below) production companies, shares etc.

      So more smoke and mirrors and outrage and a promise from the BBC to cut wages... or at least move payment away from the public eye.

      No loose sphincters involved: Just some quiet shell-games as they shuffle the money around a bit.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Scrutiny...

        "This isn't how much they earn in total.... "

        Well if you work one hour a week doing say a local BBC radio show and then earn £100m a year selling books about teabags, then why should it show that as part of this?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So my Jokey comment about employing a female doctor to save money was actually true.

    Life imitates art.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Well at least Jodie Whittaker can now set her own pay above Alex Jones, for starters. So 450K at least, Whittaker is worth every penny. Great actor.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      The Doctor is criminally underpaid. The guy who plays Charlie from Casualty (who's been in it since the beginning) gets about twice as much as Peter Capaldi. Shocking.

      Though to be fair, these figures don't include separate licensing type deals, so it's possible Capaldi gets lots of cash in merchandising rights. Which I doubt there's much of for Casualty, it not being a massive global brand.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "The Doctor is criminally underpaid. The guy who plays Charlie from Casualty (who's been in it since the beginning) gets about twice as much as Peter Capaldi. Shocking."

        Nothing to do with the Fact that Holby / Casualty are weekly shows, not a short series then?

      2. rh587

        The Doctor is criminally underpaid. The guy who plays Charlie from Casualty (who's been in it since the beginning) gets about twice as much as Peter Capaldi. Shocking.

        Though to be fair, these figures don't include separate licensing type deals, so it's possible Capaldi gets lots of cash in merchandising rights.

        I would say that's almost certainly the case - Merchandising will be managed by BBC Worldwide, who are a private company like ITV or C4 and consequently have not had to release figures (also why Attenborough is not on the list - his Nature Docs are commissioned by Worldwide).

      3. silks

        How many episodes of Casualty compared to Dr Who worked in the year though? The data doesn't show the hours worked, on or off screen so really hard to compare the value of the on screen talent compared to their renumeration.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The prime minister is paid a basic salary of £150k, and is expected to make the rest up in bribery, corruption, tax evasion, and privatisations that boost their own property portfolio.

    1. James 51 Silver badge

      The £150K for the prime minister is a purely political amount. If they could get away with more they could but given the money they make afterwards it''s not worth the hassle.

      1. Anonymous Custard Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Why should she be any different to the rest of parliament ?

        Thinking back to all those expenses stories and cushy directorships and "speaking tours".

        Posh duck house or B.Liar tours anyone...?

    2. fidodogbreath Silver badge

      The prime minister is paid a basic salary of £150k, and is expected to make the rest up in bribery, corruption, tax evasion, and privatisations that boost their own property portfolio.

      We recently moved to that system in the US.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "We recently moved to that system in the US."

        You have a wide ranging opinion of what "recently" means :-)

        1. fidodogbreath Silver badge

          You have a wide ranging opinion of what "recently" means

          Fair point. Our recent change was more like abandoning the pretense; or, how we learned to stop worrying and love the corruption.

      2. WolfFan Silver badge

        'Recently'?! Look up how Harry S Truman first got elected, starting with his very first political job, a County 'Judge', really kind of a commissioner.

        Space left for discussion of Daley, father and son

        More space left for Tammany Hall. Hint: Tammany Hall was started in the mid 1780s, or just after the French pried what's now the US loose from Britain.

        And it's not recent in the UK, either. <cough> Rotten borough </cough>

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The prime minister also gets a final salary pension calculated on the basis that they earned that £150K for their entire working life. A certain Mrs T brought that one in.

  4. Michael B.

    Today's real news

    Of course the real news today is that the retirement date has quietly been pushed forward to 68 for those currently between 39 and 47. Proving that today is a great day to bury bad news amongst this BBC salary froth.

    1. Nolveys Silver badge
      Windows

      Of course the real news today is that the retirement date has quietly been pushed forward to 68 for those currently between 39 and 47.

      Retirement will be the new Fusion, always 20 years away. Maybe the government will good enough to provide us with those nice relaxing rooms with the music and nature videos that were featured in the film Soylent Green.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Today's real news

      By the time I get to retirement it'll be at least 71 and I'm 40+.

      I am under no illusion. I'll get 10 years based on life expectancy.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Today's real news

      >Of course the real news today is that the retirement date has quietly been pushed forward to 68

      Might as well give up giving up smoking then because I'll have alzheimers by then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Today's real news

        Might as well you'll forget to smoke anyway.

  5. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    What's interesting

    Is the people not listed - Matt LeBlanc isn't on the list, which suggests he's paid by the commercial arm, BBC Worldwide.

    1. Complicated Disaster

      Re: What's interesting

      I expect they all will be next year!!

    2. BoldMan

      Re: What's interesting

      Or he wasn't actually employed by the BBC but by the production company that made Top Gear. These are only the salaries of people directly contracted to the BBC so all those like Chris Evans or Graham Norton who have TV production companies as well as BC contracts are paid even more.

      That said, so fucking what!

      1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: What's interesting

        Top Gear IS produced by the BBC.

        In other news, seems like Wiki are begging again.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: What's interesting

      As someone said, this doesn't include people paid by production companies. Or merchandising deals and the like. So it's only a partial list. I can imagine a few more stars wanting to use their own production companies because of it - as clearly the Beeb then won't be publishing their salaries.

      Although I guess the real PR trick is to get a really low base salary, and have the rest paid as a percentage of merchandising rights, or a separate contract with your own production company.

  6. 2+2=5 Silver badge

    Talent

    I find it odd the way these people are all referred to as 'talent': Graham Norton has talent whereas Huw Edwards is just a news reader.

    A more useful metric might be to divide the salary by the viewing figures to get an idea of who's earning their keep or not.

    1. BoldMan

      Re: Talent

      'Talent' is a catch-all term for those who appear in front of the camera or microphone...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Talent

      Graham Norton is very valuable because he shills upcoming movies. One of the few types of advertising the BBC can get away with.

    3. AndyMulhearn

      Re: Talent

      I find it odd the way these people are all referred to as 'talent': Graham Norton has talent whereas Huw Edwards is just a news reader.

      Compared to Dan Walker he is talent.

      1. Fink-Nottle
        Pint

        Re: Talent

        Norton? Lineker?

        Come on, everyone knows the BBC's real talent commentates on Test Match Special.

        1. FlossyThePig
          Pint

          Re: Talent

          Come on, everyone knows the BBC's real talent commentates on Test Match Special.

          TMS = many cakes!

          Pint icon because there isn't a cake one

  7. SkippyBing Silver badge

    We’re now managing a situation we didn’t want

    I think you'll find most people are Lord Hall. Because I sure as **** didn't want to be managing this poorly acted farce.

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: We’re now managing a situation we didn’t want

      Bit harsh. The BBC employs some fine actors...

      1. Swiss Anton

        Re: We’re now managing a situation we didn’t want

        The guy who pretends to be a nurse on Casualty is definitely worth 10 times the salary of a real, and very experienced, band 7 nurse.

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: We’re now managing a situation we didn’t want

          If Casualty wanted more realism, half the staff should quit every year.

  8. wiggers

    So is the BBC any different to any other similar sized organisation? What about the top echelons of the NHS for example, or the tax office? Or is it just 'let's have a go at Auntie' kind of slow news week?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/07/19/bbcs-top-pay-reveals-gender-pay-gap-this-is-normal-just-like-the-rest-of-society/

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Exactly. How long before we see all the other "named and shamed" high earners paid by the public purse? Will they be happy about having their personal salary spaffed all over the media and web?

      Local council execs, civil servants, NHS etc. It's a big list. And what about when the bar is lowered and anyone paid from the public purse is publicly named along with the salary? They'd all be out on strike, and quite rightly too.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        There is always the Norwegian system - where everyone's tax returns are available for public scrutiny.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. SkippyBing Silver badge

      So is the BBC any different to any other similar sized organisation? What about the top echelons of the NHS for example, or the tax office? Or is it just 'let's have a go at Auntie' kind of slow news week?

      If they're civil servants they'll be on pay bands, which are publicly available, the civil service and indeed the armed forces have complete gender pay equality. So the tax office will have, not sure about the NHS though...

      1. Mad Mike

        @SkippyBing

        "If they're civil servants they'll be on pay bands, which are publicly available, the civil service and indeed the armed forces have complete gender pay equality. So the tax office will have, not sure about the NHS though..."

        Really? Just bringing in publically available pay bands etc. doesn't give them gender pay equality. Firstly, how many women and how many men in each band? Secondly, the men can still earn at the top of the band and women at the bottom.

        1. SkippyBing Silver badge

          'Really? Just bringing in publically available pay bands etc. doesn't give them gender pay equality. Firstly, how many women and how many men in each band? Secondly, the men can still earn at the top of the band and women at the bottom.'

          Not sure about the numbers in each band but I suspect it's proportional to the numbers employed with the caveat women are more likely to take a career break to have children so may advance less quickly. But you go up an increment in each band every year until you reach the top of the band*. You advance to the bottom of the next band on promotion, there's no way to pay a women doing the same job less than a man.

          This is also why the public sector pay cap is less of a deal than some people make out, until you reach the top of a pay band you get an above inflation pay rise every year just for being there**.

          *This has recently changed in the armed forces to a bigger jump every other year but it's still automatic, there are normally ~5 increments in every band.

          **Admittedly it's a pain when you reach a top of your pay band at the point they introduce the pay cap and then don't get promoted for 5 years but hey, career choices.

  9. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Don't blame the stars for low pay

    > “But isn’t it quite embarrassing that two-thirds of those paid more than £150,000 are men?”

    I would expect that all these "stars" would have agents. People who negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. So if one "star" earns less than another, it can only be because that is what the agent negotiated and what they decided to accept.

    If women "stars" are being paid less than men, they should either stop accepting low-ball offers or get themselves better agents.

    A more reasonable value for money measure would be to calculate each "stars" £££s per viewer-hour rate. Take their pay and divide it by the number of viewers multiplied by the amount of time the viewers are forced to endure them watch or listen to them.

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

      Women don't learn what's out there to be had, so they accept what they're offered, and agents want to sell cheaper talent.

      If you think you are worth a certain amount argue for it. Don't do a preemptive cringe.

      I say that as a woman who got £30k more just for digging my heels in.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

        agents want to sell cheaper talent."

        Why would Mr/Mrs 10% want to sell cheaper talent?

        1. SkippyBing Silver badge

          Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

          Presumably a guaranteed 10% of a smaller figure is better than 0% of a larger figure? Or at least they're only going to put in an effort equivalent to 10% of the potential increase, which is why estate agents will settle for a lower figure selling someone else's house than their own (I think I read that in Freakanomics).

      2. Pete 2 Silver badge

        Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

        > Women don't learn what's out there to be had, so they accept what they're offered, and agents want to sell cheaper talent.

        Which puts them in exactly the same situation as the men - who will be equally oblivious to who gets paid what. Unless you are going to try to convince me that there is a cabal of agents (who only have male clients) that share rates of pay between themselves - but who never give out that information to others.

        And the original solution still applies: if you don't think your agent is getting you the best deal, change them.

        1. MyffyW Silver badge

          Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

          There's no fairness and transparency when it comes to pay. You're only worth what you can negotiate. If you think the job your doing is worth more, go get a similar role elsewhere and prove it to yourself and rest of the world.

          Personally speaking I think they're all greedy, compromised bastards. The next time John Humphries is giving some corporate shrill a toasting his own £600,000-a-year gig is bound to get thrown up.

    2. rh587

      Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

      If women "stars" are being paid less than men, they should either stop accepting low-ball offers or get themselves better agents.

      It would also seem that we're not seeing the entire picture - Alex Jones for instance seems to be underpaid compared to some of her co-hosts. She does quite a lot of stuff, and all for the BBC - so we should be seeing most of her income. But Clare Balding - who is down the bottom of the list - actually just doesn't do much work for BBC. She'll be on at least £1Mil/yr by the time you count her numerous C4 and BT Sport gigs.

  10. Duffy Moon

    The talent poaching argument

    There are very many talented people out there, who would happily work for a fraction of the top earners' salaries. I thought that one of the points of the BBC is that it doesn't have to chase ratings.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: The talent poaching argument

      I thought that one of the points of the BBC is that it doesn't have to chase ratings.

      It can afford to take more risks than most, perhaps, but it does effectively have to chase ratings. If it didn't, the right-wing papers would be decrying it as a failing waste of public money, ripe for defunding and potential acquisition by one R. Murdoch.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No-one and I mean NO-ONE, not even GOD is worth 2 million a year!

    Yes, pay people what they are worth but lets use a bit of common sense!

    Ooooops, I forgot, common sense is now an 'endangered species' and stupidity has replaced it. Unfortunately there is no known cure for stupidity!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Indeed: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/aug/12/executivesalaries.executivepay

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      His son on the other hand makes everyone look busy.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      No-one and I mean NO-ONE, not even GOD is worth 2 million a year!

      To give a specific example, I think David Beckham was.

      When he moved from Manchester United to Real Madrid, something like £20-£30m of merchandising income went with him. It toppled Man U from being the highest earning club in the world that year, and passed the crown to Real.

      So even without his undoubted talents on the field, he was worth something like £5-£10m a year just as a way of selling shirts.

      Similarly, someone like Clarkson made the BBC an awful lot of money via Top Gear, before it all went titsup. As well as being entertaining to 7m Brits, and tens of millions more worldwide. And to prove Clarkson did have something to do with it, when they brought in Chris Evans, he couldn't make it work. I don't know how well the Matt LeBlanc led version has recovered.

      To be fair to Evans his TFI Friday was a genuine cultural phenomenon back in the 90s. I hated it, but it was mandatory viewing amongst quite a bit chunk teens/twentysomethings. That is actually very hard to achieve, and so people who can manage it get very well paid by execs who can't, but are desperate for more of it.

      So talent that is thought to genuinely attract ratings, and is considered hard (see risky) to replace, will get paid lots more. Whereas people who are doing a good job in a field where lots of others are also good will get less - as you can replace them. There are plenty of good political journalists, but not many people who can successfully host a Saturday Night entertainment show. And that's one of the holy grails of TV channel controllers. So people like Norton, or Ant & Dec get big money.

  12. TheProf
    Facepalm

    Yes but no

    Well now. I don't like all this paying for on-screen talent. They should be proud, no bloody proud, to be working for the BBC. How dare they think that just because they do a few telly shows and the odd radio spot that they deserve money in return. It's not like any of them appear in anything good is it? How often has Gary Lineker or Graham Norton swished a sword in the direction of a dragon in Game of Crowns?

    What the BBC needs is to be broken up into smaller bite-sized morsels and then devoured by a large newspaper conglomerate. Preferably one that doesn't rely on stories about television celebrities taken directly from the pages of the Radio Times.

    Sorry, I came across all Daily Telegraph* there.

    *And The Times, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror ad nauseam.

  13. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    OK Not to defend the BBC and all...

    But some of the figures are a bit misleading. Some of the actors earning these figures also own production companies who are being paid by BBC and that goes into these figures, so its not like these are the values being paid solely for their acting/commentating/etc.

    Whilst there's all the rah rah rah about unequal pay, it would actually be interesting to see the pay per viewing hour between the female and male actors and THEN maybe we can see how big the difference is. But someone working one show 3-4 mornings a week should expect to be earning less than someone working 3 different shows multiple days per week, all other things being equal...

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: OK Not to defend the BBC and all...

      "Whilst there's all the rah rah rah about unequal pay, it would actually be interesting to see the pay per viewing hour between the female and male actors and THEN maybe we can see how big the difference is. "

      Maybe all the "talent" should have to fill out time sheets and get paid pro-rata per hour instead assuming that the headline salary is for a standard working week. Some of the lower paid would probably end up with more money :-)

      The point was also raised that the BBC gender pay disparity is not as bad as the national average gender pay disparity. But that was a BBC man saying that and $deity knows how accurate that statistic is!

    2. Blotto

      Re: OK Not to defend the BBC and all...

      I think you got that backwards.

      Many on the list and a lot more not on the list are paid by production or management companies. Their total salaries including from companies the BBC has paid is not shown.

      The excuse is that other BBC companies like BBC America may have paid or part paid. Ultimately it's the BBC that paid so should be included.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: OK Not to defend the BBC and all...

        Blotto,

        As you say these figures are incomplete. Some stars are paid by production companies, and those figures get missed off, not added to the list.

        For example I can't believe Peter Capaldi gets half the money for Doctor Who that the guy who plays the nurse in Casualty gets. Even though he's been in it since the beginning. But I'd imagine the Capaldi will be getting part paid by BBC Worldwide, or will get a percentage of global rights, or merchandising or something to top him up.

        But the Beeb can't publish salary figures from outside production companies. As the BBC don't know those figures. They know what they pay for the programs. What the companies do with that cash is up to them.

        Obviously the Beeb could make it part of their contracts that they have to be told, and publish it. Which may be what happens in future. But there wouldn't have been time to get all those contracts changed for the production of these figures - and the Beeb didn't want to publish these anyway, so probably wouldn't have pushed for that.

  14. Uberseehandel

    Who cares?

    Why is this site publishing this story. Why don't they wait until a 'droid presenting TV gets paid more than the humans?

    1. I am the liquor

      Re: Who cares?

      I think that's 20 minutes into the future.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Who cares?

      I'm waiting for Andrew's take on it.

      I'm sure it will be educational, entertaining, and informative.

  15. Bloodbeastterror

    And STILL incredible value for money

    Yes, of course I'm inviting downvotes - inevitable, since I've seen previous BBC-haters being vocal here.

    But for £150 a year I get the highest-quality dramas and news, respected and trusted throughout the world, on TV, radio and web.

    Sky? Virgin? Two times that amount? Three?

    And the crowning jewel - NO EFFING ADVERTS every ten minutes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And STILL incredible value for money

      "I get the highest-quality dramas and news"

      Pfff.... most of the time you get shit though don't you. If you like it, I'm really pleased for you, go ahead and enjoy. I don't really like it, or use it, and I'd like the choice not to pay for it, and for it to be cut off to me. But, if everyone didn't pay, then the service would be expensive for people like you. Far easier to make it a crime not to pay for Bargain Hunt repeats, endless cooking shows etc. so people who are fans of 'auntie' get subsidised by people who aren't.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        "I don't really like it, or use it, and I'd like the choice not to pay for it"

        And that's exactly what you have. If you can show (in the remote instance that anyone asks) that you never watch or listen to BBC then you aren't liable to pay the licence. If you do watch any, then not paying is theft, plain and simple.

        And no, most of the time I *don't* get excrement. There are constant tedious house and cooking programmes that I don't watch, but there are excellent documentaries on many subjects, great drama, lots of films, innovative comedy.

        So I repeat, unbelievable value for money, even if they squander far too much on overpaid gits whose major talent is finding the right agent.

        1. King Jack
          Holmes

          Re: And STILL incredible value for money

          "..never watch or listen to BBC then you aren't liable to pay the licence."

          You need to read what you need a TV licence for rather than spout shit. No wonder you think it's great you have no idea what it is.

      2. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        And once again: you do not pay the TV Licence Fee to watch the BBC. You pay it to watch broadcast terrestrial TV, all flavours, and recently, BBC iplayer live shows.

        The BBC is funded from a negotiated agreement some years in advance of the receipt of the license fees by the government, and is merely the body appointed as the agent to collect the licence. I strongly suspect - though I haven't worked there for years - that they really don't want to be the collecting agency but have had it forced on them.

        You have the choice, as we all do, not to pay for the service and to disconnect your TV from the aeriel. But as the original poster stated - I do believe that the BBC offers sufficient gems among the dross and repeats to make it worth the money. None of the alternatives have yet presented a sufficient reason *for me* to change to them - your mileage may vary.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And STILL incredible value for money

          > And once again: you do not pay the TV Licence Fee to watch the BBC. You pay it to watch broadcast terrestrial TV, all flavours, and recently, BBC iplayer live shows.

          Close, but still not quite right ...

          - a TV licence is required to watch any live TV whatsoever - either terrestrial broadcasts, satelite or online WORLDWIDE.

          - a TV licence is required to watch BBC iPlayer, either live or on demand.

          - no TV licence is required to watch any other on demand TV service

          - no TV licence is required to listen to BBC radio or any other radio service.

      3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        most of the time you get shit though don't you

        I'm prepared to admit that, and happy to accept it. What I watch and enjoy is most likely shit to many others but it all hopefully evens out in the end.

        £147 per year. If that's just 15 hours of programming I would have been willing to pay £10 an hour for I consider myself on to a winner. Or I could look at it as less than the cost of a pint a week. No matter how I slice and dice it; I consider it to be a bargain.

        "When we come back after the break we will find out just what The Doctor does to those pesky Daleks. But before we go; here are the details of this week's competition to decide who should be next week's companion in the furry robot suit - 1) Timmy Mallet, 2) Kourtney Kardashian 3) Katie Hopkins, or 4) Nick Knowles".

    2. King Jack
      Thumb Down

      Re: And STILL incredible value for money

      Stupid argument. One you are forced to pay on pain of a criminal record, the others are a choice. If I mugged you and only took your wallet and watch would you sing my praises whilst my buddy slit your throat? 'Wow what a great thief. He could have killed me but he didn't. Incredible value'. Why don't you lovers of the BBC pay double to help them out if it's so cheap?

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        @King Jack

        "If I mugged you and only took your wallet" etc...

        My native language is English. I speak a fair amount of French, German & Spanish, but my Moron is still a bit rudimentary.

    3. Swiss Anton

      Re: And STILL incredible value for money

      But the BBC still does plenty of adverts for its own stuff. So much so that for several weeks now, Dead Ringers (R4 6:30pm Fri) have been lampooning the BBC's adverts for the Hillary Mantel Reith Lectures. (BTW I have no idea who Hillary Mantel is, but I do like Dead Ringer's Brexit Bulldog sketches).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        "I have no idea who Hillary Mantel is, [..]"

        She writes novels on historical themes. Sort of creatively filling in the possible personal backgrounds to the known facts about such events. Came to general public attention when the BBC adapted a drama series from her "Wolf Hall" novel about Thomas Cromwell.

      2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

        Re: And STILL incredible value for money

        But the BBC still does plenty of adverts for its own stuff.

        Though it is more self-promotion that advertising. All other channels do the same, and the BBC doesn't drop them in the middle of programmes unless showing multi-part shows back-to-back..

        As best I can tell the main reason for so many these days is that BBC programmes are now made to be sold and licensed to those who do carry advertising and need 45 minute shows to fill an hour. That either screws the 'starts on the hour or half past' we are used to and like or they have to pad it out with other things.

  16. Dr. G. Freeman

    So you get more playing a Doctor on Casualty than being one in Real life ?

    Something not right there.

    A quarter mill for Brian Cox too ? that's more than my salary a year per sentence.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Broan Cox is expensive but I can understand why. What does Chris Evens do that gets him at the top of the list?

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "What does Chris Evens do that gets him at the top of the list?"

        Large listening/viewing figures. But the BBC don't care about ratings, do they?

        To be a little more serious though, in commercial entertainment, pay is based on viewers/listeners who can be advertised to, and the BBC has to compete with that. Likewise, ratings are important to the BBC, at least with respect to whether a show will continue or not and what the people on or making the show get paid. Other parameters are also used.

      2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        What does Chris Evens do that gets him at the top of the list?

        1. Has a good agent.

        2. Increased listener number for the R2 Breakfast Show (and, quite possibly, people who stay on R2 to listen to the follow-on shows due to inertia)

        3. Raises large amounts of money every year for Children in Need..

  17. Timbo

    "Whilst there's all the rah rah rah about unequal pay, it would actually be interesting to see the pay per viewing hour between the female and male actors and THEN maybe we can see how big the difference is. "

    What would be nice is if the BBC added some nice on-screen graphics for each "talent" and then we can see exactly how much they have earned whilst being "on screen"...the majority of which would be coming from the TV Licence money.

    I can just imagine a 10 second clip of Chris Evans with a "taxi cab meter" incrementing nicely as he speaks...at 2.2m per year, that's over £6k per DAY, every day...£251 per hour, £4.18 per minute or about 7p per second...every second !!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You are out by an order of magnitude. His presenting time is 15 hours, so less than 10% of a week. So when he is presenting he gets 71p per second. As I never listen to his show I don't know if he talks for the full 3 hours each day or has the grace to shut up when music is on.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        That makes for a good soundbite, and no matter how many hours he puts in, it's a lot of money, but I suspect he works more than the 15 hours he's on screen for. Anyone been in the audience of the TV show being made? How long does it take compared with the 25 to 50 minutes actually broadcast?

        I was watching a "making of" for a Tom Baker Dr Who story the other day. It looked like they spent about a week or more on location and a week or more in the studio to make six 23 minute episodes. And there was the rehearsal time before that.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ John Brown ...... "Anyone been in the audience of the TV show being made? "

          Unlikely as his 15 hours presenting a week is a live "radio" show.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            "Unlikely as his 15 hours presenting a week is a live "radio" show."

            Does he not do the Friday edition of The One Show any more?

            Ah, just Googled and no, not for about 2 years, but still, I doubt he just rolls in, sits down and starts the show, but yeah, that's a LOT of money, even for 30 hours a week!

      2. nijam

        > I don't know if he talks for the full 3 hours each day or has the grace to shut up when music is on.

        Chris Evans? Grace? Hahahaha!

        DJ(n): a person who hates music so much that they talk over ir at every opportunity.

    2. rh587

      What would be nice is if the BBC added some nice on-screen graphics for each "talent" and then we can see exactly how much they have earned whilst being "on screen"...the majority of which would be coming from the TV Licence money.

      Yes, but that doesn't really work.

      See, if you look at the News staff, some will spend a lot of time on air reading someone else's scripts - low apparent £-per-minute. Some may only do occasional or off-peak news bulletins and have other off-air journalistic/editorial duties. Without a full breakdown of all their duties, a counter for £/airtime is meaningless.

      For the other entertainment presenters/actors, we're assuming there is no preparation time, rehearsals, etc - clearly a faulty assumption.

  18. cd / && rm -rf *

    Fsck me ...

    Chris Evans is talent ? Last one out of the UK, turn the lights off...

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Fsck me ...

      He's not my cup of tea, but he has (or at least used to have) his finger on the jugularpulse of da Yoof.

      This really impresses TV execs, who generally don't. So gets rewarded. To be fair, TFI Fridays was must-watch telly back in the day amongst certain people. I believe his radio show gets good ratings, and breakfast shows get the most cash because the hours are unsociable and they're seen as setting the mood for the station. Plus that and "drivetime" is when people listen.

      I don't know whether he's over-paid or not. But his salary is a lot more justifiable than Gary Lineker, who doesn't do anything that some other presenter couldn't do. And was actually totally shit at his job when the Beeb hired him, and took years to get good at it.

      Evans actually has creative input into his shows. And has a record of successfully producing shows that get ratings. Lineker could easily be replaced by Inverdale or Barker, and nobody would notice. Bring back Des Lynam I say!

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Fsck me ...

        He's not my cup of tea, but he has (or at least used to have) his finger on the pulse of da Yoof.

        Or (given the station he broadcasts on), the pulse of da middle-aged, middle classes..

        (Why yes - that's me. I don't adore the guy, but he's clearly very good at his job - and the audience figures prove it. Whether you think that shows value for money is another thing)

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    £500k-£550k a year for Steve fucking Wright, the talentless twat has been playing the same middle of the road garbage LP since the 1980s.

    Rant over.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Wane Carr would do it for a tenth the money.

      Let's have a chinny-wag!

  20. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Coat

    Will Regina Eggbert demand a heafty pay rise?

    Or will The Register have to pay her "market rates" and match Huw Edwards' salary to keep her?

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/30/not_really_very_live_at_all_from_london_its_the_vulture_news_videocast/

  21. VinceH Silver badge
    Facepalm

    To howl or not to howl, that is the question

    "Take this howler, for example:

    Here's something we may actually be biased about - we reckon this is a pretty good deal. #BBC pic.twitter.com/kKsc8eiaBr

    — BBC Press Office (@bbcpress) July 19, 2017

    Did you see what they did there? That’s right – they’ve applied some kind of correction for inflation (which, incidentally, doesn't match what happens if you look up the same values using the Bank of England's inflation calculator) to “prove” that the Telly Tax is somehow cheaper now than it was 31 years ago. In 1986 a colour TV licence cost £58, if figures on Wikipedia are to be believed."

    The tweet appears to compare today's licence fee with that for 1997 adjusted for inflation, not 1986 - and using the 1997 figure of £91.50 (and the correct year) the Bank of England tool gives 152.82, as per the image in the tweet.

    Edit: Throwing £58 and 1986 at the Bank of England tool gives a figure of £155.96 - so that would have arguably been a better comparison anyway, had they done that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: To howl or not to howl, that is the question

      The BoE tool is only as accurate as the inflation measure it uses - so not very.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: To howl or not to howl, that is the question

        "The BoE tool is only as accurate as the inflation measure it uses - so not very."

        Can we have that in Mars bars?

      2. VinceH Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: To howl or not to howl, that is the question

        "The BoE tool is only as accurate as the inflation measure it uses - so not very."

        The accuracy of the BoE tool isn't the issue, though - it's the accuracy of subtracting 20 from 2017, and coming up with 1986, which is 31 years ago.

  22. oldphart

    There seems to be room for some savings...

    It is difficult to imagine what those top-earners do that could not been done as well for an order of magnitude less. Actually, it is done in other countries with a higher cost of living. Cutting top salaries by a factor of ten could leave room for more high-value productions and a lower licence cost.

    And I do not think there would be a lack of top talent applying - there are not THAT many large and wealthy broadcasters around. The market for blokes kicking balls is unfortunately much bigger.

    1. nijam

      Re: There seems to be room for some savings...

      > Cutting top salaries by a factor of ten could leave room for more high-value productions and a lower licence cost.

      Not so much as you might imagine. There are many very substantial costs to making a TV programme, including salaries for many other people, besides what laughingly call "talent".

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crapita and 70% women

    This figure is because Capita TVLA henchmen call during the day and homemakers are predominantly female (by statistic) and thus are most likely to be the name that appears on the TVL178 interview form that goes to the court and the judgement defaults upon them.

    1. JimC Silver badge

      Re: Crapita and 70% women

      The statistic is certainly valueless. Not only do you need to compare it to number of license (un) holders of each sex, but it also needs to be corrected against other factors like income, alternate facilites etc. If more women are prosecuted than men because women far more likely to be on minimal income, then that's certainly a problem, but not down to Capita or the BBC (unless of course we are talking about women who are working for contractors working for the BBC, and who are on mininum wage and minimum hours because all the money is going to Chris Evans et al)

  24. Blotto

    More high earning radio stars than tv.

    It appears to me that radio celebs are being paid more than their tv counterparts, unless of course the tv stars are earning off the direct BBC pay scheme, I.e through production companies commissioned by BBC.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: More high earning radio stars than tv.

      There are fewer long-running TV shows than Radio. Chris Evans does a breakfast show for 40-something weeks a year. Which also has his name on it, and he probably does a lot of the creative work, as much as there is for a breakfast show.

      Whereas a lot of UK TV drama things work in 6 episode series. The Beeb only do one soap, and they've got longer running drama things like Casualty. But then lots of their TV shows are out-sourced to production companies, from memory it's around 50% - and only the stuff in prime time is probably going to make the big money.

      1. rh587

        Re: More high earning radio stars than tv.

        Chris Evans does a breakfast show for 40-something weeks a year. Which also has his name on it, and he probably does a lot of the creative work, as much as there is for a breakfast show.

        One wonders whether the format of his show is licensable and whether he derives income simply for the format as much as the presenting. Clarkson and Wilman certainly did until they sold the TG format itself to the BBC. That was on top of their Presenting/Production remittance.

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: More high earning radio stars than tv.

          The timeframe covered would also include his work on Top Gear.

  25. Dark_Ronius

    I hope all those gleeful competitors slamming the BBC for this gender pay gap are prepared to publish statistics for their own organisations.

    This all seems a pointless exercise besides making the BBC look bad so the Tories and right-wing press can finally put them out to slaughter. The one advantage being that, hopefully, this will cause the BBC to start seriously working on the gender gap.

    But let's be honest, this is nothing to do with fairness... There are ulterior motives at play. Which aren't even particularly relevant to whether there is any point in the license fee or not. I believe there is, and more than that it increases the quality of other TV (take advertising US tv for example). But then I'd rather have a subscription-based service if it meant having more features to the iplayer app, with more historical content too... I would easily choose that over something like Netflix, and maybe that is the direction entertainment will go towards. Ultimately I'd rather the BBC as it is, although I've noticed they're pushing for users to be registered now and things like that.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      I'm not out to get the Beeb, but they have been taking the piss on pay in the last few years. As do many organisations, but then when you get public funding you get public scrutiny.

      I doubt they seriously over-pay their talent though, given they don't control the market. It was more executive pay, that had been zooming up alarmingly. So I suspect this came out of the fall-out from how much they've been taking the piss on executive pay in the past.

  26. Justice
    Trollface

    A veritable sea of WHITENESS

    Not wishing to detract from the obvious disparity between male and female pay at the BBC... Auntie Beeb also seems to have a preference for all of her favorite Nieces and Nephews to be within a VERY limited palette range.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    in the main it really is money for old rope. Especially news readers I'm not being funny but a trained monkey could read an auto queue. And the list is only the tip of the iceberg, your common or garden tin pot local news readers is on about £80k

    1. Justthefacts

      Autocue

      Yeah. But a trained monkey could punctuate correctly with commas, and a colon when needed.

      An untrained monkey could spell autocue, tinpot, or newsreader.

      An untrained marmoset could recognises [sic] that the verb needs to agree with the number of newsreaders.

      Do you have no sense of irony, criticising people for being overpaid for "just reading", when you are functionally illiterate yourself?

      WTF emoji hashtag

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Grrrr Licence Fee

    Blah blah BBC

    Rant rant rant salaries

    Almost every comment is the same.What no one has mentioned yet is that the license fee does not only fund the BBC. All ITV regional programming and Channel 4 receive a good chunk of it. Lose the license and many quality programs on other channels will also be lost.

    As a plus, many other countries also have a tv license of one form or another and yet not one manages to produce the quality of the BBC.

  29. handleoclast Silver badge
    FAIL

    Christopher Fucking Evans

    Is the highest paid?!?!?!?!?!?!

    I used to argue strongly for the BBC because its independence of advertisers forced the commercial broadcasters to present largely independent news. Unlike the USA, where news has become highly influenced by advertisers.

    Now I know that the ginger twunt is the highest paid, not so much.

  30. Justthefacts

    Tories shooting themselves in foot

    In the private sector, it's very conventional to have no pay disclosure between employees - because we're British goddamn it.

    Who benefits from pay secrecy between management & staff?

    Hint #1:: The lower-paid person sees the market rate is higher than them. The higher-paid person doesn't take a pay cut.

    Hint #2: *Management* never break pay secrecy voluntarily,. Employees sometimes do

    Hint #3: Workplaces with pay transparency of pay-bands are largely public-sector and/or unionised

    Tories just pulled the trigger on massive pay-inflation.

    Because they're idiots who inherit large businesses and turn them into loss-making ones

    [Hey George, how's the wallpaper business going? Did iddums make a fat loss *again* for the Nth year in a row....Ooopssyy.

    Compared to the BBC who make a large *profit* for the UK.

    E.g. ARM = Acorn = BBC Micro....]

  31. silks

    Fair enough we need to look at gender pay gaps, but the data presented doesn't make allowance for the number of appearances, number of shows, time spent preparing, audience figures the "stars" draw in - how are we supposed to compare the on screen talent's value to the viewer regardless of gender when the data is presented in this way?

  32. silks

    Who thinks Alan Yentob is genuinely worth £12.5K per episode of "Imagine"?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019