BBC "Talent" and execs pay published

[Lucio]

I'm hoping this triggers a wider debate on pay, after all who *does* deserve a pay cheque of £2.2m for the work that they do?

In fact, how can you justify a particular level of remuneration at all if the job doesn't have a correlation between the role, and wealth generation for the employer.

[TeePee]

I'm hoping this triggers a wider debate on pay, after all who *does* deserve a pay cheque of £2.2m for the work that they do?

In fact, how can you justify a particular level of remuneration at all if the job doesn't have a correlation between the role, and wealth generation for the employer.

To headline the BBC's highest grossing show, bringing in $150M? $2.2M would be appropriate for someone who is capable of doing the job. As we all know CE was an expensive mistake, but the right person brings a lot of value to a company.

[Corky34]

I must be really dense as no matter how hard i try i can't work out what the purpose of publishing this data is, it's not like we can compare male against female or even the amounts they get paid with other companies, i have to agree with Spud1 in that it's probably just going to lead to presenters asking for more money and making it easier for other companies to go poaching.

[Saracen]

I must be really dense as no matter how hard i try i can't work out what the purpose of publishing this data is, it's not like we can compare male against female or even the amounts they get paid with other companies, i have to agree with Spud1 in that it's probably just going to lead to presenters asking for more money and making it easier for other companies to go poaching.

Time (obviously) will tell, but so far, the media reaction seems to be two-fold :-

- the gender pay gap is unacceptable, and
- there's no desire to increase the overall wage bill.

In fact, if anything, the momentum is behind dropping the wage bill as part of the over-riding argument about licence fee and the licence model.

So .... already, news reports, even on the BBC, are all about speculation over closing the gender gap by requiring the more obscenely over-paid men to accept a pay cut.

Personally, I see no justication for any of tyem earning more than the Prime Minister. After all, all they're doing is presenting a TV program and the PM is runningvthe government. Well, theoretically at least.

So if these overpaid egos think they can do better in the commercial world, there's the door. It'll open a slot for the BBC to nurture some new "talent" .... and cut the wage bill.


When news reports, even on the BBC (no doubt, by those not on this list) have been referring to the BBC as the Bloated Blokes Club, I think the mood music suggests the direction of travel, because 12 months from now, everybody will be comparing the newly released figures with the (then) 12 months old data we've just received. That direction of travel, if it's 'up' is going to take some justifying.

[spacein_vader]

Time (obviously) will tell, but so far, the media reaction seems to be two-fold :-

- the gender pay gap is unacceptable, and
- there's no desire to increase the overall wage bill.

In fact, if anything, the momentum is behind dropping the wage bill as part of the over-riding argument about licence fee and the licence model.

So .... already, news reports, even on the BBC, are all about speculation over closing the gender gap by requiring the more obscenely over-paid men to accept a pay cut.

Personally, I see no justication for any of tyem earning more than the Prime Minister. After all, all they're doing is presenting a TV program and the PM is runningvthe government. Well, theoretically at least.

So if these overpaid egos think they can do better in the commercial world, there's the door. It'll open a slot for the BBC to nurture some new "talent" .... and cut the wage bill.


When news reports, even on the BBC (no doubt, by those not on this list) have been referring to the BBC as the Bloated Blokes Club, I think the mood music suggests the direction of travel, because 12 months from now, everybody will be comparing the newly released figures with the (then) 12 months old data we've just received. That direction of travel, if it's 'up' is going to take some justifying.

I was with you up until the "paid more than the prime minister" bit. While I agree with the principle the reality is that the job of PM (irrespective of views on the current incumbent,) is hugely underpaid, for mostly political reasons.

£150k to run an entire country? There are estate agents that earn more than that. If it was done on the market rate for the responsibility, risks & competence desired it would have at least one more 0 on the end of the number and possibly two.

[Corky34]

Time (obviously) will tell, but so far, the media reaction seems to be two-fold :-

- the gender pay gap is unacceptable, and
- there's no desire to increase the overall wage bill.

In fact, if anything, the momentum is behind dropping the wage bill as part of the over-riding argument about licence fee and the licence model.

So .... already, news reports, even on the BBC, are all about speculation over closing the gender gap by requiring the more obscenely over-paid men to accept a pay cut.

Personally, I see no justication for any of tyem earning more than the Prime Minister. After all, all they're doing is presenting a TV program and the PM is runningvthe government. Well, theoretically at least.

So if these overpaid egos think they can do better in the commercial world, there's the door. It'll open a slot for the BBC to nurture some new "talent" .... and cut the wage bill.


When news reports, even on the BBC (no doubt, by those not on this list) have been referring to the BBC as the Bloated Blokes Club, I think the mood music suggests the direction of travel, because 12 months from now, everybody will be comparing the newly released figures with the (then) 12 months old data we've just received. That direction of travel, if it's 'up' is going to take some justifying.

There's no doubting that there's a gender pay gap but the BBC actually does better in that regard than most other companies, IIRC it's something like 10% overall in the BBC versus 18% for the UK as a whole, the reason I'm referencing the overall gap is because i can't see how it's possible to compare any two people on the list, there's so many things that go into dictating an individuals worth it's a nye on impossible thing to do.

And yes there's no desire to increase the overall wage bill but desire rarely matches reality, announcing to the world how much your staff get paid is very valuable information for a competitor to have, and very valuable information for the people negotiating presenters contracts, there's more than a hint of double standards when a government says how it's important not to disclose information about their Brexit negotiating strategy while at the same time forcing the disclosure of important information to anyone who may wants to negotiate with a presenter, the level of double standards is shocking.

Re: The amount they're earning, i agree it's to much but we've no way of knowing if that's above, bellow, or the going market rate, and if we're comparing them with the PM's wages then why not apply it to the private sector also, unless we're suggesting that we should have second rate public services.

[DanceswithUnix]

£150k to run an entire country? There are estate agents that earn more than that. If it was done on the market rate for the responsibility, risks & competence desired it would have at least one more 0 on the end of the number and possibly two.

AIUI once you leave No 10 you can ask 100K for an after dinner speech. I don't see previous PMs in social housing.

It could be argued that for the level of competence shown they are overpaid

Seriously, I do wonder if better pay would attract better or worse MPs though.

As for this list, if there were a cap on how much "talent" got paid, then I suspect more people would push for that cap so it might end up costing the license payer even more overall.

[spacein_vader]

AIUI once you leave No 10 you can ask 100K for an after dinner speech. I don't see previous PMs in social housing.

It could be argued that for the level of competence shown they are overpaid

Seriously, I do wonder if better pay would attract better or worse MPs though.

As for this list, if there were a cap on how much "talent" got paid, then I suspect more people would push for that cap so it might end up costing the license payer even more overall.

I don't think any job should be reimbursed based on how much you're likely to earn after you leave it. It's been years since we had a decent PM, maybe the low pay is partly to blame. Much easier to sell houses or become a newspaper editor for more money and far less scrutiny.

Agree with you about a cap, I can't see it working.

[Saracen]

I was with you up until the "paid more than the prime minister" bit. While I agree with the principle the reality is that the job of PM (irrespective of views on the current incumbent,) is hugely underpaid, for mostly political reasons.

£150k to run an entire country? There are estate agents that earn more than that. If it was done on the market rate for the responsibility, risks & competence desired it would have at least one more 0 on the end of the number and possibly two.

Well, I also don't disagree with that. The PM is, IMHO, underpaid.

BUT .... given the current lacklustre state of the economy, the extent of public debt and especially the doggedly persistent annual deficit, topped off by years of public-sector pay restraint, there would rightly be a revolution at any attempt to address that. However justified an increase might be, it's a political absolute non-starter.

But what REALLY is offensive, IMHO, is the tightly controlled little club of senior public sector bosses that also think they deserve a salary several times that of the PM, by which I mean council executives, NHS trust bosses, and so on.

[Saracen]

There's no doubting that there's a gender pay gap but the BBC actually does better in that regard than most other companies, IIRC it's something like 10% overall in the BBC versus 18% for the UK as a whole, the reason I'm referencing the overall gap is because i can't see how it's possible to compare any two people on the list, there's so many things that go into dictating an individuals worth it's a nye on impossible thing to do.

And yes there's no desire to increase the overall wage bill but desire rarely matches reality, announcing to the world how much your staff get paid is very valuable information for a competitor to have, and very valuable information for the people negotiating presenters contracts, there's more than a hint of double standards when a government says how it's important not to disclose information about their Brexit negotiating strategy while at the same time forcing the disclosure of important information to anyone who may wants to negotiate with a presenter, the level of double standards is shocking.

Re: The amount they're earning, i agree it's to much but we've no way of knowing if that's above, bellow, or the going market rate, and if we're comparing them with the PM's wages then why not apply it to the private sector also, unless we're suggesting that we should have second rate public services.

All it needs to reduce the extreme end of this talent pay is determination on the part of management. Yes, there are contracts to serve out and unless there's an escape clause built-in, they'll be enforceable. But after that, set a much more moderate maximum, stick to it and if overly-egotistical "talent" reckon they can do better in the commercial sector, and maybe they can, well let them.

Fact is, most of these "talent" aren't any more talented thanvthe man in the street. They've just got years under their belt. So, put some existing "talent" that don't qualify for this list in the top jobs, and fill up the resultant vacancies from those in the pipeline. We'll have a period of adjustment where the new faces are relatively unknown, but after a year or two they will be known, and we'll have a totally different pay regime in place without the Chris Evans/Linekar/Vine level of pay.

Even John Humphries said he didn't want to leave, it wasn't just about the money and he hadn't asked for pay rises but bosses kept giving him large ones anyway. Presumably, bosses thought they had to or he'd leave when in fact, he may not have.

It also makes me think of Sue, Mel and Mary Berry in the recent Bake Off debacle. Whereas Paul Hollywood followed the money (whether or not that was the reason) Sue, Mel and Mary didn't chase the money.

Thing is, the BBC isn't just any "other company". For a start, it's a state-owned public service broadcaster, and secondly, it's a widely respected near-monopoly organisation very widely respected in most of the world.

It's heart doesn't beat to the same drum (profit) as the other media companies and it has privileges, and restraints, they don't.

But mainly, what "other companies" pay is a matter for them, their management and shareholders. Customers that don't think it's value for money can vote with their wallet. The BBC "customers" can't, or they end up (theoretically) in front of a magistrate, so the BBC owes extra duty to licencepayers to curb the more overt excesses, and if current management won't, then government needs to put in some who will.

And while they're at it, it isn't just talent. There's a long list of far less high profile managers in at least my crosshairs, too.


Trim the sky-high aalaries and put the savings into more content.

Oh, and maybe do a lot more in-house production and a lot less bought-in, from production companies.

[Corky34]

What you seem to be saying is that the supply and demand ethos shouldn't apply to the public sector, or that we should pay to develop "talent" and then let the private sector profit from our investment, if the BBC was the NHS would we be happy to invest in doctors and nurses only for them to up stick and leave for private healthcare because we don't like the idea of paying for the *best?

*Yes that's subjective but market forces dictate what that is.

Banks and people in the square mile tell us they have to pay tens of millions to attract the best "talent" but what you seem to be suggesting is that publicly owned companies shouldn't do the same.

[peterb]

What you seem to be saying is that the supply and demand ethos shouldn't apply to the public sector, or that we should pay to develop "talent" and then let the private sector profit from our investment, if the BBC was the NHS would we be happy to invest in doctors and nurses only for them to up stick and leave for private healthcare because we don't like the idea of paying for the *best?

*Yes that's subjective but market forces dictate what that is.

Banks and people in the square mile tell us they have to pay tens of millions to attract the best "talent" but what you seem to be suggesting is that publicly owned companies shouldn't do the same.

The problem comes in when you look at a service industry - especially a not-for-profit organisation. How do you measure the value someone brings to an organisation? The old rule of thumb was (roughly) that the cost of employing someone was twice their salary, and so to be cost effective, they had to earn twice that cost of employment for the organisation. But in a not-for profit organisation like the BBC or the NHS (or the Armed Forces)?

The answer generally has been for independent review bodies to compare the job they do with a comparable job in the private sector, which generates its own set of problems.

[Corky34]

How do you measure the value someone brings to an organisation?

I'm not even going to pretend to understand the value some companies attach to some employes, how a CEO or football player can be worth £10 million a year is beyond me.

[Saracen]

I'm not even going to pretend to understand the value some companies attach to some employes, how a CEO or football player can be worth £10 million a year is beyond me.

With a CEO, Peter just explained the basic proposition - they make enough difference that they more than pay for their often huge remuneration. Where it can fall down is where you have a limited pool, say .... bankers, and exec pay set by a panel of other senior bankers. If course, that only happens if shareholders allow it and .... finally .... we're startingvto see a degree of shareholder activism, especially among institutional investors, who've finally woken up to the cosy, little boys-club fix that's been pervasive for years.

Anyway, basically, CEOs are "worth it" if their performance affects company profitability, capital values, etc, sufficiently to justify it. If not, out they go. And that happens more than you might think.

As for footballers, well, if fans are hsppy, bum are on seats and the club is winning, and shareholders are happy, I guess they're worth it. But I'm not really qualified to judge as my view is that football is one of the most pointless examples of human waste of energy in history, and I couldn't care less if another match was never played between now and the sun going suoernova.

[Saracen]

What you seem to be saying is that the supply and demand ethos shouldn't apply to the public sector, or that we should pay to develop "talent" and then let the private sector profit from our investment, if the BBC was the NHS would we be happy to invest in doctors and nurses only for them to up stick and leave for private healthcare because we don't like the idea of paying for the *best?

*Yes that's subjective but market forces dictate what that is.

Banks and people in the square mile tell us they have to pay tens of millions to attract the best "talent" but what you seem to be suggesting is that publicly owned companies shouldn't do the same.

I'm not sure how many doctors the NHS rewards with £2.2m a year, and I suspect I could count them with the fingers on one foot. But if they did, for a superstar surgeon, it'd still be better value than the BBC are getting.

What I'm saying is that the BBC doesn't need these so-called superstar talent. Terry Wogan was, IMHO, a superb radio presenter, but did his show cease to exist when he went? Did Strictly shut down when Brucie left? No. If anything, it went up. Could it survive being de-Claudia'd and/or de-Tess' d? Yes. Anyone taking over would be strange for a while, but after a bit, they would be the star .... or be gone. .

Would I misz Evan Davies ot Kirsty Wark on Newsnight? No. What about ED on Dragon's Den? God, no. Without his statements from the ministry of the flipping obvious, either telling us what we just watched (yes, you idiot Davies, I remember what I watched 10 seconds ago without your recap) or what we're about to watch (thanks for ruining the surprise) the ptogram would be vastly better.

Frankly, among the entire pool of "talent", I see very, very little that would be missed for long. And quite a few I'd actively fire.

As for the NHS, it's entirely different. We don't have superstar doctors and nurses. If we did, if their talent, as individuals was so trulu unique as to be necessary and justified by the outcomes they produce, lives saved, then at least we have a truly valuable contribution worth paying for, not just a glib, talking TV gob.

I wonder what a truly talented doctor, saving lives day in, day out, thinks about the respective values "society" puts on his/her contributions compared to so-called talent on TV? After all, life as we know it would cease if someone different, on a mere £100k, presented a radio program, hosted a quiz sjow and explained some naff election graphics.

Talent? With lines like that, some BBC managers obviously missed a career as a stand-up comic. Still, it's not to late for a career change. Please. Soon.

[Corky34]

With a CEO, Peter just explained the basic proposition - they make enough difference that they more than pay for their often huge remuneration. Where it can fall down is where you have a limited pool, say .... bankers, and exec pay set by a panel of other senior bankers. If course, that only happens if shareholders allow it and .... finally .... we're startingvto see a degree of shareholder activism, especially among institutional investors, who've finally woken up to the cosy, little boys-club fix that's been pervasive for years.

Being pedantic he explained the old rule of thumb, IDK how old that principle is or was but clearly it's not been applicable for a long time.

And yes the shareholders maybe revolting (no pun intended) but in many cases that make no difference at all, it didn't last year when they voted against BP's CEO remuneration, or Smith & Nephew's CEO, or RBS and numerous other votes from shareholders against pay packages that got ignored by directors.

Anyway, basically, CEOs are "worth it" if their performance affects company profitability, capital values, etc, sufficiently to justify it. If not, out they go. And that happens more than you might think.

Perhaps it does, but it also happens far fewer times than it should going on some of the high profile cases of CEO's clinging on despite shareholder discontent.

As for footballers, well, if fans are hsppy, bum are on seats and the club is winning, and shareholders are happy, I guess they're worth it. But I'm not really qualified to judge as my view is that football is one of the most pointless examples of human waste of energy in history, and I couldn't care less if another match was never played between now and the sun going suoernova.

Is there such a thing as too many smiles in a post.

I'm not sure how many doctors the NHS rewards with £2.2m a year, and I suspect I could count them with the fingers on one foot. But if they did, for a superstar surgeon, it'd still be better value than the BBC are getting.

Not £2.2m a year but a few year ago there was 50k earning over £100k, and some paid considerably more, there was 8 dentists who earned and average of £690,572, that's not say there's anything wrong with those levels of pay for people who often save lives (dentists can save lives, right? ), however it goes to show what dictates an individuals value, in terms of pay, seems to have little bearing on what we as a society consider valuable, like (i assume) yourself a guy kicking a sack of air around for 90min has very little value in my eyes.

What I'm saying is that the BBC doesn't need these so-called superstar talent. Terry Wogan was, IMHO, a superb radio presenter, but did his show cease to exist when he went? Did Strictly shut down when Brucie left? No. If anything, it went up. Could it survive being de-Claudia'd and/or de-Tess' d? Yes. Anyone taking over would be strange for a while, but after a bit, they would be the star .... or be gone. .

Would I misz Evan Davies ot Kirsty Wark on Newsnight? No. What about ED on Dragon's Den? God, no. Without his statements from the ministry of the flipping obvious, either telling us what we just watched (yes, you idiot Davies, I remember what I watched 10 seconds ago without your recap) or what we're about to watch (thanks for ruining the surprise) the ptogram would be vastly better.

Frankly, among the entire pool of "talent", I see very, very little that would be missed for long. And quite a few I'd actively fire.

The thing is you say the BBC doesn't need these so-called superstar talent but obviously they and many others think they do and are willing to pay for them, like peterb said earlier some people obviously do like them, if they didn't they wouldn't command such high wages, supply and demand.

As for the NHS, it's entirely different. We don't have superstar doctors and nurses. If we did, if their talent, as individuals was so trulu unique as to be necessary and justified by the outcomes they produce, lives saved, then at least we have a truly valuable contribution worth paying for, not just a glib, talking TV gob.

I wonder what a truly talented doctor, saving lives day in, day out, thinks about the respective values "society" puts on his/her contributions compared to so-called talent on TV? After all, life as we know it would cease if someone different, on a mere £100k, presented a radio program, hosted a quiz sjow and explained some naff election graphics.

Talent? With lines like that, some BBC managers obviously missed a career as a stand-up comic. Still, it's not to late for a career change. Please. Soon.

Indeed, we as a society do have some very peculiar ideas on what makes someone valuable don't we.