BBC "Talent" and execs pay published

[Saracen]

For anyone interested, all "talent" and executives earning more than £150000, are now named, with their salary itemised, in bands.

Note - these amounts are ONLY money received out of licence fees, and do not include other income, income paid by production companies used by the BBC, commercial activities, etc.

Turns out Chris Evans is the highest paid, at around £2.2m last year, and Claudia Winkelman the highest paid female, at around £450k.

The full list, some 96 talent plus dozens and dozens of execs, is in the Annex to the 2016/17 BBC accounts, just released.

You xsn get it herehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...rk/reports/ara .... look for the "Annex" link, not the full Report.

[TheAnimus]

I think this is quite a good step, I'd much rather that our mandatory license fee is used only for incubator style work. Once people are at the level of commanding £200k+ they are likely to be able to do their program on Channel4 or Amazon.

The BBC should be working on making things that are unique and not satisfied by the commercial providers.

[Saracen]

Well put.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I didn't realise the pay gap was so high between the male and female presenters,and Chris Evans off all people?? Maybe I am being obtuse,but I can remember seeing Claudia Winkelman in a few TV programmes,but I can only remember Chris Evans on Top Gear.

Edit!!

He is on the radio,that might explain it.

Amazon.

NO!NO!NO!NO!

Its bad enough with a license fee,I don't want to have to pay Sky,Netflix and bloody Amazon too,as things are way to fragmented as they are - at that point I will just stop watching everything.

Then it gets worse if you don't happen to have good interwebs too,or the area is heavily congested.

[spacein_vader]

I think this is quite a good step, I'd much rather that our mandatory license fee is used only for incubator style work. Once people are at the level of commanding £200k+ they are likely to be able to do their program on Channel4 or Amazon.

The BBC should be working on making things that are unique and not satisfied by the commercial providers.

I'd like to agree with you, but without any comparatives from the likes of ITV or Sky I've no idea if that £200k figure is right, too high or too low.

Sadly I can't see any of the others obliging.

[peterb]

Personally, I find Jeremy Vine with his breathy melodramatic pseudo-journalistic style a reason to watch or listen to something (almost anything) else. The same goes for Chris Evans. But some people obviously do like him - each to their own.

[Saracen]

And again, well put.

I have to remind myself sometimes, I can't stand Eastenders or Celeb reality shows, but millions seem to disagree. I'd rather watch a TV that was turned off than that kind of stuff, but ....



EDIT - Typo, now corrected, "can stand" should have read "can't stand"

[peterb]

And again, well put.

I have to remind myself sometimes, I can stand Eastenders or Celeb reality shows, but millions seem to disagree. I'd rather watch a TV that was turned off than that kind of stuff, but ....

Think you missed a " 't" there!

[The Hand]

BBC 4 is good. Maybe there ought to be a "lite" subscription where you just get one or two channels through iPlayer.

[Spud1]

I might be on my own on this one..but I think that was a bad move by the BBC - origin of the call to publish salaries aside, this will only end up costing everyone more money. Publishing salaries in some markets may make sense..when there are fixed salaries for a skill level/grade/whatever - but in a market like entertainment or even IT now, where salaries are truly negotiated based on who can afford what and who will accept what..it just doesn't. Next time the agents negotiate renewal they now have access to a wealth of information showing exactly what the BBC is prepared to pay and I think this will inevitably lead to wage inflation.

It's even more pointless when a good number of presenters wont be included as they are paid through their production companies rather than directly, so it doesn't even serve a purpose of showing the general public how much we pay for celebs - as the majority are not included. I don't see any real positive here other than creating media interest and more sensationalized claims that men are paid XXX more than women in non comparable job roles.

[TeePee]

Chris Evans Top Gear pay is particularly unreasonable when you consider Amazon is paying Clarkson GBP10M/Year for TGT. Hard to claim Evans contributed 1/4 of the value.

[TheAnimus]

Chris Evans Top Gear pay is particularly unreasonable when you consider Amazon is paying Clarkson GBP10M/Year for TGT. Hard to claim Evans contributed 1/4 of the value.

Was that just his Top Gear pay? I also thought it included his radio work, his defiling of Billie Piper etc.

[Saracen]

I might be on my own on this one..but I think that was a bad move by the BBC - origin of the call to publish salaries aside, this will only end up costing everyone more money. Publishing salaries in some markets may make sense..when there are fixed salaries for a skill level/grade/whatever - but in a market like entertainment or even IT now, where salaries are truly negotiated based on who can afford what and who will accept what..it just doesn't. Next time the agents negotiate renewal they now have access to a wealth of information showing exactly what the BBC is prepared to pay and I think this will inevitably lead to wage inflation.

....

It might, but I don't agree it's inevitable.

Try this logic instead.

Public, and licence-payer outrage leads to pressure on the BBC to cut the more outrageous examples substantially, now that we know what they are. A few "talent" are told their cntract renewal is subject to dradtic renewal. Or .... go elsewhere.

So, "elsewhere" now knows it doesn't have to pay as much as person x was getting at the BBC, so they offer substantially less. If it's about money, they only have to beat what the BBC are prepared to pay for renewal, not what they were paid, abd "elsewhere" now have an absolute ceiling.

Beyond that, even, is once ALL overpaid "talent" have taken a large haircut, next year's BBC report will show pay levels dropping, removing the ability of talent to levetage "elsewhere" with the BBC. And as the BBC have a spotlight on contract renewals, they can say to talent "can't pay that, as we have to publish it and licence payers won't stand for it".
The BBC can use publicity as a club, and "elsewhere" can use the data as a ceiling.

All it needs is for BBC to be prepared to let "talent" walk rather than be blackmailed, which they absolutely ought to do.


What does, however, absolutely need to happen is for parliamentary pressure yo put paid to the production company gag, or next year, all 96 will be missing as they'll be hiding behind a production company shield. The BBC needs to refuse outright to let that happen by not buying shows where they try that.

[OilSheikh]

Does that Laura Fartenberg get much ? I can't stand that annoying excuse of a reporter

[Biscuit]

I'm sure the top talent around the world are dying to work for and progress their career through the BBC now...

[Saracen]

Does that Laura Fartenberg get much ? I can't stand that annoying excuse of a reporter

Define "much".

By Chris Evans' standars, nope. By the standards of the vast bulk of licence payers, yes, a bleeping fortune. She's in the £200k to £249k category ..... and is a perfect example of why I keep putting "talent" in quotes.