My feed

to access all these features


AIBU - BBC salaries

109 replies

Turvey94 · 19/07/2017 21:36

There is such anger at these salaries. I'm a bit conflicted tbh. Confused

I just don't think these salaries have any value when there's no benchmark? I have no idea what similar presenters get paid on competitor channels (I assume it's less). How can I judge?! Hmm

I do think the BBC provides real quality. Some of these journalists are really talented. I also love the dramas and documentaries the BBC produces... Blush

OP posts:
Warmworm · 21/07/2017 16:07

The salaries published are full-time equivalent. So if a woman appears to be earning less, it's not because she is working reduced hours. The published salary is the salary she would earn if working full-time hours.

Also, those arguing that experience should be rewarded so men should earn more as they haven't had maternity leave - come on. It's 9 months leave maybe twice in a lifetime. If a man was off long term sick should he be paid less because he missed gaining some experience? It certainly doesn't justify such enormous gaps.

RandomlyGenerated · 21/07/2017 17:27

*Warmworm^ the reporting method has changed, it is no longer reported as full time equivalent salaries but as total sums paid from licence fee revenues. From the BBC pay report:

Since 2009, we have disclosed salaries, expenses, gifts and hospitality for all senior managers in the BBC, who have a full time equivalent salary of £150,000 or more or who sit on a major divisional board.

Under the terms of our new Charter, we are now required to publish an annual report for each financial year from the Remuneration Committee with the names of all senior executives of the BBC paid more than £150,000 from licence fee revenue in a financial year.

We are also required to list the names of other people working for the BBC, paid more than £150,000 from licence fee revenue in a financial year, set out in pay bands.

We are required to publish payments made from licence fee revenue to people working under a contract for services. Consequently, these figures exclude amounts from: commercial investments into programmes; any payments made by our commercial entities, such as BBCWorldwide; payments made by independent producers; royalties; and repeat fees. Expenses are also excluded.

Warmworm · 21/07/2017 20:24

Ah thanks Randomly, that does make it a bit more difficult to make judgements.

Turvey94 · 21/07/2017 21:28

I believe that the BBC has a lot to offer but should have to work under the same market forces as every other media owner - ie make programmes that people want to watch not thinly veiled political propaganda or shows for very small audiences.

Sorry but this is why I think the BBC is important. To argue that it shouldn't make shows for very small audiences is so regressive.

I think it's really important that the BBC does series that celebrate minorities etc. as it's all part of the process of trying to create an equal society and challenging attitudes, perceptions.

For example, I have enjoyed the black history specials and I am currently enjoying the LGBT specials. I am neither gay nor gay.

OP posts:
RandomlyGenerated · 21/07/2017 22:09

The BBC's Royal Charter requires it to fulfil a diverse role - just producing programmes like Eastenders, Strictly and The Apprentice won't meet its requirements "To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."

boggedoff · 21/07/2017 22:22

i would argue that the BBC are ahead of all other broadcasters. The bbc seem to produce shows with formula. like crappy soaps (eastenders relocation alone is costing millions), sports and blue peter type shows but aimed at adults. (BBC four is it's only saving grace). I think an overhaul of the salaries paid should be due. I don't see why we have to subsidise dull celebrities like claudia winkleman and chris evans. The BBC imo does stifle creatively. All scripts are written by committee and dramas seem to follow the same formula, there doesn't seem to be much originality that entertains me?

I do think competition forces providers to up their game and america does seem to be able to produce high calibre dramas without being public subsidies. Sky Arts for example manage this.

I dunno I think there needs to be major culling at the BBC for artistes payments. They just aren't worth it.

boggedoff · 21/07/2017 22:24

arse sorry for an edit button!

boggedoff · 21/07/2017 22:28

if you watch tv shows from the 80s you can see that there was a much more level playing field with shows produced

i for one really do find it bizarre that a public company can be cagey about how much they spend the eastenders set is due to be demolished soon and re-built with real bricks etc at a considerable cost to the tax payer. Are people happy that we are spending millions on this soap? I guess so but it would be nice to be consulted as a public funded company.

Jayfee · 21/07/2017 22:30

I haven't read the whole thread (will later) but I think it is immoral. People really struggle on low wages and for example Jeremy Vine gets 700 thousand pouns a year so in a week earns more than many people earn in a year. He presents Eggheads and a radio show. I don't care whether Sky news pay high salaries. I have to pay my BBC licence so please spend my money on training youngsters, as they used to, and spread the money fairly.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.