Bloated BBC salaries

[Bearnecessity]

Enough is enough stop paying Claudia Winkleman, Gary Linekar and the rest these ridiculous salaries out of public funds it is a disgrace. There is NO justification for it...I would not miss any of them and there are plenty of other people who would do it as well for far less. Nobody can tell me GL deserves £1.75 million. How do these people sleep at night?

So so sick of this conservative led BBC bashing. It's boring now. I don't want to privatise everything. I like the BBC. I trust their news more than any online news sites, I like my son to watch cbeebies. I like their documentaries. I don't care about the presenters salaries as they are broadly in line with what TV presenters are paid on other channels. Get over it people.

I agree about a lot of the content being good @marilynmansonsthermos but the discussion is about whether it's appropriate for the BBC to compete for well-known names and set its salaries to be (amongst) the most competitive. I am finding the discussion interesting, as a lot of other posters have a contradictory opinion to me. Perhaps you would find a thread about another aspect of the BBC less boring.

I have no problem with talent being payed a high salary, but come on Graham Norton is the only person on that list with any real, unique talent. All the rest could easily be replaced, would people stop watching if Gary Linekar was replaced? I think not.

I don't think many would propose 'meagre' salaries, but perhaps a few hundred thousand plus a pension and benefits would suffice..

But commercial broadcasters can pay millions, fuelled by ad revenue. You'd have to be exceptionally saintly to turn that down due to your commitment to a national broadcaster.

Burpsandrustles

There is a dearth of true talent out there that will never see the light of day

I'd argue that yes, true talent is quite rare, but I'm not sure that's what you mean...

I agree @Stuckforthefourthtime - I'm certainly not that saintly. But perhaps:
The BBC is contributing to the high market rate and
There might be nothing wrong with talent being poached by other broadcasters once the individuals have demonstrated how good they are by presenting quality programming on the BBC. It should probably be said here that it is the researchers and producers who are actually making the quality programmes, the talent "just" present it.

The OP is complaining about rich people getting richer....how could you ever accuse them of being a Tory??

It's the injustice and greed of it that bothers me. Why does Gary Lineker need £1m+ per year? He earns more in a year than I'll see in a hundred lifetimes. And for this phenomenal fee has he cured cancer, found the secret to eternal youth? No, he talks about football (don't even get me started on the actual players salaries)

Or perhaps the BBC is keeping salaries down in the market? It is still a prestigious organisation to work for, and people will chose to go there even though it is known to pay less then other large broadcasters.

Since it can’t get into massive bidding wars with those other broadcasters it reduces the amounts they need to pay their talent.

It's true that ALL the TV channels should stop using celebrity big names to present programmes, that others would be better or just as good at presenting. We don't need them. This is a problem not exclusive to the BBC though.

In which case @Bluegrass, how did Linekar's agent come up with or manage to wangle him £1.2m? Usually in a negotiation it's a case of "this is my fee" or "I can get another £20 for my work elsewhere". Sometimes it's a case of "we desperately want you, here's a number you can't refuse". In all of these situations the BBC could have hired another person with a similar background relevant to the programme for slightly less (say, under £1m) and allowed this person to drop their rates / go down the road.

WineIsMyCarb Marilynmansonsthermos - the thing is that people follow certain presenters and formats. And the numbers on things like Graham Norton's original departure or the Great British Bakeoff leaving have really knocked BBC numbers, it's their big hitters that get the viewership to justify the licence fee. There could be an argument for a very different service at low cost, but the likelihood would be that it would also be niche and much lower impact for the bulk of Britain, a bit like the Public Broadcasting Service in the US.

So should the TV industry should work on the basis that people who reach the top of their game are rewarded by being axed in favour of cheaper people who are just starting out, as people just starting out will be better at it than people who have been building up years of experience

Sorry not very clear! Meant to say the numbers are very clear that the BBC needs the big hitters to engage with the broader British public. We just don't tune in en masse to hear unheard of people present interesting niche shows...

I would certainly like to see some fresh faces @Marilynmansonsthermos

I've enjoyed David Olusoga's House Through Time. I would like to have seen more from Joann Fletcher recently. I'm not implying that their careers aren't being supported by the BBC, I'm saying that the quality of their delivery and clear knowledge of their subject is no less than the Strictly judges, for example, who I expect will be on very high value contracts.

@wineismycarb - Lineker wants to work for the BBC but not for nothing. The BBC wants Lineker to work for them, but not for too much. They arrived at a mutually acceptable fee (which I’m quite certain is less than he could get elsewhere).

I can't imagine that Gary lineker's shows pull in more viewers than strictly, for example. I don't know the viewing figures but the fact that a football pundit gets paid dso o much riles me plus he's a cock.

I agree @Stuckforthefourthtime - certainly anything as woefully funded as PBS would be a great shame. But I don't agree that it's a binary choice between paying megabucks for celebs and just showing programmes about social history that only I would enjoy!

It seems that a lot of the BBC's success comes from the quality of the programming; Bake Off, Strictly, Doctor Who all huge hits that have been sold to other territories at a profit and not because of the presenters, as demonstrated by the fact that the presenters often don't "go with the programme".

Maybe they should start paying the researchers and producers hundreds of thousands instead!

Ok Vince if they can command better fees elsewhere let them go.The days of people needing wet nursing 'personalities' to walk them through the viewing schedule are over.We have moved on there are many, many people who are entertaining, witty, talented and knowledgable in this world; my friends and colleagues are all of these and they are not remarkable we as a nation are fantastically rich in diversity and creativity and I don't believe the telly world would stop turning if pay was sensibly reduced. Family court loving yer work especially the phrase 'trousered' which I have not heard for a while and made me smile...thank you.

Gary lineker does more than match of the day for bbc

Graham norton does more than his chat show

Give nurses tv presenter wages!!

The bbc and the nhs are 2 of the best things about britain.

I can’t see the BBC lasting as a publicly funded broadcaster, not because of the wage bill but because it is getting harder to justify its existence with lots of other decent subscription channels about. If people want to subscribe to the BBC then they should pay but to be made to pay for it just because you have a TV is unfair. Personally my kids don’t watch CBeebies/CBBC they watch Netflix and YouTube. The odd thing that I’ve but on for my toddler has been really crap (bing, mr tumble). My OH doesn’t watch any BBC TV and I watch the odd thing like Poldark and background noise stuff like Escape to the country, but if it was a choice I would not pay and go without. I can only name a handful of top quality BBC shows (Luther, Line of Duty) most of there output is average to poor.

So sitting being the compere on Eggheads is worth huge wages? And Vanessa Feltz..15 hours a week dong a phone in? Spending was it 65 million on building EastEnders new set?

Good grief Mama I had no idea about the Eastenders refurb costs! I am now lost for words....

Well the BBC has lost it’s market share with us, and we always pay the licence fee. most of the programmes are bad/not interesting, for every Springwatch there are 50 Eastenders etc. We never watch Gary Lineker or the Winkleman woman, I can’t under stand her. Why do they get paid so much?

We would have pay as you go for the BBC so we can choose what we watch and not pay for the rest.

how many channels are there for all these major talents to go to?

What happens occasionally is a "major" talent drops out of the public eye, and nobody even notices they are gone.