That's the point of what I said? At the time Rome was a massive risk and probably wouldn't have existed without BBC's co-funding. The industry was able to cut its teeth and now $60M+ shows under a single studio are commonplace.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BBC stars' pay has been revealed in annual report.
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
That's the point of what I said? At the time Rome was a massive risk and probably wouldn't have existed without BBC's co-funding. The industry was able to cut its teeth and now $60M+ shows under a single studio are commonplace.
To be fair Mayo also does the Radio 2 drivetime.
And I doubt Mark minds too much, given his political leanings and his other jobs (e.g. chief film critic for the Observer)
Bucket Mouse
Member
Nick fucking Grimshaw's salary...
Double Greg James', too.
Double Greg James', too.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well, my point was that it wasn't exactly impact on the wider industry as a whole so much as adjusting what the other party involved in the project was comfortable with, so the line to GoT isn't quite the same as it would be for everyone else.
Isn't Grimshaw still below what Chris Moyles at his lowest point? Dudes horrible.
Vivalaraza
Member
I think it was a bad idea to publish this information.
I'm actually really happy for the 6music people. It's good that people pushing alternative music are being paid well imo. They're actually required to know their shit as well, unlike a lot of the radio 1 & 2 DJ's. Chris Evans is still trying to push Texas ffs!
Yes, Radcliffe does more jobs than Maconie, so it only makes sense.
seventynine
Member
Just thinking about it Radcliffe does Glastonbury and the odd music documentary on BBC4 too
seventynine
Member
I agree. I listen at work. I can't bare the commercial stations. I'm surprised since its DAB only.
It actually has about 500k more listeners than radio 3 now, and that's an analogue station. 2.35m a week.
Praetorpwj
Member
I rather like this.
Also John Humphries has no right being grumpy on that money.
Mel's listed, Sue isn't. Although I think Mel does a bit more, too - Sue had Insert Name Here, Mel's had a variety of gameshowy and talent formats, plus the Eurovision semis.
Edit:
Makes perfect sense. Although they're going to have to be awfully careful how they phrase the caveats for that one!
Opus Angelorum
Member
chromatic9
Member
His car collection needs to be serviced somehow.
What will happen now is everyone at BBC is going to ask for raises to match their colleagues and the price of talent will go up. Also, private companies now know exactly how much to offer to poach talent.
The masses will also complain about overpaid talent at BBC even if they are equal or lower paid than private talent, since private sector pay remains a secret so there is no way to compare them.
The masses will also complain about overpaid talent at BBC even if they are equal or lower paid than private talent, since private sector pay remains a secret so there is no way to compare them.
Pretty sure Kermode is freelance i.e. not on the list.
Now compare them to sporting salaries and I know where I'd start wanting to cut costs first (wouldn't be TV performers).
TBH - in the inflated world of commercial TV and sports these mostly seem rather innocuous. I mean they're very good and most of the performers are earning way above average but it's still peanuts next to those.
TBH - in the inflated world of commercial TV and sports these mostly seem rather innocuous. I mean they're very good and most of the performers are earning way above average but it's still peanuts next to those.
JonathanEx
Member
Obviously, I'm finding this all very curious, but it seems a bit pointless considering we have no context.
People do different amounts of work, not all we see on screen and their pay is often because of what rivals will pay, and wanting to keep them. And we all know rivals will be paid more.
I mean for comparison, we can figure out Ant and Dec got £30m for a three year deal. Three years, divided by two, they'd be at £5m on this list. And while they may have that much commercial value - with that context you can figure out why Evans, delivering the massive audience he does, might be on £2m.
If this is intended to keep talent costs down via embarrassment, the government are in for a surprise when they realise what this will actually do. If it leads to better work on BAME/gender pay, lovely, but I don't know if this will in practice.
Oh and it doesn't include people from production companies so it's not even complete. It's an incomplete contextless list, fantastic.
Obviously I'm still going through and OOOO ing at a bunch.
People do different amounts of work, not all we see on screen and their pay is often because of what rivals will pay, and wanting to keep them. And we all know rivals will be paid more.
I mean for comparison, we can figure out Ant and Dec got £30m for a three year deal. Three years, divided by two, they'd be at £5m on this list. And while they may have that much commercial value - with that context you can figure out why Evans, delivering the massive audience he does, might be on £2m.
If this is intended to keep talent costs down via embarrassment, the government are in for a surprise when they realise what this will actually do. If it leads to better work on BAME/gender pay, lovely, but I don't know if this will in practice.
Oh and it doesn't include people from production companies so it's not even complete. It's an incomplete contextless list, fantastic.
Obviously I'm still going through and OOOO ing at a bunch.
If you cut sports salaries the money will just go to the suits upstairs, which is even worse.
frankie_baby
Member
Cant believe Peter Capaldi is on so little
It's interesting how workers with low pay put so much focus into complaining about workers with better pay, instead of on how the owners and executives get disproportionately higher pay than those doing all the work. I guess the 0.1% have been good at pitting workers against each other to keep the heat off themselves.
autumnleaf
Member
All I want confirming is that David Attenborough gets at least double anyone else on that list.
Hilarious and agreed.
Shearer barely brings any interesting commentary or personality to MoTD.
Yep, absolutely. They just keep themselves in the shadows and push others into the limelight and it seems to work out very nicely for them.
JonnyDBrit
Member
I can sorta get it. The show does need to focus what budget it can into unusual sets, costumes, and effects, while the titular role is now such that actors will be after it not for the pay, but because it's the Doctor. They will instantly be a cultural icon unto themselves and nowadays, many of the prospects will have grown up with the franchise. Even someone like Matt Smith, who had to familiarise himself with the character after getting the part, probably went into it because it was such a big deal - the role matters more than the money.
Not to take away how surprising it is, versus some of the presenters.
MrS
Banned
Do you like sport though? I don't watch any BBC TV dramas, talk shows or cooking programmes so it would be incredibly easy for me to say "fuck em, pay them all less or get rid of them". I wouldn't do that though because I know they have a viewership who enjoys their product.
And if I cut theirs?
The role of the Doctor opens many other doors, the base salary is the starting point. Peter is making an absolute mint in the convention mill, at around 100k per appearance. He's been to at least 4 in the last year - there's money he'd never have made if he wasn't the Doctor.
I like sports a lot. When you're playing someone £22 million though there's little point complaining someone else (who may well actually "work" more hours is getting $200,000.
Sport salaries are hideously inflated on our cultural obsession with sports and sporting heroes and resolving this alone would free up money better used elsewhere.
And I doubt someone's not going to peruse their sport if they only earn £500 K.
And my point aligns with yours. There's no point trying to demonize someone getting £200K for something popular when the truly excessive salaries are elsewhere.
trudderham
Member
If that's his annual salary does that mean he got about £20k for each episode? Maybe even less if they pay him to attend events.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
Does he get a cut of merchandise sales that use his likeness possibly too?
And you would do that how exactly? The money is there because a huge number of people are happy to pay to watch it, but only very few are good at it.
Thelonelykoopa
Member
Hmm it doesn't list what Melvyn Bragg makes.
The U.S public aren't ordered to pay £150 a year though for the privilege of owning a TV, the proceeds of which then go to pay said stars.
MontyBrown
Banned
Yes he is always called a 'contributor', I was just making a joke of it.
Their podcast is one of the biggest in the world, I bet he makes a good amount.
Fully agree - shearer is the one that really gets to me - he is not worth it at all
People in the U.K. arent forced to pay £150 just to own a TV are we?
In a roundabout way, you are.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I agree, and it also doesn't note where people work several different jobs on TV & radio or suchlike.
Psychotext
Member
Speaking as someone that's done just that... it's not as easy as you might think.
Or at least, prepare to be harassed to the ends of the earth. I've lost count of the number of threatening letters I've received despite telling them that I don't watch live TV (or iPlayer).
Said the same to the goon that turned up at the door. Apparently they just don't listen.
Pyroclastic
Banned
Seems a bit ridic to be paying Lineker that much, especially as he's likely coining it in at bt Sport too.
Similar threads
- Locked