The BBC Is Screwed

[Deckerd]

I'm always suspicious of that argument. It's like the banks saying if they don't pay bonuses all their talented staff will move to south east Asia. Let them go, I say. Nobody is irreplacable and every talented stock market player had to start somewhere. There is a giant queue behind every single one waiting for their turn. As to the 'stars' getting big pay packets; the BBC marque is worth its weight in gold. Look at those two plonkers fatty and Irishwoman from the One Show who are getting dismal viewing figures for their fat salaries over at ITV. Look at Barry Norman who sank without a trace when he followed the dosh to Sky.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm not going to argue in favour of high wages, but I do think it's daft to expect them to compete for talent without paying near the market rate for it. A lot of people working at the BBC already do so below market rate, so it's hard to complain about them paying too much when they pay less than others in the same field.

I've always found this interesting too - the BBC, if it wants to retain any household names for its shows (or any established actors over 25), needs to pay something approximating market rate for them - OK, their name and exposure level carries a lot of weight and so people are likely to forgive them a slightly lower pay packet than say Sky could offer, but they can't take the piss with it.
It is standard practice that public sector workers earn less than an equivalent job in the private sector. That's something everyone gets on board with when they sign up, but it does mean that when publicly funded institutions like the BBC have to instigate pay cuts, their general non-famous staff, who were already paid below the going rate, suffer even more and the gap between public and private widens still further. You can only ask for so much altruism before the talented staff start leaving.

Yeah, I never understand the complaint. "Their extortionate wages"? There are plenty of people who are paid huge wages in entertainment, whether it's sports, films, radio or TV, so how do you expect to attract talented people by offering wages so far what they could earn you might as well be offering minimum wage to them?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm always suspicious of that argument. It's like the banks saying if they don't pay bonuses all their talented staff will move to south east Asia. Let them go, I say. Nobody is irreplacable and every talented stock market player had to start somewhere. There is a giant queue behind every single one waiting for their turn. As to the 'stars' getting big pay packets; the BBC marque is worth its weight in gold. Look at those two plonkers fatty and Irishwoman from the One Show who are getting dismal viewing figures for their fat salaries over at ITV. Look at Barry Norman who sank without a trace when he followed the dosh to Sky.

I don't think they should enter bidding wars to keep people, I don't think they should pay over market value, but seriously how many people would stick around when they could do the same work elsewhere for twice as much money?

 

[Deckerd]

Where elsewhere? The jobs market is shrinking all over, including entertainment.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Where elsewhere? The jobs market is shrinking all over, including entertainment.

Sky are starting to spend more in homegrown stuff, they have much more money than anyone in the British TV industry, more than ITV, Channel 4 and 5 combined. Some have up and left to America, some radio stations are still handing out big deals to popular DJs, ITV still seem to be handing out million pound contracts here and there, and even Living are managing to take some people from other channels. So I wouldn't discount it.

I don't particularly care for the idea of needing to spend big to keep people on board, if people want to leave let them leave don't fight for them, but I also don't expect them to say to everyone "Well we're only going to give you 20% of what you could get elsewhere."

 

[Deckerd]

I don't think they're saying anything as drastic as 20% but given the precarious nature of the entertainment industry, you have to wonder whether it would make much difference to overall viewing figures, since the BBC tends to produce quality rather than celebrity. You talk about Sky's budget but what is their share of viewing figures? They have a huge budget because the people who use them pay a fortune for the privilege.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Some are, I seem to remember in his letter about reforming the BBC Mark Thompson suggested they may have to pay only 20% of market rates in their effort to make 90% of their budget seen on screen.

Sky's viewing share of viewers in an average week

Sky 1 20%
Sky Arts 1.4%
Sky Movies (all of them come to around) 21%
Sky News 9%
So combined Sky probably equals the average reach of Channel 5. And I would think with more homegrown stuff they will attract more viewers.

 

[Captain Shaw]

I wonder if the BBC stopped giving out exclusive contracts, and let some of their starts work for for the other channels in-between there shows, if they could get costs down.

 

[Starkers]

I wonder if the BBC stopped giving out exclusive contracts, and let some of their starts work for for the other channels in-between there shows, if they could get costs down.

I thought they did? Trevor Eve was recently in the Bouquet of barbed wire remake in ITV but so far as I know Waking the Dead hasn't been canned, Richard Armitage is still in Spooks but made that SAS show for Sky...Or do you mean presenters? I guess they're tied to BBC only contracts.

Even then most of them are replacable.

Going back up the thread a bit, I thought the whole notion of the public sector being paid less than the private sector had been outed as something as a fallacy? It was true once, but certainly the last 13 years or so things changed, if anything given the whole notion of PS pensions and rises compared to the private sector in recent years they might even be slightly ahead (and I say this as someone who works for the NHS).

And irrespective, just because Sky will pay someone £2million per annum, doesn't follow that the BBC have to match or exceed them in order to compete. There are a lot of talented people out of there. I sincerely doubt Matt Smith and Karen G earn as much as Tennant and Tate did (even in the beginning) yet are at least as great, if not slightly better in their respective roles (well Smith is, I still rate Donna v highly)

Read an article in the London evening standard this evening with some academic saying the govt ought to invest more in films or universites should stop running so many media studies courses because there aren't the jobs for these people once they graduate.

At thr risk of sounding like a certain poster on the Who forum there does seem to be too much nepotism across all the British channels.

And of course plenty of celebs realise money isn't everything...as Adrian Childes and Christine Bleakley seem to be currently discovering!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The public sector pay has only gone up in recent years through a concerted effort of the previous government, but still most in the public sector earn less than private, it tends to be higher ups who are closer to parity as far as I've read.

It's not so much that there aren't other talented people out there, it's the fact that the BBC invest a lot in making them household names and making them in to the big name talent only to have them stolen. As I've said, I'm not particularly defending huge wages I just think it's understandable given the nature of the industry.

 

[Starkers]

I don't think the Beeb should never pay big money, I just don't think it always should, if that makes sense. Maybe they need a wage cap? Let Sky be Chelsea and the BBC can be Arsenal. They don't ever win anything but they consistently produce entertaining football and never come close to going bankrupt!

My understanding is that there isn't a whole lot of difference across the board anymore, in the main down to Labour thowing money at the public sector, which did improve it, but nowhere near as much as that amount should have improved it. The private sector has obvious advantages, bonuses being one, that was a big culture shock for me, I'd come from a place where if I worked hard I got rewarded and if I didn't work hard I didn't get rewarded, meanwhile in the NHS your salary goes up the same whether you've worked your bollocks off or not. Having experienced both I have to say neither is perfect, but both have positives.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The Beeb don't pay high wages across the board though. There are plenty of people who are working for average wages, it's just you hear about the bigger ones so much it seems like everyone's on a good screw there. I think they have talked about capping the wages in the recent "refocus" but decided against it as a matter of course because if the competition know what their max is they can easily swoop in with a batter offer with no negotiation and leg work needed.

What's that about all systems tending towards incompetency? People get promoted until they're in a position where they no longer do the job exceptionally and then get left there even though they're past the point where they work well... I kinda think that's true.

 

[diankra]

That's The Peter Principle, I think, Bob.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Just googled that, and so it is.

 

[cultcross]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM[/yt]

This sums it up rather nicely for me (funny too ) I am proud of the BBC, charming naffness and all.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Yeah, I think there should be a campaign to get it to number 1 when it's released.

 

[cultcross]

Ironically, the best way to do that would be to get it on the X Factor.

 

[Captain Shaw]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM[/yt]

This sums it up rather nicely for me (funny too ) I am proud of the BBC, charming naffness and all.

I thought Bergerac was ITV
Love it.

Yeah, I think there should be a campaign to get it to number 1 when it's released.

I was thinking this to.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I wish the BBC would stand up for itself more, just allow shows to push boundaries from time to time without fear of backlash because they'd just stand up and say "There were warnings people knew the content of the show" and not care about the rubbish the papers spout.

 

[Captain Shaw]

I wish the BBC would stand up for itself more, just allow shows to push boundaries from time to time without fear of backlash because they'd just stand up and say "There were warnings people knew the content of the show" and not care about the rubbish the papers spout.

I look forward to that points of view episode.
I will be willing to present it for free.