Today The Guardian has published a breakdown of what the BBC is spending in 2011 on its channels – which is number-crunched from the latest annual report. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Some of the details are very interesting. They highlight the facts that:
The report shows that BBC overheads rose by about £15m in its last financial year because of spending on the controversial relocation of several thousand staff from London to Salford and the redevelopment of Broadcasting House.
The media focus is on the costs of the big talent stars, and that data is in the report too:
- The BBC’s overall talent costs dropped by £9m to £213m in the year to the end of March
- In 2010-11, 274 people earned over £100,000, compared with 270 last year
- 19 stars earned between £500,000 and £5m – down from 21 in 2009-10
With typical Guardian slant, a controversial rise becomes “compared with” and a tiny margin of error drop becomes “down from”. But they crunched the graphics so its unkind to complain too much…
A spreadsheet with with the full figures lives here. Feel encouraged to rip it apart in the Comments.
They spend over 60% more on CBeebies than on all the orchestras and other performing groups combined? Including a 38% increase while spending on grownups who actually pay the license fee remains flat. Get ’em while they’re young indeed. More money for Green indoctrination.
Unless I’m mistaken, that £9 million drop in star salary comes from getting rid of Ross and Brand, plus Adrian Chiles and that girl jumping ship, right? No complaints here about that method of cost-cutting, I bet.
One area of massive waste not spelled out in that chart, though, and it’s something that’s spread out over all the channels and departments: middle management and compliance monkeys. I’d like to see how much money is spent on that segment more than what they spend on orchestras.
Yes; and:
“BBC’s drama output decreased by 630 hours last year, report reveals”
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/32865/bbcs-drama-output-decreased-by-630-hours
INBBC’s Horrocks, inadvertently indicating how INBBC’s international news coverage is driven by its pro-Islam agenda:
“The strong international journalism from the World Service, particularly during the Arab Spring, has been a key part of the significant increases for online, English radio and Arabic television.”
-from:
“Salford move helps increase BBC overheads by £15m”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/bbc-salford-move-overheads
Some of that must be due to the BBC’s drive for evil profits, though. They get revenue from some of those foreign countries. The BBC has form on tailoring their reporting to suit the…um….tastes of a revenue stream…er…broadcasting market. I remember how they self-censored their reporting on bruised Tibetans because China threatened to shut down their Beijing Olympics broadcasting.
This is a disgrace.
Really ramming home that post-colonial guilt, re-writing British history, and making the climate change hoax look credible, doesn’t come cheap ya know!
I see that BBC NI gets a whopping 14%+ increase. No wonder they look blank at me when I talk about austerity 🙂
DV, that’s your cab fare and champers when you’re on the Nolan show, surely? 🙂
Maybe they should do a similar graphic for how much it is costing them-sorry ,US- to try and put Murdoch out of the picture.
Cost of their coverage of the US election-and how much cheaper it would be to let a home based reporter there tell us what is going on.
I`m told that they have a few of them over there.
Cost benefit analysis of employing the Dimblebys as set against the feeling of nepotism engendered.
And what of Salford moves…the environmental damage?…how many polar bears is it costing us-sorry the PLANET-in this case?
So many questions…so little time!
to the person who runs this site- speaking of bbc expenditure could you not put a freedom of information request in to see if bbc panorama paid any money to the same private investigator used by the news of the world
i seem to remeber in a panorama documentary outside the courthouse the P.I they were shouting questions at shouted back along the lines of how much has panorama paid me in the past, he seemed pretty genuine,
cant you do a FOI request to see if they paid him, im sure it would be intresting considering how much there haranging NOTW 24/7
The general point is that Fleet Street is full of “reptiles” Using every trick in the book to get a story.
Rupert Murdoch is a man of stature, a giant among the crap dwarves who want to interview him.
The question is – will he turn up at the HoC Committee hearing.
The guy has balls. I think he may well turn up.
And if he does – he will be very aggressive. Shove some of the shit down the wimps’ faces
Unfortunately, Graham, the BBC have a track record of hiding from FOI requests. They even post a list of their likely excuses on their site.
Read about their concealing of the Balen Report for a particularly notorious example of this.
For your suggestion they would cite multiple exuses to avoid answering…and then ignore you.
When your accusers include Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan, Alistair Campbell, John “goose” Prescott and-Keith Vaz (for crying out loud!) , you are clearly on the winning side.
Hope Rupert gets the red carpet treatment should he bother with explaining anything to Vaz and Co…he`d only slip on the ooze, grease, slime and dodgy drools and body fluids of Vaz, Campbell and Prescott etc.
Hope the cringing fawning Axminster rebels remember that they banned Fox hunting, and that elder abuse is still a crime!
If that shower of slipper suckers don`t like Murdoch-I think of him as a “friend dropping in” from henceforth!
“BRITAIN DOESN’T ENJOY REAL DEMOCRACY ”
(Peter Hill, ‘Daily Express’)
[Extract]:
“THE entire establishment – MPs, judges, the BBC – to say nothing of those pillars of righteousness Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, are having a marvellous time excoriating the press and slavering at the prospect of wielding the big stick.
“The witch hunt is gathering pace but I hope it doesn’t result in newspapers being shackled beyond the many criminal and civil laws which already constrain them. ”
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/258548
I`m watching lots of Russian Freeview and Al Jazeera.
Would like to watch Fox too if it`s my BBC!
Might Baron Patten allow me an opt out, so my licence fee goes to Russia or Doha instead…hell, I`d send it over with Stuart Hall so he could bet it on Jeux sans Frontieres if I didn`t have to pay for Womans Hour!
It` MY BBC after all-John Birt said so!
£1.4 billion of tax money spent on BBC One, a channel almost exclusively composed of TV trash already provided in huge quantites by commercial companies.
Meanwhile, we are told there isn’t enough tax money to pay for reliable and decently paid care staff for elderly people suffering from senile dementia and other disabilities. While our tax cash pays care staff minimum wages on temporary/casual contracts, it also pays superb wages to the ‘stars’ of Eastenders.
What a country!
Good link up Phil!
Am reminded of the brilliant Alan Partridge Yuletide Specail-where he thinks that the public(if asked!) would much rather have a new series of his show than have 15 kidney dialysis machines!
That Partridge spoke such truths then…and has ,in the meantime morphed into Steve Coogan; probably is more comedy than tragedy…but who knows?
Maybe Rupert could claim the Ernest Saunders defence before his day out at Southern Cross…it was a day dose of Alzheimers that allowed his carer journos to come unstuck!
Can I play Robert Peston elocution coach when the series is commissioned anyway?
BBC-NUJ’s vested interests motives in opposing Murdoch:
“NUJ calls on Government to reconsider BBC licence fee deal in wake of News International scandal”
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/07/14/23592-nuj-calls-on-government-to-reconsider-bbc-licence-fee-deal-in-wake-of-news-international-scandal/