Only last July Lord Hall Hall was telling us that he paid his ‘talent’ so much because they are worth it and it is the going market rate, don’t pay it and there will be an exodus of talent…….
“I completely understand that to lots and lots of people these are very large sums but we are a global broadcaster, in a very competitive market,” Lord Hall told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“And we have to be competitive but not foolishly.
“No-one would want us to be paying sums where it’s not at a discount to the market. People expect us to have great broadcasters, great presenters, great stars but pay them less than they would get in the market.”
He said he was “satisfied” that every one of the 96 top earners were worth the money.
Hmmmm….well, they were not worth it. They were given that money purely because the BBC had so much money floating around, they could pay it so they did…which might indicate the licence fee should be cut….and more salaries cut. Let’s experiment….offer far lower wages and see if the people recruited are a match, or more than a match, for the supposed superstars we have now. So what if they do decide to eventually head off to the mega wages of the commercial world?…recruit more people, fresh talent that will bring new life and vibrancy to the BBC instead of the entrenched, aged dinosaurs who dominate the place now.
Lord Hall Hall always insisted that he had to pay the market rate to get top talent and that they would flee the BBC to the commercial companies if their wages were cut. Well now we will find out….and as said, perhaps find out if there is more talent, and cheaper talent, out there than the BBC believes.
Amused to see Sopel is having a cut…this morning he was chuntering on about how inconsistent the White House was [under Trump…never, ever, happened under Obama], one minute they’d say one thing and later they might correct the story…..never happen at the BBC of course….from the Telegraph….
BBC confirms pay cut for male stars after it changes story five times
The BBC has confirmed that Huw Edwards, John Humphrys, Jeremy Vine, Nick Robinson, Nicky Campbell and Jon Sopel have agreed to reduce their salaries, after a morning of farce in which the BBC website reported some of their names and then retracted them.The BBC has confirmed that Huw Edwards, John Humphrys, Jeremy Vine, Nick Robinson, Nicky Campbell and Jon Sopel have agreed to reduce their salaries, after a morning of farce in which the BBC website reported some of their names and then retracted them.
A source said: “This hasn’t been handled very well.”
Astonishing how many people are paid over £150,000 at the BBC.
The whole ethos behind the BBC is a falsehood. It is not subject to the discipline imposed by being part of a commercial market and so the standards, quality of service and rate of pay within the organisation are governed by their own set of rules knowing that they cannot fail – impervious to what happens in the real world.
This also explains why, in the face of damning evidence of bias and partiality by Civitas they suffer a massive lack of self awareness and issue their stock statement extolling their integrity and propriety.
The BBC have long gone too far and their relatively small number are hopelessly at odds with the majority of clear logical viewers in the UK. They need to be cut adrift, to fend for themselves commercially. This will drag the wind from their sails – forever.
How much would you pay any of them for an after dinner speech?
A fiver?
Too much, perhaps?
OK what is the basis for these high earners deserving their money ?
Is it approval by the ordinary Joe , who can’t [ unsubscribe , delete payment to , ] opt out of paying for the likes of Sopel or Linacker ?
No it’s their own ilk approving their place in the hierarchy . Not paid by these self regarding high echelons , but by extortion from the ordinary Joe . Guaranteed money from prole to new patrician , unless changed .
maxincony
Where are you on all of this?
Is it right to rob from the poor to give to the rich?
\\BBC pay: John Humphrys says he will earn ‘hugely less’//
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42840517
He must have been paid ‘hugely’ before?
Unfortunately the BBC (through use of their own PR machine), have managed to shift the whole issue away from the disgusting amounts of money the BBC pays all of its “talent” to one of pay differentials between men and women.
I suppose they have gambled that with all of these voluntary “pay cuts” that their their top “talent” will now seem to be somewhat virtuous and the media can stop “wasting time” on these pesky money issues and get back to the real issues such as Trump bashing, man bashing, Brexit bashing, advancing the “religion of peace” and of course Strictly.
Yep issue of Top Women’s pay is a smokescreen
distraction trick that the BBC came up with
The issue to us is
#1 Licence money being wasted by OVERPAYING to BBC mates
#2 Are NON-LIBS EXCLUDED from BBC jobs by the anti-non-lib atmosphere the management has allowed to perpetuate.
Alan makes the excellent point about how this old guard stifles vibrancy and innovation – its a job for life (and your children) at the Beeb. I remember when the truly awful Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis finally left he was complaining he shouldn’t go because of how much he could teach young DJ’s!!!!
Radio I assume mostly pays less than TV, particularly in the public sector, so how can the Beeb possible justify even the reduced salaries for Vine and Humphrys, of yes I forgot, they present a quiz show each that gets less than 2m viewers.
Still this was worth every penny
Set a upper limit of the salaries of public sector workers, to that of the Prime Minister, currently £150,402. That should cut the BBC wage bill by billions and cut the licence fee substantially (some hope!).
Upper limit should be half the PM ‘s salary. The reason is that PM’s position is short lived, and is required to be mandated by the electorate, while these badly educated incompetent POMO marxist journos are in clover for life.