|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 14:54:35 GMT
I agree, as long as there is a level playing field with competitors and they are compelled to do the same. Otherwise the assymetric nature of any transparency is going to affect them badly. It is just bad business to reveal your pay structure to competitors who are able to, and mostly do, pay more than you do. Therein lies the fear that this is not about transparency but about something else. BBC radio pays way higher in all positions - talent and technical - than commercial rivals. I think in TV news the BBC numbers are about the same as commercial. Not sure on sport. Direct comparisons are impossible and all you get is whispers, soap-wise there is a suggestion that the BBC pay more but that is not the case with more prestige product. Presenting-wise ITV pays way more for Peston than Kuenssberg apparently, even after screen time comparisons. The only solution is to release all pay amounts within the business. Sportwise all you need to do is look at who has the most clout and that is Sky, they can get, and pay for, anyone they want. That's the reason that Lineker's pay is higher than non sports, same for Evans whose audience reach is large compared to others, on the most popular station at the most popular listening time. Independent national radio is generally very poor so no surprise there (listening share of 15-20% as opposed to 45-50% ish for BBC). As with national print news they are likely to dwindle (though small scale local stations will likely prosper). |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 20, 2017 16:39:29 GMT
Really you don't use Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, a high street bank any phone network, any supermarket, fast food restaurant, any branded food or drink or any other retailer? That's quite an achievement. Oh you such a wag aren't you? I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to my shopping habits, and buy for my needs and my own desires, not to attain some "Lifestyle" that is rammed down my throat by advertising agencies. Unless you literally never pay for any product or service that has been advertised - which is pretty much impossible in the modern world - you are paying for the advertising cost of the products you consume when you buy them. The cost of advertising those products is rolled into the price you pay. You don't really notice it, because the cost is spread over so many different units that it is pennies per purchase. So you are paying twice for Sky - you pay your subscription fee and you also contribute to the revenue they get from advertising. We all pay that regardless of whether we watch commercial TV. The difference with the license fee is that the cost is entirely transparent, and makes them far more accountable to their audience than commercial TV is. The BBC has a duty to all of the license fee paying public, whereas commercial TV only serves the demographics who appeal most to advertisers or who can afford to pay subscription fees - which can be hiked at any time. If the BBC license fee were to be scrapped, if the BBC was competing for advertising revenue to survive, either the quality of TV in this country would plummet, or the cost of subscription TV would jump. Everyone would be competing for the same advertising budgets - there wouldn't suddenly be more advertising money available, not unless the price of advertised products went up to fund it. The disparity between 'star' pay and everyone else would increase, not decrease - because everyone would need to secure the services of stars who are guaranteed to draw an audience, to show advertisers that they are worth their money. At the moment the BBC can afford to slightly under-pay compared to Sky, because they have guaranteed income, because they offer a different environment than commercial TV and can afford to nurture talent, because they don't need everything to be an instant hit just to keep ad money rolling in and pay the bills. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jul 20, 2017 18:32:32 GMT
Oh you such a wag aren't you? I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to my shopping habits, and buy for my needs and my own desires, not to attain some "Lifestyle" that is rammed down my throat by advertising agencies. Unless you literally never pay for any product or service that has been advertised - which is pretty much impossible in the modern world - you are paying for the advertising cost of the products you consume when you buy them. The cost of advertising those products is rolled into the price you pay. You don't really notice it, because the cost is spread over so many different units that it is pennies per purchase. So you are paying twice for Sky - you pay your subscription fee and you also contribute to the revenue they get from advertising. We all pay that regardless of whether we watch commercial TV. The difference with the license fee is that the cost is entirely transparent, and makes them far more accountable to their audience than commercial TV is. The BBC has a duty to all of the license fee paying public, whereas commercial TV only serves the demographics who appeal most to advertisers or who can afford to pay subscription fees - which can be hiked at any time. If the BBC license fee were to be scrapped, if the BBC was competing for advertising revenue to survive, either the quality of TV in this country would plummet, or the cost of subscription TV would jump. Everyone would be competing for the same advertising budgets - there wouldn't suddenly be more advertising money available, not unless the price of advertised products went up to fund it. The disparity between 'star' pay and everyone else would increase, not decrease - because everyone would need to secure the services of stars who are guaranteed to draw an audience, to show advertisers that they are worth their money. At the moment the BBC can afford to slightly under-pay compared to Sky, because they have guaranteed income, because they offer a different environment than commercial TV and can afford to nurture talent, because they don't need everything to be an instant hit just to keep ad money rolling in and pay the bills. I 'like' this. I prefer saying it to clicking on that stupid heart button. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2017 19:42:09 GMT
Unless you literally never pay for any product or service that has been advertised - which is pretty much impossible in the modern world - you are paying for the advertising cost of the products you consume when you buy them. The cost of advertising those products is rolled into the price you pay. You don't really notice it, because the cost is spread over so many different units that it is pennies per purchase. So you are paying twice for Sky - you pay your subscription fee and you also contribute to the revenue they get from advertising. We all pay that regardless of whether we watch commercial TV. The difference with the license fee is that the cost is entirely transparent, and makes them far more accountable to their audience than commercial TV is. The BBC has a duty to all of the license fee paying public, whereas commercial TV only serves the demographics who appeal most to advertisers or who can afford to pay subscription fees - which can be hiked at any time. If the BBC license fee were to be scrapped, if the BBC was competing for advertising revenue to survive, either the quality of TV in this country would plummet, or the cost of subscription TV would jump. Everyone would be competing for the same advertising budgets - there wouldn't suddenly be more advertising money available, not unless the price of advertised products went up to fund it. The disparity between 'star' pay and everyone else would increase, not decrease - because everyone would need to secure the services of stars who are guaranteed to draw an audience, to show advertisers that they are worth their money. At the moment the BBC can afford to slightly under-pay compared to Sky, because they have guaranteed income, because they offer a different environment than commercial TV and can afford to nurture talent, because they don't need everything to be an instant hit just to keep ad money rolling in and pay the bills. I 'like' this. I prefer saying it to clicking on that stupid heart button. I don't think the BBC slightly underpay compared to Sky. The case of Alan Shearer is interesting. In his previous BBC contract he was paid double what he gets now, over £1 million. At the time so was Alan Hansen. When their contracts came up for renewal they were offered a 50% or greater pay cut for the same work and they both accepted. Shearer is now on £500k. That indicates that the BBC weren't paying the market rate and Sky didn't want them anyway. John Humphries also recently took a very large pay cut. Some of these salaries are nothing to do with the market rate, in some cases because there simply isn't any market for these people. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 20, 2017 19:53:01 GMT
I prefer saying it to clicking on that stupid heart button.  |
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 20, 2017 19:54:53 GMT
Thanks for that Kathryn. I may be a little naive but I'm not completely without basic knowledge of how things work. Of course I know the marketing costs of products are put into the price of them, and of course I sometimes buy products that spend money on marketing, as you rightly point it would be next to Impossible not to. However I do try my hardest and generally avoid huge / luxury brands. I still don't think this is the same as a legally enforced licence fee.
That said, I don't have an issue with the BBC being licence fee funded, and haven't once suggested they shouldn't be. It is the size of some of those salaries they pay that I find uncomfortable. I Understand that this is the world we live in and begrudgingly accept that in society currently 'the market rules all'. However, I do think that we are all entitled to rail against things that we don't agree with.
Not the politics of envy, rather the politics of fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 19:58:56 GMT
Some are prepared to work for less for the BBC, you find something similar in education, health etc. If you know your employer is having its business affected by extenal forces people do that sort of thing.
How much do Sky pundits get paid then? Just for comparison, we need accurate figures. We know that Chiles is getting much less at the BBC than during his sojourn to ITV and Gary 'useless' Neville at Sky getting just less than Lineker for a fraction of the breadth and, to be honest, intelligence that Lineker brings to coverage for football and beyond.
If only Sky stopped paying over the odds for everything people in this country could have been watching more sport and even, gasp, live cricket instead of picking up scraps or paying eye watering prices per month. Sky have a lot to answer for, for how they have priced people out.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 20, 2017 21:12:09 GMT
Thanks for that Kathryn. I may be a little naive but I'm not completely without basic knowledge of how things work. Of course I know the marketing costs of products are put into the price of them, and of course I sometimes buy products that spend money on marketing, as you rightly point it would be next to Impossible not to. However I do try my hardest and generally avoid huge / luxury brands. I still don't think this is the same as a legally enforced licence fee. That said, I don't have an issue with the BBC being licence fee funded, and haven't once suggested they shouldn't be. It is the size of some of those salaries they pay that I find uncomfortable. I Understand that this is the world we live in and begrudgingly accept that in society currently 'the market rules all'. However, I do think that we are all entitled to rail against things that we don't agree with. Not the politics of envy, rather the politics of fairness. It's impossible for us to judge 'fair' in a market situation without understanding the details of the market, which we can't without knowing what everyone else is getting paid. If we're not judging 'fair' based on market conditions, then all we're doing is railing that life, in general, in unfair. Which, of course, it is! But that's not the BBC's fault.... Blaming the BBC or individual members of their staff for the unfairness of life in general and the TV labour market in particular not not seem fair to me. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jul 20, 2017 21:41:31 GMT
I prefer saying it to clicking on that stupid heart button. Thank you, I heart that. |
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 21, 2017 6:01:23 GMT
It's impossible for us to judge 'fair' in a market situation without understanding the details of the market, which we can't without knowing what everyone else is getting paid. If we're not judging 'fair' based on market conditions, then all we're doing is railing that life, in general, in unfair. Which, of course, it is! But that's not the BBC's fault.... Blaming the BBC or individual members of their staff for the unfairness of life in general and the TV labour market in particular not not seem fair to me. I really don't think your getting my point at all, but hey ho. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 21, 2017 15:19:42 GMT
Sometimes people do get your point, they just disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 15:52:39 GMT
It's impossible for us to judge 'fair' in a market situation without understanding the details of the market, which we can't without knowing what everyone else is getting paid. If we're not judging 'fair' based on market conditions, then all we're doing is railing that life, in general, in unfair. Which, of course, it is! But that's not the BBC's fault.... Blaming the BBC or individual members of their staff for the unfairness of life in general and the TV labour market in particular not not seem fair to me. I really don't think your getting my point at all, but hey ho. Are you suggesting that any such high level of pay, whether from a licence fee or advertising, from BBC, Sky or ITV is a bad thing? That's understandable but we live in a world where viewing figures rule and that means paying high amounts for whoever will give you that credibility. I'm not sure anything apart from pay caps could stop that and we don't want to go down that route. |
|
5,061 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 22, 2017 17:22:53 GMT
I 'like' this. I prefer saying it to clicking on that stupid heart button. I don't think the BBC slightly underpay compared to Sky. The case of Alan Shearer is interesting. In his previous BBC contract he was paid double what he gets now, over £1 million. At the time so was Alan Hansen. When their contracts came up for renewal they were offered a 50% or greater pay cut for the same work and they both accepted. Shearer is now on £500k. That indicates that the BBC weren't paying the market rate and Sky didn't want them anyway. John Humphries also recently took a very large pay cut. Some of these salaries are nothing to do with the market rate, in some cases because there simply isn't any market for these people. So a bit like Stockbrokers that have threatened to move to Singapore then? |
|
5,061 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 22, 2017 17:25:29 GMT
I have been analysing the list several times to see where our very own Elaine Paige is? She doesn't appear to be on it, obviously she is being underpaid, as she keeps play Memorys or boost her pay, she nearly played it twice in one show!!!
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2017 20:50:22 GMT
So before I switched over to something more dramatically fulfilling (an infomercial with someone selling incontinence mattress covers) I heard that tonight's Casualty was a one camera shot special. Yes, the entire episode is apparently filmed in one continuous shot.
Why?
Im sure this had the creative team wetting their collective knickers (I should point them towards the infomercial) but who else gives a toss? I dont think the average Casualty viewer really cares? Please tell me I'm wrong.
This is where my support for the Beeb wanes. The planning and filming for this must have cost a fortune, yet it's a programme that invites what is possibly the most creatively indolent Saturday night audience. It's hardly the slot for cutting edge telly is it?
A total waste of (our) money.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2017 20:51:42 GMT
I bet it threw that bloke who plays Charlie into a right tizz. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 20:52:30 GMT
So before I switched over to something more dramatically fulfilling (an infomercial with someone selling incontinence mattress covers) I heard that tonight's Casualty was a one camera shot special. Yes, the entire episode is apparently filmed in one continuous shot. Why? Perhaps you should watch it and find out. |
|
4,006 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by d'James on Jul 29, 2017 21:05:46 GMT
Define a fortune??! It would cost more than a normal episode, yes, but I doubt it was that huge.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2017 21:12:54 GMT
Define a fortune??! It would cost more than a normal episode, yes, but I doubt it was that huge. C'mon. A totally different approach to the story, the script, and how it was filmed? It will have taken many many hours over and above the usual well oiled machine that produces the show. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2017 21:13:37 GMT
So before I switched over to something more dramatically fulfilling (an infomercial with someone selling incontinence mattress covers) I heard that tonight's Casualty was a one camera shot special. Yes, the entire episode is apparently filmed in one continuous shot. Why? Perhaps you should watch it and find out. I don't like blood. |
|
4,006 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by d'James on Jul 29, 2017 21:14:18 GMT
Define a fortune??! It would cost more than a normal episode, yes, but I doubt it was that huge. C'mon. A totally different approach to the story, the script, and how it was filmed? It will have taken many many hours over and above the usual well oiled machine that produces the show. I still don't think it'll be that bad. I think they will have had to do it within their pre-arranged budget. |
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 29, 2017 21:37:33 GMT
Define a fortune??! It would cost more than a normal episode, yes, but I doubt it was that huge. C'mon. A totally different approach to the story, the script, and how it was filmed? It will have taken many many hours over and above the usual well oiled machine that produces the show. More time in the planning and rehearsal, less in the shoot. No off-set location costs. Minimal 'big bang' effects which you would normally expect to see in a season finale. Doubt the overall budget was much different. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2017 21:39:09 GMT
I beg to differ  |
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 29, 2017 21:48:36 GMT
I beg to differ As is your prerogative |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 29, 2017 22:03:57 GMT
Sometimes it feels like the Daily Mail comment page on here.
Getting annoyed about something you can't even be arsed to watch and then complain it's a waste of money based on zero facts. Utterly ridiculous.
Even if it did cost more than a standard episode maybe they have cut costs on other episodes to afford it you know like TV series do all the bloody time.
|
|
