“The Corporation also paid out £65m to just 274 members of its ‘talent’ – those earning six or seven figure salaries.”

At an average of around £230,000 per “star” that hardly puts them in the same category as Premiership footballers does it?

I don’t think the amount BBC pays to stars is the key factor in the BBC’s current problems.

Given the disparity in levels of workload between talent, and the inability to compare exactly what is being given for the amount of money paid, it’s more than a little unfair to rail on the talent that have, by all accounts that I’ve read, been cautiously engaging in processes to reduce their pay.

The reality though, as with any job, is that if you reduce people’s pay too much below market rate, there is only so much that a “love” for the organisation can fill that divide before it is taken over by resentment of being disrespected.

This kind of article stinks for me anyway, the problem with the BBC isn’t it’s wage bill, it’s that it’s being asked to cut it’s spending at all. Why engage with the rhetoric that the BBC could be cutting this or that, when the reality is that an average £15ish rise over the next few years to the BBC budget could stop these cuts in their tracks, independently of any other review in to the effectiveness of spending.

“The budget for BBC News will be cut by £24m a year ”

Oh, great. So more press releases from the odious “Taxpayers’ Alliance” will be presented as news items.

The BBC will argue it needs to pay ‘stars’ such high rates, otherwise they would jump ship and go to rival, commercial channels.

And the problem is?

There must be thousands of talented people who would work for the BBC for nothing and it should not be trying to compete on the same playing field as commercial channels when they cannot extort money from citizens with the support of the state.

@4 – Ah yes, because it’s state funded people should work for them for nothing.

…

You once more parody your own views. Anything which is state funded has to be wrecked and ruined…

@ 5

I certainly wouldn’t agree that Beeb employees should work for nothing, or even for low wages. But the BBC does have a different brief than the commercial channels (i.e. its job is not simply to make as much money as possible).

As such, I think the BBC can do a good job without competing frantically with ITV etc for prime-time viewing figures. It would still need well-paid professional staff, but not celebrity presenters being paid six-figure salaries.

@6 – Without celebrities, the truth is that the audience would bleed away to other channels, and the BBC would be left producing news and a few dry documentaries.

And of course the Tories would take the lack of popularity as an excuse to shutter the BBC for good.

How come as many as 300 “senior managers” are to lose their jobs in the BBC? How ever will the BBC manage without them?

@ 7 Leon

“Without celebrities, the truth is that the audience would bleed away to other channels, and the BBC would be left producing news and a few dry documentaries.”

I’m sure that this would happen if the BBC took away enough of its big draws. However, I suspect it could lose a few expensive celebs (along with reality TV rubbish, unless that brings in more money than it costs) without destroying itself as a relevant channel.

“And of course the Tories would take the lack of popularity as an excuse to shutter the BBC for good.”

Very good point.

@ 5 Leon

The BBC is funded by, in the main, the Licence Fee, which is paid by the people of the UK (mainly taxpayers) and not the ‘state’. It is not ‘state funded’.

On a wider point – maybe now is the time to schedule the end the licence fee and give the BBC 5 years to go commercial?

@ 10 Max

“The BBC is funded by, in the main, the Licence Fee, which is paid by the people of the UK (mainly taxpayers) and not the ‘state’. It is not ‘state funded’.”

Close enough for government work. It’s state-controlled (albeit in a hands-off kind of way) and paid for by the majority of households. I admit it’s a bit of a special case, but I don’t think calling it “state-funded” is inaccurate in any important way.

“On a wider point – maybe now is the time to schedule the end the licence fee and give the BBC 5 years to go commercial?”

Let’s not. I really don’t want to see total private control over one of the most important media. Compare our news reporting to America’s.

@11 Chaise

If the Licence fee were a tax then your point would be more relevant. But it isn’t – it is an anomaly in that it is not a tax but failure to pay lands you in jail, unless you can prove that you don’t have a TV or a PC with a TV card in, or some such nonsense. It is, I understand, a criminal act not to pay, whereas not paying (eg) Sky is a civil issue.

Why is this in 2011? Why cannot I just watch everything else but the BBC and not pay for the BBC?

As for news reports – comparing the BBC to Sky would be more relevant. You may not like the Sky coverage – but you can choose not to pay for it, or watch it. Whereas I cannot choose not to pay for the BBC because someone (you?) has decided it is better and good for me.

OT – I llistened to Sunny on R4 this morning being roughed up by a professor who said ‘the BBC has enough money – just get on with it’.

@ 12 Max

Like I said, I treat it like a tax. After all, most taxes aren’t paid by everyone – you still get the benefits of income tax if you’re too poor to pay it, for example. And the whole point of taxes (and things like them) is to pay for things at the local or state level. My taxes go to all sorts of things that I don’t directly benefit from. I don’t see that the BBC’s so different.

And no, it’s not that you need to watch the Beeb because it’s “good for you”, it’s that we as a nation benefit from having a mix of private and state ownership of media. Telling me that I can pay to watch Sky suggests you kinda skipped over that point in my last post.

I thoroughly applaud the BBC in cutting the funds to its news broadcasts.
Firstly,even in its heyday, its news coverage ,with the exception of newsnight, was pretty awful. Now it is running scarred from the Tories its pretty much an expensive version of the Daily Mail. Whilst its breakfast news is totally nauseating its running news commentary throughout the day is typically banal. Personally I can easily make do with channel 4 and the esteemed organ to which I am currently writing.
We dont really need state TV do we?

1. Martin McGrath

At an average of around £230,000 per “star” that hardly puts them in the same category as Premiership footballers does it?

The average level of talent among the BBC’s “stars” hardly puts them in the same category as Premiership footballers.

I don’t think the amount BBC pays to stars is the key factor in the BBC’s current problems.

No but the mentality is the problem – there are any number of people who could do good TV. The BBC needs to pay its executives and “stars” much less and spend more time looking for people who could be the next big thing. It is a niche broadcaster. It needs to find the right niche, a good niche, and stay there.