Waveguide
June 02 2008

The BBC said today its top talent, such as Terry Wogan, Jonathan Ross and 
Chris Moyles, are not receiving salaries above the market rate.

A report, commissioned by the corporation's governing body, the BBC Trust, 
said in some cases stars get paid less than they would elsewhere.

But it warned the BBC must be prepared to "walk away" from deals with 
performers who are too expensive.

And it said the BBC should use its position to drive prices down.

The review was commissioned after some salary details were leaked to the 
press, including a three-year deal for Ross reportedly worth £18m.

Other figures suggested Radio 2's Sir Terry Wogan got £800,000 a year, while 
Radio 1 breakfast host Chris Moyles took home £630,000.

The BBC Trust said in a statement: "We note the overall findings of the 
Trust's review into talent costs. We are encouraged that the review finds no 
evidence that the BBC overall is paying more than the market price for its 
leading talent.

"Indeed sometimes, as the report finds, we pay under market value because we 
can use individual talent across a wide range of output, offering them more 
work and better creative opportunities.

"The report also acknowledges that the BBC's activities in the talent market 
do not push up prices for the rest of the industry.

"The BBC is in the market place for talent. Our audiences expect to see or 
hear the best talent from the BBC.

"However, as we have said before, value for money is a priority when we 
negotiate deals, and this has been recognised in today's report.

"As has been seen in the last year, the BBC is not afraid to walk away from 
negotiations when we believe the deal does not represent value for money or 
the price is too high.

"The report's recommendations on talent costs in areas such as radio and 
news and the points the report raises about entertainment need further 
discussion and consideration because this is a complex area.

"The report is clear that more could be done to develop new talent and we 
will strive to build on the work we have already done in this area, as well 
as looking to strengthen the talent evaluation and negotiation process 
wherever we can.

"We greatly value the rigorous and thorough work that has been done by the 
Trust and Oliver & Ohlbaum in this area. It provides useful ideas that we 
can develop to improve our work in this area, driving increasing value for 
money for the licence fee payer.

"We will continue to engage with the BBC Trust to assure licence fee payers 
that we are spending the licence fee wisely."

http://www.waveguide.co.uk/news080602.htm#BBC%20Does%20Not%20Pay%20Too%20Much

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 22:42:09, Mike Terry  
wrote in uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 :

>Waveguide
>June 02 2008
>
>The BBC said today its top talent, such as Terry Wogan, Jonathan Ross and
>Chris Moyles, are not receiving salaries above the market rate.

All that proves is that the *market rate* is too much...
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

Zoe Williams
June 4, 2008
The Guardian

Broadly speaking, I have nothing against what the BBC pays its staff: 
they're simply in a market, and that's what the market pays. There are 
certain pockets of life that people expect should be able to exist outside 
the forces of capitalism: the Beeb is one, feminism is another, gardening is 
a third. Everywhere else it's all me-me-me and devil-take-the-hindmost, but 
if the BBC does anything high-rolling, or women are seen to be openly 
competing with one another, or stalls at the Chelsea Flower Show turn a 
profit, then suddenly the spirit of fair play has been outrageously violated 
and the dogs of hell are all over the place. Sorry. This appears to be a 
personal grievance.

What I do hold against the BBC, though, is this idea that they have to pay 
radio presenters a tonne to make up for what they would have earned if 
they'd been on the telly. The implication is that radio and TV personalities 
are totally interchangeable, apart from the fact that TV is better. So you 
need to pay telly prices to get telly calibre.

I am not against paying telly prices - far from it. I wouldn't begrudge 
Terry Wogan one penny of his £800,000. (And it's not a telly price, anyway: 
you don't get a Graham Norton for under two and a half mil.)

But radio and TV personalities are two different creatures. Chris Moyles 
would suck on the telly: he needs the licence of radio to say rude things. 
Also, prime-time telly doesn't really suit humour, or if it does, only the 
gentlest, most oblique kind (by which I mean the Irish and people with 
lisps). Stephen Fry, conversely, sucks on the radio - listening to him on 
I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue (RIP), he had to say the most outrageous things 
simply to get the laugh that he could have got on QI from one eyebrow and a 
smirk. This doesn't mean their salaries shouldn't be equal: it just means 
that if there is one instutiion that shouldn't be talking about radio as 
TV's poor relation, surely it's the BBC.

Right, I'm off to start an online petition for John Humphrys to be paid the 
same as Jeremy Paxman.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,,2283548,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=media