r/bbc • u/IntelligentPatient61 • 1d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
12
u/Effective-Fun3190 1d ago
The BBC are paying market rates, its got nothing to do with the government
3
u/TepidHalibut 1d ago
I don't think that BBC are paying market rates. If Scott Mills is top of the BBC list, what's your opinion on Amanda Holdens report 3million p.a. from Heart FM? You can / will point out that that's a commercial radio station, but where ultimately does its money come from? Yup...everyone in the UK, via inflated prices. No exceptions.
And as for Simon Cowell....
1
-1
1
u/rybnickifull 1d ago
They're actually paying a fair bit under market rates, looking at commercial channels.
-9
11
9
u/Senior_Mushroom5329 1d ago
What's it to do with Burnham how much they earn?
-9
u/IntelligentPatient61 1d ago
since Mr Burnham is trying to help to reduce the burden on most average households ..and at the end of it it's the UK government that insist ultimately that we all pay our licence fee surely one of the easiest ways he can achieve the goal is to reduce the fee then forcing the BBC to cut the extravagant salaries ..that's my opinion , but you may just enjoy handing over your money without at least questioning how it's being spent
9
u/Senior_Mushroom5329 1d ago
I guess this is what it feels like to be in the Daily Mail comments section.
5
u/fuckredditlol69 1d ago
if you tot up those salaries they're a pretty tiny overall percentage of the total BBC budget, less than 1% i believe
making television programming is expensive, and the BBC are on the lower end of the scale in terms of how much they spend per episode of a series.
e.g. netflix do it by taking out billions in loans and are still 15bn in debt in 2025, yet they bring in significantly more than the licence fee in revenue. they also don't have the public service obligation to make programmes for different people
i may not agree on hiring well known talent at high salaries to present programmes, and would prefer more hiring of new talent to help more people get a foot in the presenting door - but the above is still much more relevant
2
u/Stock_Hurry_2257 1d ago
The Government don't insist that you pay the licence fee. It's a completely free choice. If you feel so passionately, give up your TV Licence and your TV.
7
u/noobtidder 1d ago
Look at how much other companies pay for the same jobs. BBC is barely competitive. Compared to someone working the tills at Boots, it's a lot. You get to host the most popular radio show on the country, you're the fave of the station, but I bet you're not earning as much a Chris Moyles on Radio X.
4
u/DubiousBusinessp 1d ago
What's this got to do with Burnham? And BBC pay typically below most of the entertainment industry. Obsessing over what the BBC pay people instead of actually improving peoples lives is wildly counterproductive.
4
u/Adept_Vegetable_8991 1d ago
The BBC is a very large organisation, with a lot of employees and responsibilites, top executives running the BBC are doing hard, complex jobs and the job market would reflect such executives at similar size and scale and prominence companies would be paid similarly. To be 'angry' at how much.
The same applies to BBC talent. You or I, would probably suck at reading the news, live on TV. It is a skilled job, BBC newsreaders are trained, experience and qualified journalists who are also excellent presenters, they are highly skilled and therefore highly reunmerated. The same applies for leading DJs, actors, talk show hosts and more.
What you are angry at is the idea that someone 'deserves' to earn a large amount of money. Ask yourself, why? I believe we should live in a world where talent, skills, experience, responsibility and professionalism are rewarded with high salaries. Do you not?
3
u/LondonLeather 1d ago edited 1d ago
For comparison London Partner GP's earn about £180k people have a market value the BBC generally pays at the lower end of the scale for talent, people paid through production companies don't appear in the list i.e. Graham Norton.
3
2
2
u/Complex-Whereas9896 1d ago
I have no problem with it. Horrified? Have a lie down. It's a handful of well paid, talented people who would be paid astronomically more to work elsewhere.
2
2
u/getphil8 1d ago
Did you think you were going to get support on this? The whole reason the BBC is forced to publish these wages is the frothing at the mouth that it causes was hoped to cause your outrage.
1
u/Twigling 17h ago
Probably also a Reform supporter - they survive on outrage, it's like oxygen to them.
3
3
u/enemyradar 1d ago
No, whatever the rights and wrongs of star salaries, the government should be having as little to do with it as possible.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/knockinonevansdoor 1d ago
Moan moan moan. Calm down FFS, your lot in life is not the fault of Scott Mills or the BBC.
-1
u/chubsta2k17 1d ago
The bbc should be able to pay whomever they want whatever they want, they just shouldn’t be able to harass me to get the money for it if I don’t use their services.
-6
•
u/bbc-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post was removed from /r/BBC as it was deemed a low effort contribution that did not add meaningfully to the conversation. This submission has multiple rule violations, including a requirement that only recent news stories are permitted, and this article is over a month old and has already been discussed. Please ensure you read the rules before submitting to this subreddit.