BBC

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I know views differ amongst posters as to whether paying men more than women to the same job is right or wrong, but the real story of the BBC disclosure that I am sure we can agree on is that it is just more evidence that the BBC is too big, too broad, overstepping its brief, and costing the licence fee payer too much money to provide too much content the country doesn't need, just to feed their own media luvvy egos.

Time to not just to trim the fat but perform full on liposuction of the BBC and scale it back to performing its core function and nothing more.
Circa 1887
Posts: 842
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 12:39
I agree.

I'd add that what type of country do we live in when a man pretending to be a nurse can be paid £350k, yet actual nurses saving lives are paid £25k.

Furthermore, the likes of these 'talents' bemoaning austerity on social media, whilst enjoying chauffeur driven cars to and from work each day. Why don't they stand up and say "No, i'm a grown adult, I can get myself to work" allowing that money to be saved and spent on worthwhile causes....like the NHS, or the charitable causes they ask us to pay towards every other month on TV and radio.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16823
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
I'm not against equal pay for doing equal jobs, but I am against paying someone more just because someone else is earning more. For example, the likes of Chris Evans and Jeremy Vine get paid a lot because they draw in a larger than average audience that listen to their shows specifically to hear them. If somebody else was doing that same show, they would possibly/probably lose listeners. On the other hand, if Tess Daly or Claudia Winkelman were replaced as presenters on Strictly, it would almost certainly make very little difference as people don't watch it to see them. In fact, they might gain viewers depending on the replacements. There's also a lot of guff regarding people getting paid different amounts for doing the same jobs, and people now having to stick up for themselves. For example, Dan Walker was targeted for earning more than his female colleague for doing some breakfast show, and he had to inform them that he gets exactly the same for his breakfast show as his colleagues but he also has other jobs on Football Focus and 5Live which boost his pay.

And now agents will be on the phone asking why someone else is getting paid more than their client, boost the pay or they're walking... Probably end up costing BBC a lot more money, or the quality will continue to drop further.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I'd argue that 75% of the BBC website is pointless gumph written for the sake of writing and provides no public function.

Some headlines from the homepage today:

"10 record-breaking records that have made history"

"A glimpse inside the Goldman Sachs nursery"

"Madonna blocks sale of intimate items at auction"

"17 date night dinners that are delicious and healthy"

"The best books to listen to on the radio right now"

"Six reasons why Handel's water music is so famous"

"Michael Phelps v Shark: Who can swim faster?"

"What happens when England cricketers try baseball?"

"I'm gay, Sikh and getting married"

"Mum's hilarious Beyonce parody finds worldwide fame"

"Are you a Jane Austen superfan?"

And that is the homepage. God knows what is lurking in the myriad of thousand of pages on the website. What a waste of money.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16823
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Yeah, they're very much becoming just another website pandering to modern trends in order to gain clicks. Won't be long before they've got surveys on each page...
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Shade wrote:Yeah, they're very much becoming just another website pandering to modern trends in order to gain clicks. Won't be long before they've got surveys on each page...
Yup, which is pointless because they have no advertising or commercial interest so no need to gain clicks, other than ego and to justify their cost to licence payers.

Let commercial operators chase clicks and revenue in the open market, and BBC should provide content for the public good which the market would under-deliver.
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
have to agree with the view that wages should come down to a level playing pitch, if required that is.
As for BBC what irks me is when they make their own news by doing meaningless freedom of information requests, then building stories around them.

As for Claudia ...... how that talent-less woman gets paid that much, is beyond me. These are the questions need answered. Nepotism
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Also, the figures are payroll only and don't include other forms of payment. For e.g. Graham Norton reported pay c.£800k, however this doesn't actually include the Graham Norton show itself, for which his production company is paid £2.5m.
User avatar
Sprout Picker
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:20
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Shade wrote:Yeah, they're very much becoming just another website pandering to modern trends in order to gain clicks. Won't be long before they've got surveys on each page...
Yup, which is pointless because they have no advertising or commercial interest so no need to gain clicks, other than ego and to justify their cost to licence payers.

Let commercial operators chase clicks and revenue in the open market, and BBC should provide content for the public good which the market would under-deliver.
If you use the BBC site abroad you'll find that there is advertising included on its pages which may go someway to explaining some of the content on offer and possibly why the Football homepage is frequently buried in articles relating to Man Utd to cater for all their far-east 'supporters'.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Sprout Picker wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Shade wrote:Yeah, they're very much becoming just another website pandering to modern trends in order to gain clicks. Won't be long before they've got surveys on each page...
Yup, which is pointless because they have no advertising or commercial interest so no need to gain clicks, other than ego and to justify their cost to licence payers.

Let commercial operators chase clicks and revenue in the open market, and BBC should provide content for the public good which the market would under-deliver.
If you use the BBC site abroad you'll find that there is advertising included on its pages which may go someway to explaining some of the content on offer and possibly why the Football homepage is frequently buried in articles relating to Man Utd to cater for all their far-east 'supporters'.
Maybe so but this is not in their remit. Why is the BBC chasing money overseas and catering to foreign markets? If the licence fee is not enough to cover costs then scale back what they do and focus on core content for UK licence fee payers.
User avatar
Sprout Picker
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:20
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Sprout Picker wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Yup, which is pointless because they have no advertising or commercial interest so no need to gain clicks, other than ego and to justify their cost to licence payers.

Let commercial operators chase clicks and revenue in the open market, and BBC should provide content for the public good which the market would under-deliver.
If you use the BBC site abroad you'll find that there is advertising included on its pages which may go someway to explaining some of the content on offer and possibly why the Football homepage is frequently buried in articles relating to Man Utd to cater for all their far-east 'supporters'.

Maybe so but this is not in their remit. Why is the BBC chasing money overseas and catering to foreign markets? If the licence fee is not enough to cover costs then scale back what they do and focus on core content for UK licence fee payers.
I agree RCS but the BBC clearly have other ideas! I would imagine they are pulling in some pretty hefty revenues as a result of these advertising strategies and their click-bait offerings that seem to have become ever more prevalent over the last few years.
Post Reply