ITN's political editor Tom Bradby has been ruminating on the Telegraph's revelation that Andrew Marr is on a BBC deal which nets him around £27,000 a month, or close to £600k pa. He's chosen to deliver his conclusions by Twitter - hence the staccato nature of these outpourings.
Have been thinking about revelation of Andy Marr's salary. I like him a lot, think he words hard and is very smart. But 600k ? Seems a lot.
No one in ITV News is paid anything like this, so where is the market for all these BBC figures being paid such vast sums ?
I mean, who else will employ them at that level? I assume it means Huw Edwards and all the others also paid a very great deal
The trouble, it seems to me, is that the BBC started to become an internal market about 8 or 9 years ago.
Which is to say the stars started to compare their wages to each other, rather than to anyone outside.
Tom is unfortunately bang on; the reductions in on-screen salaries currently being sought by BBC executives are being done on a pro-rata basis. The leaks of "benchmark" deals like Paxman, Marr and Humphrys make it easier for the salary star chamber to squeeze the lower ranks, and whatever agents they may have, more quickly. And it is the vast long tail of "talent" that makes BBC so expensive to run. What should be happening is benchmarking across the industry...and some real hard thinking about which presenters really earn their corn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment