Bbc Bosses Could Get 80% More In Private Firms, Says Mark Thompson

[Tonkers]

Then why is he not working in the commercial sector one wonders.

[Frank Hovis]

in the outside world.

That sums the BBC up for me. Cosy highly paid and insulated from reality.

[MinceBalls]

If they could, they would. But they can't. So he should shut up!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291931/BBC-bosses-80-private-firms-says-Mark-Thompson.html

'The director-general of the BBC believes the corporation's top bosses could earn almost twice as much working for commercial stations.

In an effort to justify the huge salaries of his executives, Mark Thompson yesterday claimed senior managers could be paid up to 80 per cent more if they worked in the private sector.

His remarks were ridiculed by critics who said many of the BBC's top bosses do not have comparable roles at commercial stations.

They said the BBC was trying to 'ignore reality' over its inflated salaries.

The BBC pays 382 of its senior staff more than £100,000 a year, with 117 earning more than the Prime Minister's £142,500 a year.

Nevertheless Mr Thompson, whose total pay is £834,000, appeared on TV yesterday to claim executives were effectively taking a massive pay cut to work there.

He told the Andrew Marr Show: 'Our senior salary policy is the right policy.

'We pay a lot less than other broadcasters, typically a senior manager at the top of the organisation is paid between 50 and 80 per cent less than they could expect to get in the outside world.'

Mr Thompson did, however, admit: 'Clearly though, compared with other public institutions the pay looks big.'

The figures quoted by Mr Thompson refer to a new pay scale which the BBC is using to set its executive salaries.

Last week the corporation's chief operating officer Caroline Thomson, on £333,000 a year, said all new senior managers recruited by the BBC would be paid 'tens of per cents less' than their competitors in the commercial sector.

Former Channel Five chief executive David Elstein claimed it was 'completely irrelevant' what people earned in the private sector when setting BBC pay.

He said: 'It is a completely absurd comparison. You are in the public sector not the private sector.

'The BBC should be paying the minimum it can get away with not some discount on what somebody in a highly profitable business earns.'

Mr Thompson, speaking ahead of today's BBC annual report, also came out against revealing the salaries of the corporation's top stars, saying it would be 'damaging and destructive' to do so.

He said he had to balance the ' legitimate right' of the public to have a sense of what was spent on talent against demands for confidentiality.

And he suggested any moves to force the BBC to make individual salaries public could actually lead to wage inflation.

His comments came as Sir Terry Wogan entered the debate by claiming pay packets at the BBC were 'far too high'.

The 71-year-old broadcaster suggested high-earners could take a cut of up to 15 per cent.

Sir Terry said: 'The good old days have passed. You have to be responsible. The audience would be unhappy if they thought you were being overpaid.

'Look how the public reacted to, say, Jonathan Ross.

'If they're going to start cutting working people's wages, you can't say you're in a privileged position because you work in television.

'Frankly, salaries were far too high. They could stand to take a 10 to 15 per cent cut. If the public sector is taking that, I see no reason why everybody shouldn't.' He said he took a cut himself, adding: 'People are worried where their hardearned money is going, and the BBC is a visible target.'

Last week Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, said the names of those drawing the biggest salaries should be made public.

According to figures released earlier this year, the corporation spends £54million on its top-earning stars including names such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce. '

I can't imagine a more bloated,unfit for purpose organisation than the Beeb.And guess what,there's to be no transparency with regard to their balance sheet.Mmmm...that sounds fair.we go to prison for refusing to pay,because it's that important for them to be funded,but we can't be told who they're paying and ask them why?

imagine how many jobs would be created if that moeny was spread aorund the commercial sector?

[richc]

He's actually saying that the typical senior manager at the BBC is getting paid 50% to 80% of what they would be paid elsewhere, which means that that BBC bosses would make 200% to 500% more in private firms.

And where are these phenomenally profitable media companies that would be paying 5x for top managers? Looks like ITV and all the newspapers are perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy.

Given the relative scale of the BBC in the market, they're clearly setting the price of talent, not taking the market price.

[Si1]

I am sure Cameron, as a former executive board member of Carlton, is fully aware whether this is true or not

[MrPin]

I don't think commercial radio is doing very well.

A typical station has five listeners, 2 hours of Country and Western a week, and the rest is filled with adverts for carpets, and talk-ins for people who should not have a telephone!

I wish I could find a way to make money out of that!

[Guest sillybear2]

They should leave then, I'm sure there's plenty of fresh parasites just waiting to climb the greasy pole.

[Tonkers]

They should leave then, I'm sure there's plenty of fresh parasites just waiting to climb the greasy pole.

he should be challenged to leave.

What is wrong with these people, that they are due such obscene wages? Or need them?

[Guest sillybear2]

he should be challenged to leave.

What is wrong with these people, that they are due such obscene wages? Or need them?

Exactly, I don't believe they're underpaid at all, they set their own market and outbid themselves. Anyway, his reasoning is flawed, the BBC is not a commercial organisation, being appointed to run an institution like the Beeb should be an honour, a kind of vocational calling.

Edited July 5, 2010 by sillybear2

[Fool's Gold]

Then why is he not working in the commercial sector one wonders.

He's not doing that job at the BBC 'for the money'. He's doing it 'cos it's a great institute to work for. It being a clique of arty-farty types and closed shop to outsiders and guaranteed income source in the form of the tv tax has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Reluctant Heretic]

he should be challenged to leave.

What is wrong with these people, that they are due such obscene wages? Or need them?

I agree totally - he claims that they have to pay these obscenely high wages to secure talent but I've never heard of a shortage of talented people in the media. Most people now prefer the radio (according to some report I read somewhere - MSN?) where the staff are paid a pittance. Just put a camera on them, sell off the television studios, sack all the TV staff and throw out the overpriced celebrities (who missed Jonathan Ross?) then reduce licence to £7 a month - job done!

[monty1080]

It's obscene, I work in TV (sometimes for the BBC) and as per most organisations, private or public, the least productive people get paid the most. I wonder how many of that 382 who get paid >£100k actually make radio or telly programmes ? In reality probably about 50 of them. For the people 'at the coal face' programme makers, directors ,producers etc. They get paid less than they would in the private sector, but as has been mentioned before, it's very difficult to equate private and public sector jobs. The Beeb is a very comfy, middle class organisation, there are plenty of people working there who simply wouldn't cut it in the private sector.

[SarahBell]

So let them.

Seriously he's got to be joking if he thinks it's true.

[Warwick Yellow]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291931/BBC-bosses-80-private-firms-says-Mark-Thompson.html

'The director-general of the BBC believes the corporation's top bosses could earn almost twice as much working for commercial stations.

In an effort to justify the huge salaries of his executives, Mark Thompson yesterday claimed senior managers could be paid up to 80 per cent more if they worked in the private sector.

His remarks were ridiculed by critics who said many of the BBC's top bosses do not have comparable roles at commercial stations.

They said the BBC was trying to 'ignore reality' over its inflated salaries.

The BBC pays 382 of its senior staff more than £100,000 a year, with 117 earning more than the Prime Minister's £142,500 a year.

Nevertheless Mr Thompson, whose total pay is £834,000, appeared on TV yesterday to claim executives were effectively taking a massive pay cut to work there.

He told the Andrew Marr Show: 'Our senior salary policy is the right policy.

'We pay a lot less than other broadcasters, typically a senior manager at the top of the organisation is paid between 50 and 80 per cent less than they could expect to get in the outside world.'

Mr Thompson did, however, admit: 'Clearly though, compared with other public institutions the pay looks big.'

The figures quoted by Mr Thompson refer to a new pay scale which the BBC is using to set its executive salaries.

Last week the corporation's chief operating officer Caroline Thomson, on £333,000 a year, said all new senior managers recruited by the BBC would be paid 'tens of per cents less' than their competitors in the commercial sector.

Former Channel Five chief executive David Elstein claimed it was 'completely irrelevant' what people earned in the private sector when setting BBC pay.

He said: 'It is a completely absurd comparison. You are in the public sector not the private sector.

'The BBC should be paying the minimum it can get away with not some discount on what somebody in a highly profitable business earns.'

Mr Thompson, speaking ahead of today's BBC annual report, also came out against revealing the salaries of the corporation's top stars, saying it would be 'damaging and destructive' to do so.

He said he had to balance the ' legitimate right' of the public to have a sense of what was spent on talent against demands for confidentiality.

And he suggested any moves to force the BBC to make individual salaries public could actually lead to wage inflation.

His comments came as Sir Terry Wogan entered the debate by claiming pay packets at the BBC were 'far too high'.

The 71-year-old broadcaster suggested high-earners could take a cut of up to 15 per cent.

Sir Terry said: 'The good old days have passed. You have to be responsible. The audience would be unhappy if they thought you were being overpaid.

'Look how the public reacted to, say, Jonathan Ross.

'If they're going to start cutting working people's wages, you can't say you're in a privileged position because you work in television.

'Frankly, salaries were far too high. They could stand to take a 10 to 15 per cent cut. If the public sector is taking that, I see no reason why everybody shouldn't.' He said he took a cut himself, adding: 'People are worried where their hardearned money is going, and the BBC is a visible target.'

Last week Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, said the names of those drawing the biggest salaries should be made public.

According to figures released earlier this year, the corporation spends £54million on its top-earning stars including names such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce. '

I can't imagine a more bloated,unfit for purpose organisation than the Beeb.And guess what,there's to be no transparency with regard to their balance sheet.Mmmm...that sounds fair.we go to prison for refusing to pay,because it's that important for them to be funded,but we can't be told who they're paying and ask them why?

imagine how many jobs would be created if that moeny was spread aorund the commercial sector?

Usual lies and spin from the social engineering obsessed Guardianistas and Common Purpose graduates at the BBC; most of private sector broadcasting is close to folding and how do they extrapolate the 'talent' theory to support functions such as finance, IT or HR where the Beeb is famed for overpaying for under stressed jobs?

If Cameron does one thing he should hold a torch so bright up to the BBC that nobody is ever again in doubt as to what they are.

[Guest sillybear2]

corrected

"By the power vested in me by the Church of managerial team building Group Think and Political Correctness I hereby anoint you to run the BBC in the right and proper way. Here is your credit card for expenses and a map to the Ivy"

[blankster]

Bbc Bosses Could Get 80% More In Private Firms, Says Mark Thompson

Simple! If they want to earn more, they can apply for jobs in private firms. BBC staff should remember they are funded by a compulsory TV tax and so cannot be compared to the private sector.

[thecrashingisles]

The BBC don't seem to realise how much they distort the market on their own. The 'private sector' has to operate in a market in which the BBC has a dominant position.

[pathfinder]

At least you can vote by not paying TV Tax. I am not paying those salaries anymore got better things to do with my time .

[Guest sillybear2]

At least you can vote by not paying TV Tax. I am not paying those salaries anymore got better things to do with my time .

Indeed

[Northwest Smith]

Indeed

They can pay them £10 Million each and spend the rest on a jelly walking competition for all I care. It's not my money

so the BBC can do what they want with it.

[erranta]

<br />If they could, they would. But they can't. So he should shut up!<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

We keep getting told on HPC that the UK is awash with media studies degree dolers/mcdonates staff

Why not sack the current overpaid, "coz we're worth it" bbc brigade

(programs and repeats can't just get worse)

and employ these younger people on 25-30,000 (after few yrs training) with renewed vigour and a fresh outlook to create new progs!

[Guest sillybear2]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/04/groucho-club-debts-rise

I guess the money must be going on hookers instead.

[pathfinder]

Indeed

Lol

[plummet expert]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291931/BBC-bosses-80-private-firms-says-Mark-Thompson.html

'The director-general of the BBC believes the corporation's top bosses could earn almost twice as much working for commercial stations.

In an effort to justify the huge salaries of his executives, Mark Thompson yesterday claimed senior managers could be paid up to 80 per cent more if they worked in the private sector.

His remarks were ridiculed by critics who said many of the BBC's top bosses do not have comparable roles at commercial stations.

They said the BBC was trying to 'ignore reality' over its inflated salaries.

The BBC pays 382 of its senior staff more than £100,000 a year, with 117 earning more than the Prime Minister's £142,500 a year.

Nevertheless Mr Thompson, whose total pay is £834,000, appeared on TV yesterday to claim executives were effectively taking a massive pay cut to work there.

He told the Andrew Marr Show: 'Our senior salary policy is the right policy.

'We pay a lot less than other broadcasters, typically a senior manager at the top of the organisation is paid between 50 and 80 per cent less than they could expect to get in the outside world.'

Mr Thompson did, however, admit: 'Clearly though, compared with other public institutions the pay looks big.'

The figures quoted by Mr Thompson refer to a new pay scale which the BBC is using to set its executive salaries.

Last week the corporation's chief operating officer Caroline Thomson, on £333,000 a year, said all new senior managers recruited by the BBC would be paid 'tens of per cents less' than their competitors in the commercial sector.

Former Channel Five chief executive David Elstein claimed it was 'completely irrelevant' what people earned in the private sector when setting BBC pay.

He said: 'It is a completely absurd comparison. You are in the public sector not the private sector.

'The BBC should be paying the minimum it can get away with not some discount on what somebody in a highly profitable business earns.'

Mr Thompson, speaking ahead of today's BBC annual report, also came out against revealing the salaries of the corporation's top stars, saying it would be 'damaging and destructive' to do so.

He said he had to balance the ' legitimate right' of the public to have a sense of what was spent on talent against demands for confidentiality.

And he suggested any moves to force the BBC to make individual salaries public could actually lead to wage inflation.

His comments came as Sir Terry Wogan entered the debate by claiming pay packets at the BBC were 'far too high'.

The 71-year-old broadcaster suggested high-earners could take a cut of up to 15 per cent.

Sir Terry said: 'The good old days have passed. You have to be responsible. The audience would be unhappy if they thought you were being overpaid.

'Look how the public reacted to, say, Jonathan Ross.

'If they're going to start cutting working people's wages, you can't say you're in a privileged position because you work in television.

'Frankly, salaries were far too high. They could stand to take a 10 to 15 per cent cut. If the public sector is taking that, I see no reason why everybody shouldn't.' He said he took a cut himself, adding: 'People are worried where their hardearned money is going, and the BBC is a visible target.'

Last week Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, said the names of those drawing the biggest salaries should be made public.

According to figures released earlier this year, the corporation spends £54million on its top-earning stars including names such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce. '

I can't imagine a more bloated,unfit for purpose organisation than the Beeb.And guess what,there's to be no transparency with regard to their balance sheet.Mmmm...that sounds fair.we go to prison for refusing to pay,because it's that important for them to be funded,but we can't be told who they're paying and ask them why?

imagine how many jobs would be created if that moeny was spread aorund the commercial sector?

Thanks for that! Again, I offer to work in any of those 'executive' roles for 50% less if over £300k or 25 % less if £120k or above or 20% less for any of the other jobs mentioned over £100k. I will start next month. Any ministers reading this? It's all nonsense that those, not even in the public eye cannot be recruited to do their jobs properly for a good deal less. I frankly don't believe it.

Any Quango chiefs want to stop work and let me do their job for 50% of their pay? ...............What a silence!!!!

[JPJPJP]

I don't give two figs how much anyone at the BBC gets paid, it doesn't come out of my pocket, I don't have cause to purchase a TV licence