Michael Lyons has been doing a lot of media presence lately regarding a BBC Trust report into expenditure on "talent." In future, presenters like Ross, Wogan and Norton could see a compromise in their already extortionate pay packet.
Graham Norton doesn't seem so excessive, but I think the real issue is whether the BBC should be allowed to issue "golden handcuffs". They should just be paying presenters for the shows they host, not hiring a name and then having to find work for them.
It was interesting to note that Jonathan Ross earns £18m over three years, and similarly Graham Norton's £5m is over two years. The impression you would get from some papers (Daily Mail springs to mind) is that these figures were were per year, and whilst the paper appear to have clarified this from reading comments their readers don't seem to have realised. It was also interesting to note that on-screen talent represented around 5.6% of its total licence fee expenditure (reference Media Guardian).
Having said that £18m does seem rather excessive, even if it is over three years. When the BBC is cutting costs by reducing staff it does on the face of it seem a way to save money. Though I suspect that money comes out of a different budget/department to that which hires staff.
It does seem strange that whilst cutting costs the BBC are able to pay ridiculous amounts for presenters. Admittedly they are good and deserve high wages but is Jonathan Ross, for example, really worth £18m over three years? I'd say not. But then again, these presenters aren't going to be happy about receiving a pay cut are they? It looks to me as though the BBC will continue to pay these sort of wages, simply because they want to keep them and the demand for them is there.
But then again, these presenters aren't going to be happy about receiving a pay cut are they? It looks to me as though the BBC will continue to pay these sort of wages, simply because they want to keep them and the demand for them is there.
I'm guessing its for similar reasons that names aren't mentioned in the report, as I imagine most presenters (particularly the higher paid ones) wouldn't be too happy having their salaries published. I guess that might also cause them to leave for a competitor.