Jeremy Paxman Slams BBC Payouts

occy · 17/04/14 - 07:04

Jeremy Paxman has described the BBC as "smug" and criticised senior staff being paid huge sums "merely for walking out of the door".

The Newsnight presenter also spoke out against its "closed corporate culture" and said recent revelations about excessive pay-offs for executives and the millions wasted on a failed IT project had tested "the public's patience".

Among the payouts that sparked a recent storm of criticism were £470,000 to former director-general George Entwistle after only 54 days in the job and £680,000 to former chief operating officer Caroline Thomson.

Deputy director-general Mark Byford departed the BBC with a total payout of £949,000.

Only last week, an influential committee of MPs said the BBC was "far too complacent" in its handling of the Digital Media Initiative (DMI) which was scrapped at the cost of almost £100 million of licence fee-payers' money.

Paxman told the Guardian: "It is smug. I love the BBC in many ways, but at the same time it has made me loathe aspects of it, and that's a very odd state of affairs.

"When I see people being given £1 million merely for walking out of the door, when I see £100 million being blown on that DMI [digital media initiative] thing, a stupid technical initiative like that, I start wondering: how much longer are we going to test the public's patience?"

He also said the BBC had "an unfortunate history" of expanding into areas including online news and "extra" television and radio channels.

He said: "The great smell that comes off those pay-off scandals - and I think they are scandals - is of an organisation which became complacent, preoccupied with the conditions of its senior staff, at the expense of a strategic vision."

He was speaking on the Graham Norton Show

petely · 17/04/14 - 08:25

Jeremy Paxman has described the BBC as "smug" and criticised senior staff being paid huge sums "merely for walking out of the door".

Although it must be said that in vast swathes of business, the single biggest (often: only) contribution that a lot of executives can make, is to leave their jobs.
In that case, bunging them the odd Mil' (of which the government will take 50% back as tax) to stop them from "working" is probably a bargain

However, it's also worth noting that in some cases the source of the problem lies in the poor contractual arrangements under which these people (or sometimes, their service companies) are engaged - which don't allow for termination due to non-performance, or have badly worded or ill-defined descriptions of the circumstances that the individual can be fired for.

i4u · 17/04/14 - 08:55

occy wrote: »

He was speaking on the Graham Norton Show

A programme aired on the BBC?

Paxo's next career move is to Russia Today?

Tassium · 17/04/14 - 09:07

Mark Thompson was a bad egg. But also politicians keep chiving the BBC to be "commercial" in behaviour and they got their wish. This blind worship of all things private is a mental illness surely?

Regardless, the only future for the BBC is one where it's staff are moderately paid.

lundavra · 17/04/14 - 09:27

I am getting a bit bored with all the pontificating from Paxman about the BBC, it seems to happen every few weeks. He seems to have a very high opinion of himself, perhaps he should go elsewhere.

SkipTracer · 17/04/14 - 09:41

Tassium wrote: »

Regardless, the only future for the BBC is one where it's staff are moderately paid.

Not necessarily so as we will just have to cough up more taxes to pay their wages.

Oh and not forgetting we will pay more for less and this is good news for the government of the day too as Rupert supports whatever government he think can do the most damage to the BBC so increasing the value of his companies.:)

petely · 17/04/14 - 09:58

Tassium wrote: »

Regardless, the only future for the BBC is one where it's staff are moderately paid.

Most of them are (but in comparison to what? Obviously that has to be to other professionals - not Tesco's checkout staff.

However the tiny number who earn 7-figures, while drawing a lot of media ire, make practically no difference to the overall wage bill. So having them earn £1M+ is of no consequence to the big picture.

Tassium · 17/04/14 - 10:10

petely wrote: »

Most of them are (but in comparison to what? Obviously that has to be to other professionals - not Tesco's checkout staff.

However the tiny number who earn 7-figures, while drawing a lot of media ire, make practically no difference to the overall wage bill. So having them earn £1M+ is of no consequence to the big picture.

But the public don't like it so it does make a difference to the big picture.

Because it's the public who will save the BBC (or not)

occy · 17/04/14 - 10:12

It's like Wogan a few years ago moaning about the company that pays too feed him. They are freelancers and have a right to speak out if they find problems with in the place they work.

jmclaugh · 17/04/14 - 10:26

No argument with what he says but the term 'smug' applies equally to him.

lundavra · 17/04/14 - 10:32

petely wrote: »

Most of them are (but in comparison to what? Obviously that has to be to other professionals - not Tesco's checkout staff.

However the tiny number who earn 7-figures, while drawing a lot of media ire, make practically no difference to the overall wage bill. So having them earn £1M+ is of no consequence to the big picture.

I suspect that small number on seven figure salaries bring in quite a lot of income for the BBC through overseas sales of their programme which might not be the case with someone on minimum pay rate doing the job. Clarkson is the most notable example but I am sure some of the others add to the value of their programmes overseas.

I get more annoyed at the obscene amounts that footballers 'earn' for kicking a ball around once a week part of the year.

hendero · 17/04/14 - 10:50

lundavra wrote: »

I get more annoyed at the obscene amounts that footballers 'earn' for kicking a ball around once a week part of the year.

One doesn't have to pay towards the salary of a Manchester United player if one wishes to watch Manchester City play. Except for when City play at Old Trafford....:)

hendero · 17/04/14 - 11:05

lundavra wrote: »

I suspect that small number on seven figure salaries bring in quite a lot of income for the BBC through overseas sales of their programme which might not be the case with someone on minimum pay rate doing the job. Clarkson is the most notable example but I am sure some of the others add to the value of their programmes overseas.

Clarkson does, although how much money from the overseas rights to Top Gear ends up in the BBC's coffers as opposed to Clarkson's is unclear. Graham Norton's show is broadcast in quite a few other countries. Not so sure about the likes of Lineker and Hanson, I'm not aware of MOTD having international broadcasts at the moment.

Isn't Paxman one of the higher paid people on the Beeb? Not sure how much he brings in for the corporation. Not a lot as far as I can tell.

mikw · 17/04/14 - 11:50

hendero wrote: »

One doesn't have to pay towards the salary of a Manchester United player if one wishes to watch Manchester City play. Except for when City play at Old Trafford....:)

Unless one happens to watch it on pay TV of course....;-)

mikw · 17/04/14 - 11:52

hendero wrote: »

Clarkson does, although how much money from the overseas rights to Top Gear ends up in the BBC's coffers as opposed to Clarkson's is unclear. Graham Norton's show is broadcast in quite a few other countries. Not so sure about the likes of Lineker and Hanson, I'm not aware of MOTD having international broadcasts at the moment.

Isn't Paxman one of the higher paid people on the Beeb? Not sure how much he brings in for the corporation. Not a lot as far as I can tell.

Paso's docs do rather well.

Of course, if he worked for another broadcaster he wouldn't be allowed to speak out

human nature · 17/04/14 - 11:55

hendero wrote: »

One doesn't have to pay towards the salary of a Manchester United player if one wishes to watch Manchester City play. Except for when City play at Old Trafford....:)

milkw beat me to it.

This is a rubbish argument. Unless you ONLY watch your team by physically going to see them at the stadium - both home and away matches - then you're going to be watching them on platforms like SKY. And it's through the broadcasting rights that the clubs get most of their money.

So if you watch football on TV then you are directly paying the players' salaries.

zz9 · 18/04/14 - 04:45

hendero wrote: »

Clarkson does, although how much money from the overseas rights to Top Gear ends up in the BBC's coffers as opposed to Clarkson's is unclear. Graham Norton's show is broadcast in quite a few other countries. Not so sure about the likes of Lineker and Hanson, I'm not aware of MOTD having international broadcasts at the moment.

Isn't Paxman one of the higher paid people on the Beeb? Not sure how much he brings in for the corporation. Not a lot as far as I can tell.

Top Gear is a BBC production so they get the income from overseas sales.
AFAIK Clarkson and Willman get a big chunk of the Top Gear Roadshows, merchandise etc though the BBC have bought a lot of those rights back.

But Graham Nortons show is made by his production company so he will get the money from overseas sales, with the BBC just getting a 10% cut.

I doubt Paxo brings much in. Newsnight hasn't got any real resale value, and University Challenge is again made by an outside production company so they will get the money from sales, not the BBC.

And you can't blame the BBC for that because they are forced by the DCMS to use outside production companies and let them keep the rights.

onecitizen · 18/04/14 - 07:26

lundavra wrote: »

I am getting a bit bored with all the pontificating from Paxman about the BBC, it seems to happen every few weeks. He seems to have a very high opinion of himself, perhaps he should go elsewhere.

But he is right, the BBC is smug, which is surprising when it has so little to be smug about.

mikw · 18/04/14 - 07:46

onecitizen wrote: »

But he is right, the BBC is smug, which is surprising when it has so little to be smug about.

In what way is it smug, and is is worse than any other broadcaster/big organisation in terms of smugness?

petely · 18/04/14 - 08:12

Tassium wrote: »

But the public don't like it so it does make a difference to the big picture.

Because it's the public who will save the BBC (or not)

Fortunately, "the public" don't get a say.:) Business is not a democracy - it's far too important for that. Although it does have one eye on public opinion: but two more on getting the job done.
I suspect that it's the media who don't like highly paid individuals (envy? easy targets?) and a few DM readers who are in the "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you" camp - regarding the views they express: echoed directly from what they read in the ranting editorials.
Most people don't care. Some think the highly paid, highly recognisable "stars" are worth it, a few wish it was them but most don't care.

As it is, for the executives, rather than the on-screen talent, a company has to pay the going rate. The BBC has a turnover of more than £3 Bn. a year. When you're playing at that level you need executives with both the vision and political nouse to keep the corporation on the straight and narrow. If just one senior manager had canned the (ridiculous) Digital Media Initiative, they would have saved £100Mil with the stroke of a pen. Who knows how many other wasteful projects have been nipped in the bud due to management competence - thus saving many times their collective salaries, on an ongoing basis.
That's what the big money buys you.

apaul · 18/04/14 - 08:45

I feel for Paxman. He's no longer getting a million a year from the licence fee payers for working a couple of days a week and is now having to get by on a mere £800,000 pa.

mossy2103 · 18/04/14 - 10:21

apaul wrote: »

I feel for Paxman. He's no longer getting a million a year from the licence fee payers for working a couple of days a week and is now having to get by on a mere £800,000 pa.

Ignoring his other BBC work, it looks like that figure is incorrect these days:

From July 2012:

Britain's austerity drive is finally reaching one corner of the small screen: the total pay of the BBC's handful of on-screen million-pound earners has dropped by a third to just short of £10m in the last financial year. Stars such as Graham Norton and Jeremy Paxman are among those understood to be taking pay cuts during the period.

The BBC is expected to reveal on Monday that the amount it pays "top talent", earning £1m or more, has dropped to £9.7m in the year to March 2012, which compares with £14.6m the year before, with Norton reducing his £2m a year salary and the presenter of Newsnight dropping out of the million a year bracket.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jul/13/bbc-pay-cuts-million-pound-stars

From Oct 2012:

In a letter to a national newspaper on March 26, Mr Paxman claimed he had been told by the BBC to set up a company to receive his payments for presenting Newsnight, or stop working for the broadcaster altogether.

Companies House documents show Mr Paxman runs a personal service company called Out in the Dark Limited. Its 2011 accounts show that it received £92,077 during the year, down from £239,411 in the year before.

Mr Paxman said that being paid through a service company was a condition of employment at the broadcaster. He insisted that the “BBC required me to form a company if I wanted to continue to present Newsnight. They claimed they had been told to do so by HMRC.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9588020/How-Jeremy-Paxman-blew-lid-on-BBCs-complicity-in-tax-avoidance-pay-deals.html

From Jan 2014:

Top BBC stars including Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce are facing pay cuts of up to 25 per cent as the broadcaster forces them to come onto the payroll after employing them as freelancers for many years.

The broadcaster is telling some of its most famous faces that they will have to accept a significantly reduced salary in return for staff benefits such as holiday pay and pension contributions.

Agents for the well-known BBC presenters affected by the moves say they “will not take this lying down” and are challenging the terms on offer.

The Corporation began moving up to 100 of its stars onto staff contracts at the end of last year after MPs led criticism that it had been paying too many of them via “personal service companies”, which can be used as a legal way of reducing tax liabilities.

Those affected have been told that the starting points for negotiation are a 13 per cent pay cut if the presenters agree to become employees with only the statutory minimum conditions set down by law, or a 25 per cent salary reduction if they want enhanced BBC terms including a generous pension, The Telegraph has learned.

<snipped>

There is no suggestion that any of the BBC stars have behaved improperly. Paxman, whose employment status has not yet been reviewed by the BBC, is understood to have made a point of ensuring that he makes the same tax contributions as he would if he were paid as an employee.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10582550/BBC-stars-face-25-pay-cuts-in-tax-avoidance-clampdown.html

human nature · 18/04/14 - 10:40

I must admit I do find the idea that Jeremy Paxman has been criticising other people for being "smug" faintly amusing. A slight lack of self-awareness going on there, I think.

derek500 · 18/04/14 - 13:57

zz9 wrote: »

But Graham Nortons show is made by his production company so he will get the money from overseas sales, with the BBC just getting a 10% cut.

ITV Studios bought So TV a couple of years ago, so I assume ITV are getting the bulk of residual sales.

hendero · 18/04/14 - 17:42

human nature wrote: »

milkw beat me to it.

This is a rubbish argument. Unless you ONLY watch your team by physically going to see them at the stadium - both home and away matches - then you're going to be watching them on platforms like SKY. And it's through the broadcasting rights that the clubs get most of their money.

So if you watch football on TV then you are directly paying the players' salaries.

It's only a "rubbish argument" if you misconstrue it. I specifically mentioned going to the stadiums to emphasise I wasn't talking about watching matches on Sky. I am sure there are millions of football fans in this country who support their teams, go to matches, and don't have Sky. So, it's perfectly possible for a Man City fan to support his team and not contribute anything towards Wayne Rooney's salary.

But if you want to watch television in this country the way it is intended to watch it, you have to have a TV licence so you have to fund the BBC.

And even if one does watch football on Sky, that's not "directly paying the players' salaries. That is a rubbish argument. You are paying Sky who pay the league who pay the clubs who pay the players, but that is not directly paying the players.

hendero · 18/04/14 - 17:46

mikw wrote: »

Paso's docs do rather well.

Which of Jeremy Paxman's documentaries generate additional income to the BBC?

Hey there!

Quick Links

Jeremy Paxman Slams BBC Payouts

Comments