Stars have been reported to be paid per show instead of a flat rate. I just thinking doesn't this work out costing more?

It may well, but they have, apparently, got a bigger budget this year.

We shall see shortly!

JJ

Well they're not spending the bigger budget on the pros, who are facing pay cuts, if the People is to be believed:

http://www.people.co.uk/celebs-tv/tv...2039-22487985/

Doubt it would cost more - those who get dumped out early get paid less than those who reach the final - it will probably all balance out.

They will have to all get a basic amount to cover the pre series training - but once the live shows start - the payments stops on departure.

I can't imagine many celebs taking three months off to devote to a show they may get voted off immediately and end up twiddling their thumbs for the remainder of that three months, and be happy to only get paid for the one show they're in.

They don't tend to though - some fit it in around their "day jobs" (Lisa Snowdon, Chris Hollins for example) others are "between roles", some with only panto to look forward to (Letitia Dean I think), others are simply looking to relaunch a static career (i.e. they are out of work).

I think this may actually give stars some incentive to make an effort and do their best on the show.

Doing your best, trying hard and actually being good have little to do often with being successful on the show. Nor can the hopeless people who should go early do significantly better by working harder - hopeless is hopeless. You can't incentivise people more when the public voting is the way it is - the trend is that trying to play the fool or annoying the judges works better than dancing well. If getting marks was all that mattered you might not need to incentivise anyone anyway as people who are good tend to achieve to their ability or even over try already. All it does is give the public another incentive to want people out on whatever grounds they can think of so they get no money.