http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ced-tango.html

Quite an interesting article- although probably none of what is written is news to the big fans of the pro's mentioned... and there are some glaring innacuracies (for example, Camilla only had three celebrity partners during her time on the show, Ian's time with Penny was "disastrous" and Martina Hingis was axed after a "patchy" Cha-Cha-Cha)

Soon they may be able to write another Strictly obituary. Who's this?

Looks: The perfect Latin dancing doll
Partnered: Spoony, Kenny Logan, Andrew Castle, Paul Daniels, Robbie Savage
High Point: Her famous catsuits. Dancing strictly for lynxmale's eyes only.
Don't Mention: Putting her heels through Andrew Castle's toes. Synchronised heads in the Ballroom Tango.
Where's she now?: Rumoured to be chez lynx with teh fluffy handcuffs on, hand-fed angel delight and strawberries.

Now, I can’t say that I agree with the overall tone of the article (it reads a little condescending to the dancers, I think) but I was surprised to find that Strictly dancers are only paid £35,000, and are only kept on short-term contracts. Can anybody verify if this is true? It seems like a paltry sum considering the commitment required from the pros. I live up north, and £35,000 is just about a living wage - my dad earns similar money, and he can manage a mortgage in a working class neighbourhood - but I don’t see how that could possibly keep somebody working in London and the south, where living costs are so much higher. Even factoring in any extras they get for promotional work, the tours etc, it doesn’t seem like a lot when looked at against the amount of commitment and training that they have to put into it.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m usually the first person to rail against tv stars over inflated salaries (Jonathan Ross, anyone?!) but I can’t believe that the BBC could justify such comparatively low wages for the professional dancers. I’ve read that Tess Daly earns up to £100,000 per series. Nothing against Tess, but presenting certainly doesn’t strike me as requiring as much effort as dancing to a professional standard (whilst teaching amateur celebs, and choreographing dance routines at the same time!) And if we’re being completely honest here, do viewers tune into SCD week in week out to watch Tess read from an autocue, or do they watch because of the dancers, for their talent and dedication? Most of us here have a favourite dancer - someone we look forward to every week. In fact, I think that in terms on fandom, most of the Strictly fans seem to watch for their favourite dancers rather than their celebrity partners.

I think that it’s time that the BBC acknowledge just how much the pros contribute towards the popularity of the show by looking into giving them a raise. Personally, I would much rather that my TV licence was spent getting cheaper and lower profile presenters, and rewarding the pro dancers with a fairer wage for their work.

And why not offer the dancers more long term contracts? What kind of job stability can they expect when they can be laid off at any time that the BBC decide to shake up the ranks? The dancers are popular, they work hard, and SCD is certainly a fixed feature in the BBC viewing schedule…why not offer the established pros two or three year contracts? Three month contracts seem ridiculous - how can a person plan for their future on the basis that they might still be in work in three months time?!

Grrr…sorry, but if the content of that article is true, then I’m really angry on behalf of the pro dancers!

Er, if £35k was only just about a living wage, the majority of the country would be in extreme poverty. National average is only something like £26k. And that's for a year's work, not the two months that Strictly runs for!

Not that I don't think the pros should earn more in the context of what the celebs and presenters earn, but the ones who have done a few series appear to have nice houses and lots of holidays, I don't think they're badly off!

Apparently the pros were paid even less before their pay dispute in 2008 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s104/...d-pay-row.html

Moreover, they get less than the £35000 if their celebs are knocked out early. They aren't paid extra for pre-series training time (6 weeks?) and any extra training time their celebs may require during the series. I recall Brendan complaining that his real pay for SCD can be below minimum wage.

But as the article points out, the pros gain a higher profile from appearing on SCD and earn more money from spin-offs than the actual pay.

Well, it's the Daily Mail. Everything they write about SCD is going to be influenced by their "BBC = Evil" agenda. So best to apply sanity filters.


My understanding is that this is roughly correct. There was a big fuss a few years back about the dancers getting only £17K, and it went up to around £30K then. So £35K sounds like it's in the right ballpark.


Firstly, it's not £35K a year. It's £35K for (at most) 4 months' work. Which is nearly £10K a month, so it's a bit higher than "living wage". And if your partner goes out on the first week, then you're getting £35K for a month of work, plus a few days of extra appearances.

Secondly, the average British wage is £26K. Quite a few people would be very happy with £35K p.a.

Thirdly, the money is not in the salaries, it's in the extras which the publicity from the show gets you - guest performances, shopping centre openings, teaching fees, shows, etc. In fact, most people would do it for free, just because of the money from these extras.

Fourthly, dancers generally get paid damn-all anyway.


Unfortunately, that's how telly works. The "talent" gets the big bucks, the people with actual talent get very little.

I imagine the musicians get paid very little in comparison, for example.


This isn't a BBC thing, it's a telly thing.


AFAIK all staff on the show are on exactly such contracts.

No, AFAIK the pros are on fixed payments.

The celebs, however, are (I think) on a pay-per-week basis.

The price of an employee isn't just based on their skills, but also what they expect. Dancers don't have high expectations when it comes to income.

Normal dancers who are not involved on SCD don't have a guaranteed source of income. They don't get holidays, sick days, pension plans, insurance, don't get paid bonuses. By choosing to become professional dancers, these people have agreed to an unstable and usually low source of income, with stable regular and rather high living and working costs such as private lessons, practice, costumes, travelling, lack of stability in life.

So the mere fact that these people are offered a contract, a guaranteed source of income and stability for a few months of the year is reward enough for them. And £35000 is more than most dancers earn in a year.

They make thier money outside of it though, based on the exposure they get on the programme .. calanders, DVD's, tours etc.

BTW - I am suprised that the Mail got thier facts wrong... seeing as they seem to lift most of thier Strictly stories straight from this forum !!

I don't like the way the BBC dealt with some of the ex pro dancers, especially Matthew Cutler, Karen Hardy and Ian Waite. I don't understand why Alesha Dixon is on the panel of judges when they discarded ballroom and latin professionals. Dixon doesn't really know what she is talking about whereas Karen, Matthew, Darren, Lilia and Ian would. I suppose if you have a pretty face that is all you need to be an "expert" in the eyes of the BBC. I suppose a sop is better than nothing but if I were Ian or Karen I would have told the BBC to stuff it

I think the reason a lot of the dancers were cut is money. The BBC likes to bring in "unknown" professionals so they don't have to pay them as much.

And Arlene got the boot, which lead to Alesha Dixons position on the judging panel, when they decided to move the show more towards "entertainment" and away from dance.

It reminds me of "there was a lot on show, but not a lot of dance" LOL

To add to the cheer, Alesha is paid £100,000 and Brucie gets £550,000.

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

OMG I could fluff my own crap jokes for half that

Yes, often wondered that myself. Can only assume it was because they thought she would be Strictly's answer to Cheryl Cole, who was doing well for herself over on the X Factor?

I find her pointless on the panel, nice smile though

Because none of those names have any National profile and nobody knows who they are outside the Strictly anoraks.
The vast majority of the public couldn't care less about the professionals.


Yeah I definately trust that fine Newspaper 'The Sunday People'

Even if its not exactly right, I think its clear that Alesha would be payed substantially less than Sir Bruce or any of the other professional judges.

At the time she joined the judging panel it was reported that Alesha would get more than the other judges!

I agree with your past blackberry000. Whether some people like it or not its the reality.

No.

AFAIK the judges all get around the £90K - £100K range. Len and Bruno, of course, get a lot more from DWTS.

No, the pro dancers all get the same fee.

Bruce's £500,000 is obscene - and he doesn't even present the 'Sunday' show any longer, forcing the Beeb to employ Ms Winkleman. it's a pity the BBC doesn't take a few more chances with new talent instead of clinging to the old for fear of losing viewers.

And I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall when it was decided which of the professionals were going to be replaced. I always felt there was more to the story than just refreshing the line-up. Personally, I suspect some behind the scenes politics.

For the main presenter of the biggest TV programme of the week? Actually, that's probably less than the going rate.


Ah, this is a Daily Mail-esque anti-BBC rant, is it?

Sorry, I didn't realise. I assumed it was a rational post.

That is shocking. Hardly enough to pay for the travel, the physio, the knee keyhole surgery....

Is that you, Bruce?