It helps increase their popularity so they earn more from the Strictly tour. Would the pairs doing their own stage shows get as large an audience if they had not been on Strictly?

I don't know if the figures are correct, you only have to watch Leveson to see that nothing in the tabloids can be believes.

Do they get appearance fees for appearing on other programmes like the breakfast programmes, radio programmes, chat shows? Quite likely I would think.

It is not uncommon for TV programmes and magazine articles to borrow a flat or house when they do an item on where a celebrity lives.

I wonder how much it cost the BBC to do up Wembley...The pro dancers are underpaid. Maybe that's why the BBC or producers started replacing them so that none of them get too popular.

Is there anything that us fans could do to get to BBC to increase the pro's wages? I was thinking about writing in, though I have no idea where I would direct it. I'm feeling slightly reticent, because on the one hand, it feels terribly un-British to discuss somebody elses money...but on the other, I feel irrationaly protective towards our beloved pros, and if they are getting a poor deal from the BBC, then I'd like to see it addressed if I can.

Hmm. It's a tough one.

I look at it a bit like many sportsmen, they often make much of their income from sponsorship, personal appearances etc and little from actually competing in some events (obviously some receive obscene amounts like footballers but many don't). Being a professional dancer must be similar and often have irregular periods of work, sometimes having to travel abroad (perhaps at their own expense) but Strictly Come Dancing gives them a period of regular work for a reasonable payment whilst raising their public profile enormously. Most of the dancers would be unknown to the general public without Strictly Come Dancing.

Hmmm.

SCDchick, it's interesting that you seem to have a strong and well-developed opinion about the wages differential, and that you also seem to be fully-informed about Bruce's wage packet, despite apparently not knowing how much the pros were paid a mere hour earlier when you started the thread.

Why, a cynic might even suggest that you obviously knew the answer in advance, and wanted to make a prejudiced rant, disguising this rant as an innocent question.

Luckily none of us are cynics.

The BBC needs to be more transparent about how much it pays everyone - after all it's mostly our money.

Given the rates of pay for others on the show (Brucie gets 500k doesn't he?), 35K seems a bit mean because without them the show wouldn't work. The notion that dancers are 10 a penny doesn't stand scrutiny - just imagine if SSC employed 14 unknown dancers next year: would you watch it?

*chokes on coffee*

As a teacher yourself DJ - and to all the rest of you out there who have a clue about the dance world outside SCD - what would be the likely earnings for the really top professional dancers who teach, tour etc?

Leaving aside for a moment the question of additional earnings garnered from the raise in profile brought about by appearing on SCD - if, as I suspect is the case, the SCD dancers are not those absolutely at the top of their game professionally speaking, then would they expect to earn less than this £35k without appearing on SCD?

Blimey, don't confuse me with a professional.


Firstly, there's no money in actually dancing. Any more than there is in, say, swimming or marathon running. Yes, there's sponsorship, but it's nothing like the level required to retire on - and of course it's nothing compared to the money professional sportsmen and sports

Traditionally, the money has come from teaching - lucrative private classes, opening dance studios, and so on. The most successful ones then go on to create franchises / write books etc. Skippy Blair and Arthur Murray were two very good examples of this approach. Of course, this business declined with the decline in popularity of partner dancing.

Now, the money is from fame. The more famous you are, the more money you get.

Obviously.


Unfortunately, we can't leave that aside. The fame = money equation is fundamental.

Anton, for example, is undoubtedly now a millionaire, simply because of fame - he's parlayed that into TV presenting, pundits, guest appearances and whatnot. The actual fee he receives from SCD is almost irrelevant - the main reason to be on the show is the fame.


Very much so.


From dancing, hell no.

An interesting question.

Darren and Lilia's "shock exit" I think was because at the time, the BBC believed some of the dancers were becoming more recognizable and popular than the "Z-lister" celebrities. That would never do.

But in the last couple of years I believe the situation has changed.

With the (in my opinion) insane mania to try to beat X-Factor in the ratings "war", the show is nothing like it once was. The judges and the likes of James and before that Brendan, I believe are encouraged to be "excessive."

With a change of producer, things may change next year, hopefully a return to basics, but I won't hold my breath.

This figure of £35,000 I don't really believe either. It's unlikely that the judges are all on the same rate of pay, so why the dancers? Such issues are closely guarded secrets.
For a kick-off I bet Anton gets more than the basic rate, as the BBC use him in other programmes. It may be the same for some of the other well-known faces now.

But as I mentioned before, pro dancers will be "10 a penny" and a new recruit would jump at the chance of £35,000 and would probably do it for less.

, rhey work the hardest and make the show

That's what I thought. if £35k is a more-than-reasonable wage for a dancer who DOESN'T appear on SCD, I don't think it's unreasonable that that's what the pros get paid. The reason I set the question of extra earnings aside was that I wanted to tackle the question of the fairness of the basic £35k before getting onto the additional earnings that can be made from a stint on SCD.

I would still argue that SCD, good and all as it is, isn't an automatic passport to wealth and fame unless you prove popular as a TV personality as well as a dancer. Anton, Brendan, Vincent, Flavia and Karen have all done pretty well from it, but we all know there's a long list of previous pro dancers who haven't been able to capitalise.

And I think that's right - the people who prove the biggest draw SHOULD make the most money. That's why starting with a basic salary and forcing dancers to prove their popularity is a much better way to go than simply raising salaries across the board.

I for one certainly wouldn't claim that Jared Murillo or Hayley Holt were worth as much to SCD as Artem or Flavia

In Wimbledon tennis the prizemoney rises steeply round by round, effectively payment by results. If applied to Strictly this would certainly motivate the pro dancers to advance from week to week, but it would be hard on a pro dancer paired with a joke celeb.

You said it,

It would be impossible to have a "paid by results" policy, as this less of a competition and more of just an entertaining TV show.

Would you write that if you worked for the BBC, knowing that your neighbours and friends could see exactly how much you earned and claimed in expenses.

Just about anyone working is getting "our money" one way another so should it apply to everyone?

I don't think the BBC has ever said how much any "talent" get, just maximum amounts paid. All the rest if speculation by the tabloids, if The Sun says Bruce gets £500K then the Mail is likely to put a higher figure and another tabloid an even higher figure. It is very unlikely that any of them actually know the real figure.

But the tennis player's performance at Wimbledon is only dependent on themselves, whereas as the dance professionals are the mercy of their celebrity. They could be out in week 2.

Yes without a doubt

I'm in favour of maximum transparency, especially in companies that are funded by the public purse like the BBC.

For example, I can never work out why BBC has so many correspondents that we're all paying for (via our TV licence fee) or why they have to pay so much for people like Jonathan Ross (in the past). I get the sense that rules are being made up as they go along.

Organisations put out a spiel about why the can't do this that or the other but often that's all it is.

Do they get this money regardless of how long they stay in the contest? If that be the case, Vincent did pretty well out of this season.

After elimination they are still required for pros formation dances, plus publicity work at the behest of BBC at short notice. Not all dancers live in London, and travel time adds up. I suspect an eliminated pro dancer cannot safely reschedule time for giving private lessons and travelling abroad, as their time is already committed to the BBC, as per their contract? BBC shall have their pound of flesh.

OK, nonetheless, if I have been voted off early, I don't have the stress of having to train with a less than talented celeb.

You don't get "transparency" from the BBC unless it's dragged out of them under the Freedom of Information Act.
It had to be used to discover how many thousands the BBC had been paying Terry Wogan to present Children In Need for decades.
You know, that charity show where he tells the public that those appearing on it are giving their services free.

They insist it's "commercially sensitive information." That's often BBC speak for "we're embarrassed to say how much it is."

You could understand them not wanting the opposition to know, if it made any difference. Agents constantly negotiate the pay and services of their clients with all the main channels.

Programmes don't seem to suffer if the BBC don't meet the demands of some and they leave and have to be replaced.

Perhaps because of their financial situation they are beginning to face up to reality.

Yes, but I'm sure there are even more people who could present the show. That's not exactly hard work, is it? I still think it's outrageous that Bruce earns as much as all the pros together . Even if they could get other dancers at a lower price, the BBC should have the decency to pay the dancers good wages. Sure, most people would be happy to earn 35,000 for four months' work, but the work the pros do is harder work than, say, sitting behind a desk. And as others have said, this is television.

And I totally agree with anna61, the pros work the hardest and make the show.

The only people who aren't loaded and pay that much for a private lesson that is worth it are high level competitors, and they wouldn't take a lesson with Anton.

Anton would not be able to get away with charging that much if he hadn't been on SCD. He never did outstandingly well in competitions nor did he ever produce outstanding dancers. If I remember correctly Erin used to charge around £30 ph pre-SCD. So you can see how much being on SCD has bumped up the usual income. And has widen the source of demand as well.

And keep in mind that the value of an employee is effectively the least amount of money the employer can give to keep the employee satisfied. BBC is not going to suddenly raise the pro dancers salary if they're happy with it.

Perhaps more accurate to say there are plenty of people who think they can present a show.

Have you found an authoritative source of the fees paid to Bruce Forsyth and the others? As far as I can see it is pure speculation by the tabloids and never been confirmed by the BBC.