I've long thought the BBC have taken the attitude as it says in the old Eagles song, "We'll never forget you til somebody new comes along." Not just with pro dancers, but people in general who work for them in many programmes.

They can be "flavour of the month" for a time, to the extent that they can get used to excess and when the public get a bit tired of constantly seeing their faces in programmes, so the ratings fall, they drop them like a stone. There's so many people chasing relatively so few jobs in TV that it's a "buyers' market."

Having said all that, with Ola "making waves," they've not been vindictive towards her, they didn't drop her, she was there to the end and was given an opportunity to say her goodbyes on ITT.
The pros are only contracted for a year and obviously, the producers will want to make changes and freshen things up a bit each year, in the constant chase for increased ratings. So we'll get the re-employment of many familiar faces who have a strong viewer appeal, but others will be let go. This will obviously be a shock for them and for those viewers who like them.
I don't know when they are told they won't be re-employed the following year, but it should be immediately after each series finishes.
The cynic in me would suggest, the "newbies" might not be on as much money as some who leave, if they've been there a while.

Not many of them opt to leave voluntarily, so despite what James Jordan would like everyone to believe, it can't be all that bad.

Ok so let's put this in context.

" A few hours work" per week.

In Elstree from early afternoon, pre production discussions, then make up, then maybe planning some scripts and jokes.
There from early afternoon to the end of recording the results show at 10.15, is not a few hours work, plus they gave ITT commitments, dance in the launch show, in some live shows, and record segments like judges choice last week. Not a few hours work.

" No training in the week"

So they just turn up,? Yes no training it's more preparation , they do not just turn up.


" Grand entrance"

This lasts about 30 seconds from the stairs to the dance floor. By contrast on XF there introduced there twice over about four minutes, so that's a grand entrance.

" Band gets a passing mention"

In fact the introduction of four singers by names and the band leader Dave lasts " longer" than the judges introduction.

" Silly antics"

Many watch to see Bruno fall off of his chair, or say the odd rude word, many look forward to Craig's comments, it makes the show.

SCD gets 11 million viewers, the judges get £90,000, contrast to XF where the judges get between £1 million and £2 million for far less work.

" The BBC Bigged them up"

No compare to XF where it's about the judges and not new talent, we see shots of Cheryl crying each week, compare to SCD the show is about the dancers, celeb and pro and the judges quite restricted to what focus is on them. There not introduced twice like XF.

These are the true facts.

All dancers newbies or been there ten years gave the same fee, but people like Brendan and Anton get celebrity status through SCD and from that, they sell tickets on their personal tours and make loads of money that way. So basically SCD is a window or call it an advert for them to make money.

At that level it doubles costs and SCD would not be on BBC.

Here's some "true facts," in response.

From what you said you know, they don't work anything near the number of hours as many of the pros.

From "early afternoon" indeed?

I will accept they (particularly Len) have to find time to think up (or refer to those they've used before on DWTS) some "spontaneous remarks containing elements of onomatopoeia and alliteration," but they could do that at home.


Some pros and their partners are working from dawn and until late at night (Peter Andre excepted of course!) So comparatively it is "a few hours."

The Band and singers get introduced in one quick sentence lasting what? Five seconds?

The judges are introduced and are on screen doing their "introductory silly antics" for far longer than that. At one time they were introduced when already seated. Hence my comment about their parts being "bigged up."

I've no idea what happens on X-Factor as I don't watch it and fail to see the relevance between comparisons of what happens with judges and contestants on there and those on SCD.

We've absolutely no idea what any of the dancers or individual celebrities are paid. It's all speculation.

I've already mentioned as have others the "knock-on," benefits of SCD for the professionals.

Did I or did I not not say in my post - that you quote - "that apart from 3 or 4 pro's".....I am talking about the current pro's, 3 or the 4 that you mention in your first sentence don't dance on SCD any more, and have not done so for years That's the world I live in - the current and present world.Why would I want to talk about dancers that no longer feature. Also, just because you are National Champion, it does not mean you are anywhere near World Class. I know many dancers that have been National Champs but do not feature in World rankings.

Yes, none of them compete.

As a matter of interest, at what sort of age generally would a top flight dancer stop competing? Joanne is 32 so perhaps retired at 30? Presumably they're roughly equivalent to athletes in the explosive sprints like 100 metres, 110m high hurdles etc and have a shorter 'shelf life' than many in endurance events, for example?

Many pro's that I know have retired from competitive dancing in their 30's - I think this is quite common, but of course its up to the individuals.

It's quite a short career isn't it? Strictly must seem like manna from heaven for those fortunate enough to get the break!

Indeed it is ! I have lessons with former world champions and its awesome hearing their life stories about how they eventually achieved their goal. The time, money, sacrifices they make, to obtain their dream. Wonderful stuff. Of course they now reap the rewards of being very popular with dancers worldwide, charging lots of ££££ !! Quite right too.

I would think a lot would depend on their financial situation and when they get tired of all the traveling, as to when they retire.
Most will have been competing from an early age, some since their ages were in single figures.


I've no idea as to how much money they can make as a professional dancer who is successful in major competitions, but I wouldn't think it would be a lot more than the average for the job which I read is in the USA, $41,000 pa, given the costs of competing. In fact without being involved in tuition, I'd guess for many constantly active in competitions, their families would have to support them.
But success can lead to some well paid teaching employment when they retire.

As for Joanne, isn't she involved in the family dance school business?

If common sense and decency were the norm, that is the way it should be.

Although I remember that back in series 2/3, Darren and Lilia were still competing while doing SCD - there was an annecdote about them rehearsing into the evening with their partners, then travelling to Blackpool to compete before heading back to SCD for more rehearsal with their partners after little (or no) sleep.


Edit: according to Wikipedia: "In November 2005 Bennett and Kopylova won the British Championships for Professional Latin, coming first in all five dances. In November 2006 they successfully defended this title against a challenge from Olga Rodionova and Paul Richardson."

That would have been the series when Lilia danced with Darren Gough/Matt Dawson, and Darren danced with Gloria Hunniford/Emma Bunton. So Lilia was definitely still in SCD in November both of those years; Darren would have been out by November 2005, but still in November 2006.

Given that the Strictly franchise is global, is there any indication that you're aware of that the show has resulted in a surge of interest in ballroom dancing - or are participation levels pretty much as they were 10 years or so back?

The Pro's are on TV every week for 3 months at the biggest audience times of the year.

If they are invited, they can also do the Live Tour.

There is also enough time (if they are eliminated early) to fit in a Panto between getting eliminated and the Tour - or just doing a panto anyway.

Plus they can do "Celebrity" editions of quiz shows etc.

In addition to any boost to their value as a stage performer they get from being on Strictly in the first place.

Up until quite recently, the BBC discouraged the experts it used from exploiting their TV fame.
Percy Thrower and Carol Vorderman both got sacked for appearing in adverts at the same time as presenting factual shows.
Yes, Strictly is an entertainment show, but items on ITT about choreography and performance analysis might be deemed as "expert comment"

There seems to be a "quid pro quo" with the Strictly Pro's, that the BBC may not pay as much as maybe it could do - but they do not stop the Pro's using "Strictly's so-and-so" when appearing live on stage in non BBC productions

The BBC could save £90,000 per. series by changing the judging panel and employing ex professional dancers as judges ie bring judges' salaries closer to pro dancers' - as it used to be.
The habit of bringing new dancers in regularly is I think partly to keep pro dancers' wages down. The producers call it " refreshing " the show. Yes,new dancers need to be brought in occasionally but it also helps to make sure that no professional dancers have much of a sense of security from one year to the next so will accept the payment offered.
The producers have changed female judges but seem to think that the male, judges are irreplaceable. I wonder why. They are not, irreplaceable.

BBC doesn't allow people to advertise only in the same area that they work for the BBC. For example Michel Roux Advertised a particular brand of potatoes so couldn't do cooking programmes for the BBC - in case people thought he was promoting that brand.

If he wanted to, Michel Roux could have advertised for a bank or building society as it's nothing to do with cooking.

Percy Thrower advertised plant fertiliser and knew he couldn't work for the BBC at the same time, but the money for the advert was worth it back in the 1970s.

Can't remember Carol Vordeman being sacked from any BBC programme. On the BBC she only does guest spots or presenting the occasional engineering programme. She's mostly worked for Commercial TV stations.

There was a row about a Carol advert - but it was a Charity that complained.

She was replaced on Countdown - but that's Channel 4

Wasn't Carol Vorderman's employment ended by the BBC as it was considered that as she was perceived by the public as "being good with numbers" she should not have accepted a job promoting some sort of financial services?

Conversely, Esther Rantzen fronted an advertising campaign for Cavendish promoting Equity Release. I'm not sure how that affected her continued use by the BBC

Very true

It's a bit like underpaying waiters and expecting them to make up their wages in tips.

I think the professional dancers should be adequately paid and well-treated for the work they do. Any additional work they do or don't do is a separate issue.

They don't seem that satisfied with the deal at present, given the number who seem to be passing on the opportunity to return.

Wish I'd got paid £35000 for 3 months work.

It all seems a grey area now.

At one time it was reported that the BBC only allowed Gary Lineker to advertise Walkers crisps, as the money went to his Leukemia charity.

Now you've got Len advertising Farmfoods