Michael McIntyre’s new talk show launched on the BBC last week, and the fee the comic has attracted for six episodes stands at half a million pounds. Once again, this raises the perennially thorny issue of stars, money and the BBC. Can half a dozen, derivative chat shows really be worth £500,000?
Well, there’s an argument that anything is worth as much as someone is prepared to pay for it, so by that token, McIntyre’s creation IS worth the candle. However, this assumes market forces are in play. If a commercial broadcaster (ITV, Sky, Channel 5) wishes to pay a certain sum to an entertainer for their ideas and services, thereby ensuring a programme doesn’t go to a competitor, then that is largely a matter for the star and the channel. In this instance, the broadcaster is making a triangular calculation: the cost of the programme versus the expected audience versus the advertising revenue.
Played correctly this is a game with three winners. When the BBC is buying the show, these hard-nosed commercial gambits are absent, making the deal much harder to unpick.
The BBC would undoubtedly claim it is forced to operate in a free market, even though it is a wholly subsidised, not-for-profit organisation. As such, it must pay the going rate for an enormously successful comedian. If they don’t, he will simply take his talents elsewhere. This is the standard line when the earnings of a performer at the Beeb fall under the microscope. We heard it when Jonathan Ross signed up for six million annually, and again when Chris Moyles landed a million and a half for his Radio One Breakfast Show. It seems a reasonable and logical argument, but is it?
I may be wrong, but I find it unlikely that Sky and ITV were both bidding to secure McIntyre for a chat show. ITV already has Jonathan Ross on those duties and Sky, for some reason, doesn’t really operate in the territory. The insistence that the star’s fee must be competitive only holds water if there is a genuine competition. We should also consider the kudos of the BBC. Many entertainers actively covet a gig with the national broadcaster, so the lure of big money becomes less essential.
There’s another highly significant figure in all this, of course. Every star has an agent and their job is to sell their client’s work for the best price to the most appropriate customer. Astronomical wages might be products of the market, but they’re negotiated by the agent. This leads me to suspect the BBC is in rather too much awe of popular faces and their ‘people’, and so fails to play hardball when it’s contract time. Whether it’s Gary Lineker, Steve Wright or Michael McIntyre, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the BBC said ‘No thanks’ more often. Would Gary, Steve or Mike be instantly snapped up by rivals? Maybe. Would it matter if they were? Not really.
The truth is, many of these stars are not half as irreplaceable as they imagine. The world is full of capable, inspired and very keen entertainers, presenters and disc jockeys. Most of whom would jump at the chance to work at the BBC for something approaching an average salary. Factor in some financial acknowledgment of their skill and we’re still a long, long way from the six figures we see being spent on others.
The BBC is funded with other people’s money, and that is something they cannot escape. It’s a unique arrangement, which brings many benefits. But with that spending power comes great responsibility and, at a time when the Corporation is actually axing stations to balance the books, it’s crucial they justify every penny spent. Some would say half a million pounds worth of Michael McIntyre is entirely justifiable – I’m not sure I would be one of them.
Well, there’s an argument that anything is worth as much as someone is prepared to pay for it, so by that token, McIntyre’s creation IS worth the candle. However, this assumes market forces are in play. If a commercial broadcaster (ITV, Sky, Channel 5) wishes to pay a certain sum to an entertainer for their ideas and services, thereby ensuring a programme doesn’t go to a competitor, then that is largely a matter for the star and the channel. In this instance, the broadcaster is making a triangular calculation: the cost of the programme versus the expected audience versus the advertising revenue.
Played correctly this is a game with three winners. When the BBC is buying the show, these hard-nosed commercial gambits are absent, making the deal much harder to unpick.
The BBC would undoubtedly claim it is forced to operate in a free market, even though it is a wholly subsidised, not-for-profit organisation. As such, it must pay the going rate for an enormously successful comedian. If they don’t, he will simply take his talents elsewhere. This is the standard line when the earnings of a performer at the Beeb fall under the microscope. We heard it when Jonathan Ross signed up for six million annually, and again when Chris Moyles landed a million and a half for his Radio One Breakfast Show. It seems a reasonable and logical argument, but is it?
I may be wrong, but I find it unlikely that Sky and ITV were both bidding to secure McIntyre for a chat show. ITV already has Jonathan Ross on those duties and Sky, for some reason, doesn’t really operate in the territory. The insistence that the star’s fee must be competitive only holds water if there is a genuine competition. We should also consider the kudos of the BBC. Many entertainers actively covet a gig with the national broadcaster, so the lure of big money becomes less essential.
There’s another highly significant figure in all this, of course. Every star has an agent and their job is to sell their client’s work for the best price to the most appropriate customer. Astronomical wages might be products of the market, but they’re negotiated by the agent. This leads me to suspect the BBC is in rather too much awe of popular faces and their ‘people’, and so fails to play hardball when it’s contract time. Whether it’s Gary Lineker, Steve Wright or Michael McIntyre, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the BBC said ‘No thanks’ more often. Would Gary, Steve or Mike be instantly snapped up by rivals? Maybe. Would it matter if they were? Not really.
The truth is, many of these stars are not half as irreplaceable as they imagine. The world is full of capable, inspired and very keen entertainers, presenters and disc jockeys. Most of whom would jump at the chance to work at the BBC for something approaching an average salary. Factor in some financial acknowledgment of their skill and we’re still a long, long way from the six figures we see being spent on others.
The BBC is funded with other people’s money, and that is something they cannot escape. It’s a unique arrangement, which brings many benefits. But with that spending power comes great responsibility and, at a time when the Corporation is actually axing stations to balance the books, it’s crucial they justify every penny spent. Some would say half a million pounds worth of Michael McIntyre is entirely justifiable – I’m not sure I would be one of them.
