BBC approach to talent
Gail Renard (Guild TV Committee Chair) and Katharine Way (Guild Radio Committee Chair) have responded to an email from Bal Samra, BBC Director of Vision, Operations & Right, about the BBC's approach to talent.
Bal Samra's email to Guild General Secretary, Bernie Corbett, is below. The Guild's letter follows.
Dear Bernie,
You’ll have seen that there has been a significant amount of press coverage recently about the BBC's approach to talent fees, and the BBC being more transparent about how it spends licence payers money. As the BBC board member responsible for Rights & Business Affairs, I wanted to write to you directly to let you know about the work that we have been doing on these issues and the steps we are taking. We have been looking at our strategic approach to on screen, on air and writing talent across all divisions.
This work has reflected the importance of the BBC's ongoing investment in talent and the important role it plays in developing talent . It also incorporates the implementation of a set of recommendations from a study on talent conducted by the BBC Trust last year, and reflects the significant efficiency savings that the BBC has to make across the board over the next few years.
The BBC is currently facing substantial economic challenges - we have to make savings of £1.9bn over the current licence fee period and a further £400m as a result of the severe economic climate. At the same time, we are investing to serve our audiences better through new services such as iPlayer and important enabling infrastructure projects including Salford, Pacific Quay and digital switchover. In delivering these efficiencies, we have already made savings by freezing senior management pay, suspending bonuses for all staff and reducing capital and other operating expenditure.
It is also important that our spend on talent is managed in a way that contributes to the efficiencies that the BBC has to make. As a result, the BBC is taking a number of steps in respect of talent pay
-
We have committed to significantly reducing the amount we pay in top talent fees with all deals over £100k now subject to output Director level approval
-
We have also changed our internal processes so that any proposed increases in fees for talent contracted by the BBC are subject to management approval. This doesn’t mean that there won't be any increases at all, particularly at the lower end, just that any increase, and indeed every fee, will need to be carefully scrutinised in the current climate
-
In line with the Trust recommendations we have also strengthened our overall processes for managing and monitoring talent costs and valuing our spend on talent
-
You will have recently seen the BBC publishing its position on becoming more transparent as an organisation in the way that it is run - particularly focusing on the salaries and expenses of senior management .We have also said that we can be more transparent on what we spend on talent overall, but have been absolutely clear that there is no justification at all for disclosing individual talent fees.
-
Importantly, these steps are also placing a renewed emphasis on developing new talent and succession planning for the future - we want to expand the opportunities available for existing talent and develop and encourage the use of new talent
All of the measures above are about the BBC continuing to reach audiences as they change the way they consume our content, being as efficient as possible, and continuing to invest in great content and talent which is at the heart of what the BBC does. We are keen to ensure that our overall story is clear so please get in touch if you have any questions on the above.
Best wishes
Bal Samra Director of Vision Operations & Rights
The Guild's response:
6 July 2009
Dear Mr Samra
BBC Approach to Talent
Thank you for your e-mail of 1 July, but we really seem to be living in two different worlds. Despite its healthy licence fee the BBC is in financial trouble, which would cause even Mr Micawber sleepless nights, for the following reasons:
The BBC has vastly and rashly overspent on “star” names. We won’t list Jonathan Ross’s alleged £6 million a year nor all the rest. If you’re re-examining those salaries now, we can only say it’s a long- awaited wake-up call, considering no other broadcaster or TV company inside or outside the UK can or would pay anywhere near those sums for that talent.
And that’s just the basic salaries of stars, not to mention executives. Let’s look at the way the BBC has handled expenses. We don’t have to reiterate the BBC’s top executives spending extravagantly on flowers and champagne to reward already highly paid stars (by the way, the BBC had stopped biscuits in meetings with writers as a cost-cutting exercise about a year ago.) Let’s also examine the outlandish bills for luxury hotels, dinners, taxis, etc., for executives and stars; all of which is claimed back from viewers’ licence-fee money. Writers have been party to none of this – which reminds us, the BBC stopped parties for writers many years ago.
But writers do receive, thanks to the WGGB, attendance fees. The £90.50 for up to three days is to cover fares/ food/ time away from writing when attending the rehearsals or filming of our work; a vital part of our jobs. No writer has ever grown rich on that.
Another reason the BBC is currently in such financial straits is that, for the last few years, it seems to have been in the property business instead of making programmes.
There was no need to build Salford; or eight-storey Egton House in the heart of London’s West End (which still stands empty aside from the BBC Persian Radio Service and a meeting room) or any of the other new buildings. All this was predicated on selling TVC, etc.; in other words, gambling on a rising property market, which has since dropped through the floor. All this construction work is being paid for with money which should have been ring-fenced for production, which is the core function of the BBC.
It’s also worth mentioning that the BBC has also probably lost millions in future revenue, not to mention world-wide prestige, on the exporting and sales of those never-to-be-made series.
Now let’s look at what a TV writer earns. For an episode of “Doctors” (who make over 200 episodes a year and is one of the BBC’s largest commissioners) a writer can earn £3,142.01. That might be enviable to some, but not when you consider it can represent six months or more work for the writer.
The BBC now has countless layers of management who, in the past, never existed or were needed (there’s another saving for you) and suddenly writers are answerable to every single one. In addition, many production personnel are no longer staff, and are on short-term contracts without the experience or continuity that staffers often ensured. All of this needlessly bumps up the cost of productions; slows down every process ridiculously and, far from adding value, results in poorer television.
On a purely time and motion study level, up until a few years ago experienced writers could expect to write five television episodes a year at a healthier pace, leaving time to develop other work. But getting a single episode into the studio can now take six months. And all this is after the countless hoops, storylines and treatments that the writer has already gone through just to secure the episode; often working for a pittance, if they’re lucky; free if they’re not.
It’s hard to cut the fee of someone who works for nothing.
Radio writers, who create hundreds of hours of drama every year, are paid even less than TV writers – it doesn't amount to a living wage unless you can write half a dozen plays annually. And radio writers now have to contend with the “bespoke abridgment”. This is a mixture of two different kinds of fee structure which enables drama to be produced even more cheaply, and writers to be paid even less – in some cases, less than half the fee they would have received otherwise. This has been implemented on the Woman’s Hour Drama slot, but it has been indicated that it may be extended to other forms of drama.
And, like television writers, radio writers do vast amounts of work for nothing. We develop and research ideas for original dramas to put in to the regular commissioning rounds – a process which necessitates days, weeks or even months of unpaid work – knowing that only 50% of ideas get commissioned, so there’s an even chance that we will never be paid. Writers are therefore effectively subsidising the BBC already – and not just through paying the licence fee.
So we hope you note, when trying to cut the fat from the BBC, that writers are already Jack Sprat. Please don’t look to us for your savings. We’ve already given.
Yours truly,
Gail Renard - Chair, Television Committee
Katharine Way - Chair, Radio Committee
back to top