A recent exchange with a close friend about the salary of the BBC's political editor Chris Mason had me thinking. He was astounded that Mason gets £260k pa and added that he would pay him less than half that; even 100k pa was too high he said. My response was that the BBC would argue that it needs to pay him that much because the commerical (private) sector would. But as I said it, I realised that whilst that might be true, the argument is completely false.
The BBC does not need to compete with the commercial sector for talent, just like it does not need to compete with other radio stations or platforms for audiences. When I was at talkSPORT it was evident that BBC Radio 5 Live was fixated with the station. Why? Because talkSPORT had a largely working class audience and the BBC is dominated by middle class listeners. talkSPORT also had some football rights and every now and then won the rights to cover cricket overseas. The latter was normally followed by entitled BBC presenters launching an outcry at how such a terrible thing could happen.
In podcasting, the BBC has looked to include adverts on some platforms because it says it needs the revenue to continue to make the content. This caused anger in the commercial world because it meant the BBC would be taking revenue away. Here again, it shows the BBC mindset is wrong. Receiving public money to fund its content should be enough. If, because the licence fee is not rising, it has to produce less content, then so be it. The BBC does not have a given right to produce dozens of podcasts a week. Just like it does not have a given right to cover test cricket or Premier League football.
What I would say is that something like Premier League football should be available free-to-air, because of its cultural impact. Having Match of the Day is a great thing, allowing millions of people to see top flight football for 'free'. But no one watches that programme for Gary Lineker (apart from himself maybe). They watch it for the football. That, therefore, is where the money should be spent. Getting access to the rights is justified, but paying the host more than a million pounds a year is not. Mark Chapman is more affordable, and (in my view) much better at it.
This stance was underlined in a recent article by Roger Mosey, the former head of television news at the BBC, when he made the argument that the corporation has a 'cult of personality' problem. Roger said that well-paid personalities end up wielding too much power over lesser paid staff who have oversight of output. That was the issue with Sachsgate, when producers felt unable to tame Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross and their worst instincts. Hiring these presenters though also points to the BBC chasing ratings. This fixation is the problem.
Why not make the BBC even more of a place that nurtures and grows talent? You do not need famous people to do shows on Radio 2 for there to be a strong audience, just good content and a quality presenter. The same for BBC television. When Bruce Forsyth left Strictly, viewers did not follow him. In fact, the show had better ratings and was a better programme for being hosted by two women. I would argue that neither Tess Daly or Claudia Winkleman attract an audience, but that does not matter, the dancing is what people watch the show for.
The same issue occurs in news when clickbait articles are published when the real focus should be on producing unique factual content. Think of how many BBC alerts you have had recently that are about news stories and how many are plugs for content. If the BBC put more focus on being distinct from others, rather than trying to compete, it would serve us all much better. It could also avoid these horrendous scandals when talent becomes untouchable.
Returning to Chris Mason and his salary, it just does not work as an argument that it is justified because Sky News (for example) would pay him that. He is an excellent journalist, but if the commercial sector comes knocking, let him go. Someone else will replace him and build their own profile because of the BBC’s brand. The BBC has thousands of hugely talented people, making excellent content and not paid these vast sums. Putting money into these areas, rather than worrying about retaining celebrities or competing with the commercial sector would ensure the corporation continues to produce fabulous content for years to come.
Comments