Why do TV & radio presenters get paid so much?

Daegerty

After all they just sit there and yapp, or more to the point they sit there and let other people do the yapping. Is there any reason the same purpose can't be served by someone who gets paid 25k a year?

It isn't really a job that requires an excessive amount of training or intelligence, just someone who'se a bit of a "people person". I'm sure there is no shortage of people wanting to do the job so why not tell them if they're not happy with 25k a year they'll be replaced by a graduate?

RichardAnd

There is no good reason Joe Duffy, Pat Kenny, Marium and Marrion (or whatever their names are) get paid so much. That's really all that can be said

Chucky the tree

Because popular presenters bring in a lot of money from advertising. If RTE got rid of all there big presenters then they would simply move to another station and their listeners would follow and RTE would loss a huge amount in revenue. They ar

dan_d

Ok, I have to jump in here and say that I know a presenter working for our state broadcaster.It's not just a case of come in, do your 3 hour programme and go home, by any means.They have to do a day's work, same as anyone, a lot of research and background work goes into a programme.

Now I don't know what the guy I know gets paid, but I'm pretty sure it's a fairly healthy wage.Having said that, he works his arse off.He is one of the most dedicated people I've ever come across...his basic week is around 60 hours, and usually runs way over.His hours are very erratic...he's frequently at work all weekend.He often works 9 or more days straight.

There is no justification for the salaries of the likes of Tubridy, etc.And as for the guy I know, he'd be that dedicated no matter where he worked.I'm just posting to say it's not actually as simple as'they just go in and yap for a few hours'.

dissed doc

Daegerty wrote: »

After all they just sit there and yapp, or more to the point they sit there and let other people do the yapping. Is there any reason the same purpose can't be served by someone who gets paid 25k a year?

It isn't really a job that requires an excessive amount of training or intelligence, just someone who'se a bit of a "people person". I'm sure there is no shortage of people wanting to do the job so why not tell them if they're not happy with 25k a year they'll be replaced by a graduate?

Because they are very talented people. They can convince most of the population that nurses get 10 quid an hour too much while bankers, developers and other private sector workers have bankrupted the country for 100's of billions. It takes the general stupidity of most of the country to go along with it, but it works. After 3 years of idiots in the media, we literally are where we are.

Head The Wall

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Because popular presenters bring in a lot of money from advertising. If RTE got rid of all there big presenters then they would simply move to another station and their listeners would follow and RTE would loss a huge amount in revenue. They ar

I don't think there is any other radio or tv station in the country that would pay them the rates they are currently on. So either the RTE stars are getting paid what they are worth and everyone else is getting underpaid or they are overpaid.

I think it's the latter, take Matt cooper for example, has radio and TV slots and I bet he isn't on anything near Kenny or the Twig.

later12

Does the OP know how much money the inidvidual presenters concerned actually generate for RTE?

I do not see how anybody can proclaim what an individual presenter is worth without having a reasonable grasp of what s/he generates for the station.

hinault

In an earlier life I worked at the national broadcaster in Montrose.

It was explained to me in no uncertain terms that the sponsorship/advertising revenue especially in radio was highly dependent upon programmes and presenters selling product.
So for example potential sponsors of the Gerry Ryan show would get to meet said radio personality, the shows commercial people and they would discuss how the presenter and the show would intend to sell the product.
Things like the amount of advertising time, product placement were all important issues.
RTE would try to wager the presenter/shows listening figures to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the potential company/sponsor

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oppenheimer1

later10 wrote: »

Does the OP know how much money the inidvidual presenters concerned actually generate for RTE?

I do not see how anybody can proclaim what an individual presenter is worth without having a reasonable grasp of what s/he generates for the station.

The amount of money they generate is only part of the equation. A more important part is the competition from other broadcasters. If a programme with a particular presenter brings in 200,000 listeners and is paid €400k but a similar programme on a private station brings in the same amount of listeners but is paid €100k then clearly there is an overpayment. If pat kennys pay was cut further would anyone poach him? I doubt it.


Maybe its just my opinion but I do not think presenters in RTE are a particular draw for watchers/listeners. I think people would listen to the programmes regardless. If I cared to look I'd check the listenership figures and I'd be pretty confident that there isn't much of a drop in numbers when the "stars" are on holidays.

creeper1

Pat Kenny probably isn't worth the high salary that he is on (a point well made by that guy shouting at him that night - you can see it on youtube) but I will say that he does know his stuff. He seems to be a knowledgable and intelligent guy. He asks the right questions of his guests.

That contrasts with the guy that stands in for Joe Duffy when he is off on his numerous vacations. It's painful listening to him when the topic comes around to the economy. HIs knowledge is so limited.

I remember him quoting McWilliams about how Ireland could simply leave the Euro and let her new currency depreciate to a tenth of the Euro and how that would be great for Ireland without even having a notion of what that would do to savers. :mad:

While we are on the subject does anyone have their head wrecked by that Irish speaking guy on the morning? I forget his name.

Head The Wall

No as I don't listen to RTE on principle

RichardAnd

I've found RTE to be a station of dreadfully low quality. Putting aside the un-refined nature of its dramas and other shows, the presenters themselves often come across in a very bad light.

For example, I recall one Morning Ireland show where the female presenter (her name escapes me) spoke to a union representative in a very un-couth manner but later in the same show, dealt with a minister in a very obsequious way. It's that duplicity that really irks me about RTE and when that's combined with my conviction that their media reports have to be signed off by Lenster house...

Well let's just say I tend to stick to the BBC.

Cookie_Monster

later10 wrote: »

Does the OP know how much money the inidvidual presenters concerned actually generate for RTE?

It should be zero as there should be no advertising as the licence fee should cover its running costs just like the BBC.

But this is Ireland and for some unknown reason it doesn't work like that so we get both fees and advertising and hugely inflated salaries as a result.

Nijmegen

The average RTE worker laid off recently was paid €74,000 a year or similar. The whole cost structure in there smacks of gravy.

The issue of presenters being poached is only an issue if their salary could be increased by another station in the belief they'll make good money off that investment.

If so, let the markets decide a price as RTE fights in a bidding war down the lower end of the payscale.

Today they copper fasten their 'talent' to the network by having obscene pay deals.

Also... RTE is broke. It could do with figuring that one out, and restructuring its costs to align with the market today.

As is typical, a government owned 'business' failing to be efficient in business.

Tora Bora

Cut them all to €30k, wnd of story. No discussion.

World won't end. Sun will come up. Rain will still fall.

There is only a very limited number of national foot print broadcasters, who already have their own established presenters and contract obligations.
There would be little enough opportunity for the fat cats in RTE to transfer:cool:
There would be pretty much no reason for the private sector stations to offer them gravy train inducements.

Take the plunge. Cut them now, cut them hard, cut them often. Marian Finucane ........... worth all that money ........... WTF:mad:

Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut ............. keep cutting :cool:

thebman

later10 wrote: »

Does the OP know how much money the inidvidual presenters concerned actually generate for RTE?

I do not see how anybody can proclaim what an individual presenter is worth without having a reasonable grasp of what s/he generates for the station.

Well this line is brought up everytime but ignores that viewership figures are largely determined by the time of day and what day a paticular programme airs as well as who is presenting it.

The presenters wages really need only be high enough to stop them getting a job somewhere else.

RTE's wages are multiples of this for some of their presenters. Didn't Ryan Tubridy recently apply for a job with the BBC? He obviously didn't get it or wasn't willing to move for the wage on offer.

Anyway the more obvious question is really, why should the state own a tv station anyway? The transmission equipment I can understand but the state has no need to provide light entertainment shows and the like.

The license fee money should be going to private stations with public service obligations IMO who should be paying RTENL to deliver the content.

later12

thebman wrote: »

Well this line is brought up everytime but ignores that viewership figures are largely determined by the time of day and what day a paticular programme airs as well as who is presenting it.

I think you will find it is Monday to Friday, 10am - 12pm down at Today FM or FM104 as well, but they don't pull in the same sort of listenership at all during those periods when (for example) Pat Kenny is on RTE Radio 1.

I'm not saying he is definitely worth the money he earns - I'm saying that I don't see how anybody can say he is not worth it when they don't know how much revenue he generates for RTE Radio.

RTE's wages are multiples of this for some of their presenters. Didn't Ryan Tubridy recently apply for a job with the BBC? He obviously didn't get it or wasn't willing to move for the wage on offer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/05_may/09/ryan_tubridy.shtml

fliball123

later10 wrote: »

I think you will find it is Monday to Friday, 10am - 12pm down at Today FM or FM104 as well, but they don't pull in the same sort of listenership at all during those periods when (for example) Pat Kenny is on RTE Radio 1.

I'm not saying he is definitely worth the money he earns - I'm saying that I don't see how anybody can say he is not worth it when they don't know how much revenue he generates for RTE Radio.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/05_may/09/ryan_tubridy.shtml

Surely if they were earning enough through advertising to cover thus said salaries then the gov and tv licenses would not be needed..but they are so I smell a rat and Kenny is the biggest one of all..

later12

fliball123 wrote: »

Surely if they were earning enough to cover thus said salaries the gov and tv licenses would not be needed..but they are so I smell a rat and Kenny is the biggest one of all..

Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane and Joe Duffy, and other high earners, are three of the high earners out of a possible list of about 2,000 staff. I don't see any reason to believe that their jobs are worth less (in terms of what income they can generate) than any other human resources inefficiencies.

There are lots of reasons why a corporation may be inefficient in terms of its productivity costs. Highest earners are not always the bad guys. Someone put the average RTE salary at €70,000 in this thread. Now I don't know what the median is, but going by that figure, Pat Kenny's (reported) salary would be roughly equivalent to 11 average salaries in RTE. It is easy to point fingers, but unless you can compare the efficiency of such workers to Pat Kenny in terms of how irreplaceable they are, how efficient and how productive they are, then I don't really see that you can comment in an informed way on the reason for RTE's financial problems.

fliball123

later10 wrote: »

Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane and Joe Duffy, and other high earners, are three of the high earners out of a possible list of about 2,000 staff. I don't see any reason to believe that their jobs are worth less (in terms of what income they can generate) than any other human resources inefficiencies.

There are lots of reasons why a corporation may be inefficient in terms of its productivity costs. Highest earners are not always the bad guys. Someone put the average RTE salary at €70,000 in this thread. Now I don't know what the median is, but going by that figure, Pat Kenny's (reported) salary would be roughly equivalent to 11 average salaries in RTE. It is easy to point fingers, but unless you can compare the efficiency of such workers to Pat Kenny in terms of how irreplaceable they are, how efficient and how productive they are, then I don't really see that you can comment in an informed way on the reason for RTE's financial problems.

True but this corporation is being subsidized I would rather have the money in my pocket than have the option of listening to Messrs Kenny, Finucane and Duffy. Sure everything is gone Sky and NTL on the box. I'd say RTE have a very low viewing rating with the odd exception of the population watchin eastenders and even thats on BBC with out an add break...

These presenters and others within the RTE should be cut off by the state and told to work off what they generate. No room for parsites on the dying animal that is Ireland Inc

later12

Well the argument has traditionally been that we need a service to provide a minimum threshold of political, topical or educational programming, and services in the Irish language as well as for the deaf community.

I'm not sure that argument is still valid in 2011, given the choices available to consumers, and given the fact that we now have TnaG, Radio na Gaeltachta, and that services for the deaf are often as good on non state television as they are on private stations. I would certainly question the importance of things like 2 fm and RTE2 generally, but then these may be the stations that are generating revnues for the less popular but seemingly important provisions in the RTE schedules.

thebman

later10 wrote: »

I think you will find it is Monday to Friday, 10am - 12pm down at Today FM or FM104 as well, but they don't pull in the same sort of listenership at all during those periods when (for example) Pat Kenny is on RTE Radio 1.

Yes but that completely ignores the airtime RTE have put into advertising these shows from their dominant market position (for historical reasons) that allows them to promote their shows much more than others as they have the main news as the state broadcaster for some time and are state sponsored to distort the market.

My point would simply be that we don't need a state broadcaster. RTE try to keep their dominant position in the market is at odds with the reset of the government strategy of trying to erode the market share of the semi-state companies such as ESB and the privatising of the telecom market.

I would love to see the logical reasons why the government feels the need to maintain a state broadcaster. Even the head of RTE was the other day made exempt from the pay cap because his position was considered too strategically important (along with several others such as the head of ESB etc..).

Rubik.

later10 wrote: »

I think you will find it is Monday to Friday, 10am - 12pm down at Today FM or FM104 as well, but they don't pull in the same sort of listenership at all during those periods when (for example) Pat Kenny is on RTE Radio 1.

I'm not saying he is definitely worth the money he earns - I'm saying that I don't see how anybody can say he is not worth it when they don't know how much revenue he generates for RTE Radio.

RTE Radio 1 is by far the most listened to radio station in the country, this would be the same with or without Pat Kenny. It's not how much revenue he generates that's relevant, it's how much more he generates than another presenter in that timeslot would. Unless RTE made a complete bags of replacing him, like they did over in 2fm, the answer would be none. The cost of an advertising spot is the same for John Murray, Pat Kenny, Ronan Collins, News at One and Liveline.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/advertising/content/pdf/RTE%20Radio%20Rate%20Card%20and%20Ready%20Reckoner%202011.pdf

amacca

creeper1 wrote: »

That contrasts with the guy that stands in for Joe Duffy when he is off on his numerous vacations. It's painful listening to him when the topic comes around to the economy. HIs knowledge is so limited.

I remember him quoting McWilliams about how Ireland could simply leave the Euro and let her new currency depreciate to a tenth of the Euro and how that would be great for Ireland without even having a notion of what that would do to savers. :mad:

A common technique of a presenter of a show like that is to parrot what a
real idiot or someone on the street might say after reading a paragraph in a newspaper because its topical etc - I've seen so many people nodding in agreement to statements like this simply because it was in the independent that day or it was in some of the broadsheets

doesn't necessarily mean the presenter is as uninformed as he is presenting himself to be - appealing to his listenership so to speak - if you want even semi informed economic opinion/analysis...I would suggest the Joe Duffy show is not the place to hear it regardless of who is presenting it

"sure couldnt we just leave the Euro Joe"

"well now I'm not sure that would be a great Idea Mick!"

"next caller pleeeease"

"Hello Joe I'm so angry at the government - I have 3 trained fighting rottweilers - I live in a one bedroom apt on the 2oth storey and the council are saying I can only have one"

"God thats shocking mary..shocking"


eg: I'm fairly sure Vincent Browne isn't quite as ignorant/moronical as he at times makes himself out to be...makes for good debate when he says something stupid + then gets corrected or has a more informed opinion thrown at him - Bill O'Herlihy is a master of this I'm a moron technique - whats amazing is how many people are actually taken in by it.


to put in my own opinion on the OPs question - 25k would not be near enough to do a tv presenters job - I reckon its tough stressful work and a lot goes on behind the camera/mike

+ as a public figure you are also potentially a target for utter loons - there should be an element of danger money for having to become known to the public at large too:D

Nijmegen

What business does the government have in producing soap operas and Dragon's Den, anyway?

RTE is subsidized by its position as the state broadcaster as well as from money we pay into it, and though most of the money we give it directly doesn't go to the less educational, good of the nation style programming, other programming is made possible by the total mass of the organisation which is helped considerably by government.

RTE should be spun out into a private business and allowed to compete.

See how shareholders who don't have a supposedly endless money pit and connections to the unions to help them get elected every five years put up with these kinds of salaries.

If they're happy with them, more power to them.

Meanwhile, I'm a shareholder and I think it's sweetheart deals for people who couldn't earn anything like it anywhere else.

thebman

Yes I think the license fee would go much further if we put it toward grants for Irish programming by private operators and got rid of RTE.

Of course, the arts in general do get some of the money and I think that should continue too. I don't have a problem paying a license fee, I have a problem with moneypits that are funded by the Irish people involuntarily.

If RTE really thought they offered that good a service, they would have no problem requiring subscription fees and forgoing the license fee money and then they would be able to charge what they like. The reality is they know they aren't worth the money.

Daegerty

Tora Bora wrote: »

Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut ............. keep cutting :cool:

Till the scissors is blunt!

HivemindXX

Nijmegen wrote: »

Meanwhile, I'm a shareholder and I think it's sweetheart deals for people who couldn't earn anything like it anywhere else.

Dunphy is not one of the highest paid but he's still earning a very large salary and he was paid more at Newstalk when he was there.

Star presenters can earn giant salaries at private sector media operations too. Rush Limbaugh will get an average of $50M per year on his current deal.

Anyone who thinks you can slot in a random graduate on the minimum wage in to one of those slots and not see a drop off in advertising revenue doesn't have a very firm grip on reality.

The star presenters are in an enviable position. They don't have to justify their salaries with vague assertions of the value they bring to the company. They can point at hard figures and state they bring in that much money and show how it compares to a competing show on another station. They can then threaten to swap places unless they get the salary they want.

However their is almost certainly scope to cut salaries and quite deeply in some places. If you manage to retain all your top talent then you as a company are probably not playing ball hard enough.

If anything the most important point was raised by a previous poster than this just highlights the importance of using the median value when looking at salaries. Average salary on <x show> is €70k makes a great headline. Ridiculous people say. Outrageous. Cut them all by 20%! Even though in fact we have star presenter on €400k and 10 support staff earning an average of €25k.

Nijmegen

HivemindXX wrote: »

Dunphy is not one of the highest paid but he's still earning a very large salary and he was paid more at Newstalk when he was there.

Star presenters can earn giant salaries at private sector media operations too. Rush Limbaugh will get an average of $50M per year on his current deal.

Anyone who thinks you can slot in a random graduate on the minimum wage in to one of those slots and not see a drop off in advertising revenue doesn't have a very firm grip on reality.

The star presenters are in an enviable position. They don't have to justify their salaries with vague assertions of the value they bring to the company. They can point at hard figures and state they bring in that much money and show how it compares to a competing show on another station. They can then threaten to swap places unless they get the salary they want.

However their is almost certainly scope to cut salaries and quite deeply in some places. If you manage to retain all your top talent then you as a company are probably not playing ball hard enough.

If anything the most important point was raised by a previous poster than this just highlights the importance of using the median value when looking at salaries. Average salary on <x show> is €70k makes a great headline. Ridiculous people say. Outrageous. Cut them all by 20%! Even though in fact we have star presenter on €400k and 10 support staff earning an average of €25k.

Limbaugh has a total market size of 307 million people...

It isn't an either-or argument for high wages or minimum wage.

Many of these presenters who earn close to a million could earn under a quarter of a million and I doubt the market would offer them much more. Particularly in Ireland, where ad revenues have collapsed.

Let the market compete.

fliball123

HivemindXX wrote: »

Dunphy is not one of the highest paid but he's still earning a very large salary and he was paid more at Newstalk when he was there.

Star presenters can earn giant salaries at private sector media operations too. Rush Limbaugh will get an average of $50M per year on his current deal.

Anyone who thinks you can slot in a random graduate on the minimum wage in to one of those slots and not see a drop off in advertising revenue doesn't have a very firm grip on reality.

The star presenters are in an enviable position. They don't have to justify their salaries with vague assertions of the value they bring to the company. They can point at hard figures and state they bring in that much money and show how it compares to a competing show on another station. They can then threaten to swap places unless they get the salary they want.

However their is almost certainly scope to cut salaries and quite deeply in some places. If you manage to retain all your top talent then you as a company are probably not playing ball hard enough.

If anything the most important point was raised by a previous poster than this just highlights the importance of using the median value when looking at salaries. Average salary on <x show> is €70k makes a great headline. Ridiculous people say. Outrageous. Cut them all by 20%! Even though in fact we have star presenter on €400k and 10 support staff earning an average of €25k.

But you miss the point that I would rather see this money used in hospitals, education rather than going into Kennys or tubridys pocket ...let them go else where...RTE should get up and coming talent to sign a 20 year deal and if they want to break it the talent must pay up.....Where would Kenny go..Tubs got blanked when he went to try and host a show in England..I say let them go we can no longer afford their inflated wage or ego...

Liam Byrne

amacca wrote: »

eg: I'm fairly sure Vincent Browne isn't quite as ignorant/moronical as he at times makes himself out to be...makes for good debate when he says something stupid + then gets corrected or has a more informed opinion thrown at him - Bill O'Herlihy is a master of this I'm a moron technique - whats amazing is how many people are actually taken in by it.

Precisely.

Part of the skill in broadcasting is in asking what the listener would ask, and it can't strictly speaking be "trained in".

If you have 2 presenters saying "did ya see the match last night ?" - "yeah" - "wasn't that mental ?" then anyone who didn't see it won't have a clue what match they were on about or what happened.

If, however, one presenter says "A massive amount newspaper coverage of an incident during last night's match - Kev, what exactly happened ?" then it gives the sports guy the chance to fill those listeners in.....despite the fact that the main presenter might have been glued to the match themselves.

Similarly, a presenter might engage a "devil's advocate" stance on a topic in order to draw out a listener's real reasons for ringing in.......are they really against the noise from the neighbours or is it really down to them being racist or whatever.

As well as that some of O'Herlihy's stuff is purely to get Johnny Giles into a mood for talking.....whether getting him to start "I wouldn't say that Bill, but...." or even "forgetting" a name so that Johnny can start by mentioning a name; the latter maybe not so applicable to Johnny Giles, but certainly to guest panelists who might be being a little too quiet once the camera goes live.

I've done this type of stuff regularly, and while it works (and works well) the only thing that it can cause is an eagle-eared listener to spot "He was raving about that guy last week - how come he can't remember his name this week ?"

But overall, it's part of the skillset / talent required; you're often "acting" a part in order to provide the listener with an approach they can identify with.....it's far from simply "waffling on" (if it's done right).

HivemindXX

fliball123 wrote: »

But you miss the point that I would rather see this money used in hospitals, education rather than going into Kennys or tubridys pocket

How would that happen though? There's no connection whatsoever between the money that goes to Kenny/Duffy/etc and that which goes to nurses and teachers.

HivemindXX

Nijmegen wrote: »

It isn't an either-or argument for high wages or minimum wage.

Many of these presenters who earn close to a million could earn under a quarter of a million and I doubt the market would offer them much more. Particularly in Ireland, where ad revenues have collapsed.

Let the market compete.

I agree with this completely. There are some people who seem to be arguing that these presenters should be replaced with graduate on the minimum wage and somehow this won't affect the advertising revenue.

Cut salaries until the stars actually prove they can get more money elsewhere and start leaving. Then you know you are in the right ballpark with regards to salaries. Until then you are almost certainly paying them too much.

fliball123

HivemindXX wrote: »

How would that happen though? There's no connection whatsoever between the money that goes to Kenny/Duffy/etc and that which goes to nurses and teachers.

Really?? do we not all pay a TV license?? and does the goverenment not supsidise the RTE payroll with taxes??...and I never said to give it to nurses or teachers both are getting paid too much IMO but it should be put into better schools and hospitals

Rubik.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Dunphy is not one of the highest paid but he's still earning a very large salary and he was paid more at Newstalk when he was there.

RTE is obliged to publish a list of it's top ten highest paid employees/contractors every two years. At 328,000 euros per annum Dunphy is quite high up that list. I was suprised that noboby mentioned to Dunphy, when he was lambasting Brian Cowen for earning more than the President of the United States a few years back, that he in fact was being paid more than both of them for a bit of football punditry on RTE and that over half RTE's budget comes from the licence fee payers.

mistermouse

Quite simply because we are taxed a license fee that allowed them to pay so much for so long.

Yes some shows do bring in advertising revenue but its not all down to the presenter and RTE is not a commercial operator in the real sense. If it were 2fm would have been gone years ago, it serves no public service at all and is a rather poor radio station as is

You will find that these shows have teams of researchers, producers etc, people who line up stories, vet stories and callers and decide what goes on air to the presenter.

Most presenters in RTE do very little to make a good show, its the background team who do the work, not only providing the content but making sure the callers/subject etc suit the presenter

There are lots of great presenters on other and small stations, its often found that when RTE presenters are put out to pasture and go to say local stations they are useless

Einhard

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've found RTE to be a station of dreadfully low quality. Putting aside the un-refined nature of its dramas and other shows, the presenters themselves often come across in a very bad light.

For example, I recall one Morning Ireland show where the female presenter (her name escapes me) spoke to a union representative in a very un-couth manner but later in the same show, dealt with a minister in a very obsequious way. It's that duplicity that really irks me about RTE and when that's combined with my conviction that their media reports have to be signed off by Lenster house...

Well let's just say I tend to stick to the BBC.

I think that RTE gets an awful lot of undeserved flak. Granted, it's no BBC, but it can hardly hope to compare with that service. And there are an awful lot of terrible shows and terrible presenters, but one glance through the comment sections of foreign tv and radio guides illustrates that it's the same everywhere. This week, RTE won one of the most prestigious awards in broadcasting, named World Broadcaster of the Year in New York Festival Radio Awards, and has won numerous awards for its documentaries. Considering all the abuse they get, it's only right to acknowledge when they do something right.

thebman

I don't think it is undeserved flak. I think many people think their cost:entertainment ratio is worse than most other stations which can be received for much less and provide more professional, entertainment for their interests.

It really depends on the persons opinion. We should probably have a referendum on if we should keep the license fee. If they are worth the money, what is the fear of doing so? Surely the Irish people will be smart enough to realise the value of entertainment they provide and vote to keep the license fee?

Nijmegen

The government has no business these days being in broadcasting. Let it license spectrum and other infrastructure, but RTE was set up in an age when you couldn't get much other broadcast entertainment or news or similar.

Last I checked my sky box, radio or internet connection I have no shortage of such things.

Private business can then pay their employees whatever they like.

Tea drinker

later10 wrote: »

Does the OP know how much money the inidvidual presenters concerned actually generate for RTE?

I do not see how anybody can proclaim what an individual presenter is worth without having a reasonable grasp of what s/he generates for the station.

The presenter is just one person in a huge team. Be it sound engineers and floor managers to HR and sanitary cleaners. Singling one presenter out of the group is a bit much. The researchers for the shows really do a lot of work and can make or break a show just as easily as a presenter.
And in fairness this seems to be a neglected area in most of media at present. Nobody wants Inconvenient truths .

andrew

I like to think of it like this; lets say 100,000 people watch the late late show every Friday. For argument's sake, lets (conservatively) say that each of those people get about €1 euro worth of enjoyment out of watching it; they'd pay a euro to watch it, if there was some sort of slot in their TV which allowed them to do so. If you look at it like that, then the high salary of the presenter is a reflection of the amount of entertainment which they provide to thousands of people, each of whom value that entertainment quite highly.

The same argument applies to pretty much all celebrities. And though I recognise it's not the only factor at play (advertising does play a big role of course), in a roundabout way I think it's significant.

dynamick

"RTE radio star Ryan really was worth €500,000" says media buyer.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-radio-star-ryan-really-was-worth-euro500000-2627354.html

(RTE is losing 500K per year in ad revenue since he died because his replacement is less attractive to radio audiences)

Atilathehun

Dustin and Podge & Rodge are worth what they get.
Marian Finucane, should be take off the air completely, and forever.

Joe Duffy .................... should get life with hard labour for giving all that air time to the whingiest and moaniest, and general lay aboutish types in the country.

All the rest,...... €30k PLUS X amount per ten thousand listeners or viewers over and above a pre determined number.

Nijmegen

dynamick wrote: »

"RTE radio star Ryan really was worth €500,000" says media buyer.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-radio-star-ryan-really-was-worth-euro500000-2627354.html

(RTE is losing 500K per year in ad revenue since he died because his replacement is less attractive to radio audiences)

If he was earning €500k and the station has dropped €500k since his passing, then no, he wasn't worth it.

Most business I've been involved in tends to look to make a profit.

thebman

andrew wrote: »

I like to think of it like this; lets say 100,000 people watch the late late show every Friday. For argument's sake, lets (conservatively) say that each of those people get about €1 euro worth of enjoyment out of watching it; they'd pay a euro to watch it, if there was some sort of slot in their TV which allowed them to do so. If you look at it like that, then the high salary of the presenter is a reflection of the amount of entertainment which they provide to thousands of people, each of whom value that entertainment quite highly.

The same argument applies to pretty much all celebrities. And though I recognise it's not the only factor at play (advertising does play a big role of course), in a roundabout way I think it's significant.

No people that would pay 1 Euro are paying for the whole experience of that show, as much of the experience of the show is created by people behind the scenes.

It is the same logic as the F1 driver wins the championship. Sure he has a significant input but without the team to build the car, he is not going to win the championship.

Tea drinker wrote: »

The presenter is just one person in a huge team. Be it sound engineers and floor managers to HR and sanitary cleaners. Singling one presenter out of the group is a bit much. The researchers for the shows really do a lot of work and can make or break a show just as easily as a presenter.
And in fairness this seems to be a neglected area in most of media at present. Nobody wants Inconvenient truths .

This, a show is nothing without its content. Remember when the late late show had on the two news presenters? Loads of poeple gave out about it. Nobody really cares about the presenter of that show if the guests aren't good and the team gets the guests together.

Now if you had a really bad presenter, people might turn off but realistically if you have an average presenter, odds are people will tune in especially if the show already has an established fan base as it will take a lot to make them stop watching a show they have been watching each week for years.

I think that is what RTE have. It is the shows themselves that have value, not the presenters IMO.

dynamick

Nijmegen wrote: »

If he was earning €500k and the station has dropped €500k since his passing, then no, he wasn't worth it.

Most business I've been involved in tends to look to make a profit.

The reduction in cost to RTE by not paying Gerry Ryan is not simply 500K - RTE have to hire a replacement. If the replacement guy costs 100K, that's a cost saving of 400K. If the programme had been making a profit of 100K under Ryan, it will have no profit now.

Perhaps RTE presenter salaries should be linked to ad revenue. (maybe they are already?)

Rubik.

dynamick wrote: »

Perhaps RTE presenter salaries should be linked to ad revenue. (maybe they are already?)

The majority of the top 10 earners are contractors, on 4 or 5 year contracts. So despite RTE losing 70 million in annual commerical revenue since mid-2008, their salaries have been untouchable until those contracts are up for renewal. There was a "voluntary" 10% cut in 2009, but some of the presenters had to be browbeaten into taking them.

later12

fliball123 wrote: »

Tubs got blanked when he went to try and host a show in England..

He will be hosting his Summer show on BBC Radio 2 from 10am to 1pm this Summer.

Head The Wall

later10 wrote: »

He will be hosting his Summer show on BBC Radio 2 from 10am to 1pm this Summer.

Correction - he will be doing holiday cover for Graham Nortons show

parsi

dynamick wrote: »

"RTE radio star Ryan really was worth €500,000" says media buyer.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-radio-star-ryan-really-was-worth-euro500000-2627354.html

(RTE is losing 500K per year in ad revenue since he died because his replacement is less attractive to radio audiences)

Or are they losing ad revenue due to the recession and less desire from companies to spend money ?