Sandi Toksvig Not Paid As Much As Fry

SimonTemplar

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/08/sandi-toksvig-reveals-60-qi-pay-gap-from-stephen-fry

This isn't a gender issue this is a status issue. Fry is simply a much better known and renowned figure and therefore that comes with a premium. Fry is known internationally whereas I doubt Toksvig is known outside of the British Isles and her home country.

And I know the argument is that the same role should have the same pay regardless of gender, and that argument is true for most 'normal' jobs. But status means a lot in the entertainment industry. For the same role, Daniel Craig was paid a fraction of Brosnan's salary for Casino Royale because at the time Brosnan's status was much higher.

If Nicole Kidman was due to do a movie in the UK and was replaced by Sarah Lancashire, it would be unreasonable to expect Lancashire to be paid as much as Kidman even though she is a great actress.

Gender inequality definitely exists. That can't really be disputed. But trying to convey a situation as a gender inequality issue when it really isn't is very problematic and risks tainting the whole gender equality campaign in the first place.

And I don't blame Toksvig for this media attention but rather the media looking for a catchy trending headline and people on social media quick to jump at the notion of inequality without actually looking at the situation logically themselves.

Ficheall

SimonTemplar wrote: »

But trying to convey a situation as a gender inequality issue when it really isn't is very problematic and risks tainting the whole gender equality campaign in the first place.

There is an awful lot of such taint around, unfortunately.

Hector Bellend

Who gives a hairy rats ass?

irishproduce

The argument around male/ female salary without acknowledging the value/ or contribution of the people involved is like asking how come U2 get paid more for doing a concert than Atomic Kitten get.

pickarooney

Why does Alan Davies get only 40% of what Fry was on? Do they not have some kind of loyalty/seniority bonus?

the purple tin

It was Fry (and Davies to a lesser extent) who really made that show what it was.

He was there for nearly 15 years proving his worth, so would have had plenty of chances to negotiate raises from the producers. She is straight in the door and expects to be paid the same amount as he was getting when he left. Have a laugh Sandy.
She is also griping because her and Alan Davies get paid the same amount but she is the host, well I bet a lot more people tune in to see Alan than to see her. She wouldn't be a draw for me at all.

verycool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-H0uIH5HHQ

valoren

A crude analogy would be say a male star developer who churns out quality, important code and earns 250k a year based on their skills and the intrinsic value of those skills who decides to leave the company and a graduate student with a first class degree, who had done an internship with the company, who had shadowed the developer and who after joining the company aproper expected the same salary as the star coder before a line of code was ever written i.e. if you join the army today as a private, don't expect to be paid the same as the General.

I'd like to see how much Fry got in 2003 compared to his final season, 13 years later. I'm sure it was modest enough for a show with a quirky premise which had the potential to be a complete failure. Much less than his going rate in 2016 for sure.

Clearly the show became a hit and Fry was very much part of the success contributing to the appeal of the show.
His fee would have increased in line with the growth in that status and viewer appeal. He would have known his worth and gotten fair value for it too. He was in a strong negotiating position at the start of each filming schedule in May/June when the show get's filmed.

When Sandy took over the role, there was the risk that a percentage of people wouldn't watch anymore after Fry decided to leave.

"It's just not the same" was a big risk and that risk was reflected in the fee she was offered and which she gladly accepted. That risk was legitimate considering the disaster that was Chris Evans' disastrous tenure after taking over another BBC crown jewel, Top Gear. This was a prestigious gig and the BBC are no fools. They probably knew any man (or woman) would have bitten their hand off to be offered that gig regardless of the pay. She is no fool either. She'd have known that but giving an honest answer to a question and it's being exploited to highlight the 'gender pay' gap.

Gimme A Pound

Same story with a TV show called The Affair. The female lead apparently gets paid less than the male lead. However he, Dominic West, is a more accomplished actor, having played a major character in The Wire. He also has more screen time. He is the chief character overall.

Cienciano

Mohammad Shrilling Poinsettia wrote: »

Same story with a TV show called The Affair. The female lead apparently gets paid less than the male lead. However he, Dominic West, is a more accomplished actor, having played a major character in The Wire. He also has more screen time. He is the chief character overall.

Wasn't the Wimbledon prize money similar? Men played more sets and generated more advertising and TV money. Sometimes common sense does not apply.

coffee_cake

Seems like it wasn't her bringing it up but rather she was being asked about it. she is also quoted as saying she has no issue with her pay

SimonTemplar

bluewolf wrote: »

Seems like it wasn't her bringing it up but rather she was being asked about it. she is also quoted as saying she has no issue with her pay

Exactly, as I said, I don't blame her but the media and social media people quick to jump on the inequality bandwagon.

Hoboo

Peanuts for monkeys. She is absolutely ****3.

I realised that as a four year old watching No. 73.

Blitzkrieger

She's not as good as Fry and ratings have probably dropped since she became host. Why would you pay her as much?

Yer Da sells Avon

the purple tin wrote: »

It was Fry (and Davies to a lesser extent) who really made that show what it was.

He was there for nearly 15 years proving his worth, so would have had plenty of chances to negotiate raises from the producers. She is straight in the door and expects to be paid the same amount as he was getting when he left. Have a laugh Sandy.
She is also griping because her and Alan Davies get paid the same amount but she is the host, well I bet a lot more people tune in to see Alan than to see her. She wouldn't be a draw for me at all.

She isn't 'griping' at all, and she didn't say anything about 'expecting' to be paid the same amount as Fry was getting. Although it does seem odd that the host doesn't get paid more than one of the contestants. She was asked a question and answered it, adding that she tempers the lower pay with the fact that she loves hosting the show.

Hector Bellend

the purple tin wrote: »

It was Fry (and Davies to a lesser extent) who really made that show what it was.

He was there for nearly 15 years proving his worth, so would have had plenty of chances to negotiate raises from the producers. She is straight in the door and expects to be paid the same amount as he was getting when he left. Have a laugh Sandy.
She is also griping because her and Alan Davies get paid the same amount but she is the host, well I bet a lot more people tune in to see Alan than to see her. She wouldn't be a draw for me at all.

The same thing happened with 15 to 1.

Give me William G Stewart any day of the week.

Yer Da sells Avon

Hector Bellend wrote: »

The same thing happened with 15 to 1.

Give me William G Stewart any day of the week.

He's dead.

mynamejeff

she isnt half as interesting or entertaining as fry either so seems about right

Fr_Dougal

Why do I get paid less than Beyoncé ?

The Rape of Lucretia

irishproduce wrote: »

The argument around male/ female salary without acknowledging the value/ or contribution of the people involved is like asking how come U2 get paid more for doing a concert than Atomic Kitten get.

Which is utterly scandalous. Atomic Kitten are so much better.

Tom Mann Centuria

Hoboo wrote: »

Peanuts for monkeys. She is absolutely ****3.

I realised that as a four year old watching No. 73.

The bread quiz was the greatest thing ever. So your answer is incorrect.

Fann Linn

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Why do I get paid less than Beyoncé ?

she's got a better ass.ðŸ˜

JohnnyFlash

mynamejeff wrote: »

she isnt half as interesting or entertaining as fry either so seems about right

Fry is a pompous, insufferable arsehole.

Your Face

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Why do I get paid less than Beyoncé ?

Leave Beyonce out of this!

Irish Guitarist

QI hasn't been worth watching in years. It was bad enough that Alan Davies was ruining every episode but then more and more guests started appearing that couldn't handle not being the centre of attention. When a guest actually does say something interesting, which is supposedly the idea of the programme, the other idiots shout them down and makes jokes about penises or something. Stephen Fry got really annoying too as his fame grew (I know he was already famous but he seemed to just be glad to be doing something when QI began) and he strayed away from asking questions. His pompous rants about religion turned me off listening to him.

I think the format would work better if they ditched a lot of the 'comedy'.

DavidLyons_

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Why do I get paid less than Beyoncé ?

Can you imagine the Serena-esque wobbler that vacuous, materialistic gee-bag would throw if someone on the same record label was earning more than her?

bodice ripper

I actually prefer her to Fry on QI. I wasn't expecting to.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

the purple tin wrote: »

It was Fry (and Davies to a lesser extent) who really made that show what it was.

He was there for nearly 15 years proving his worth, so would have had plenty of chances to negotiate raises from the producers. She is straight in the door and expects to be paid the same amount as he was getting when he left. Have a laugh Sandy.
She is also griping because her and Alan Davies get paid the same amount but she is the host, well I bet a lot more people tune in to see Alan than to see her. She wouldn't be a draw for me at all.

I'd tune in for Toksvig over Davies. I’ve liked her since Call My Bluff.

NIMAN

Surely this is more the fact that Fry's agent is better at negotiating than Toksvig's?

Say Fry was on €100k (I haven't bother to read article btw), Beeb probably think they were getting value for money.

If Toksvig agent said, "I want Sandy to get €100k", maybe they don't think she'd be worth it. Its their call of course, their decision. Doesn't make them sexist, does it?

Yes she will be presenting the same show, but they would obviously consider Fry worth extra wages as he has more cachet?

Maybe she's 40% as entertaining as Fry?

Guy:Incognito

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

. Although it does seem odd that the host doesn't get paid more than one of the contestants. .

It's not a game show though. Or a proper quiz show. They are both permenant members of the show. No different than if it were a drama or a sitcom.each have their roles and are essentially co stars.

Niles Crane

I haven't watched the show since she started hosting it,I suspect I'm not the only one so I imagine that would in part explain why she doesn't get paid as much as Fry was a really good host and drew you into watching she doesn't have that kind of pull.