Compensation Overload

Michael Hedges January 11, 2010 Follow on Twitter

Showbiz is, for anybody who’s seen it in person, not for the faint hearted. As part of the creative trade, performers are asked to do things most people won’t and fewer can. Perhaps that is the reason all accountants and most politicians find them expendable.

Compensation is already this decades’ favorite menace. Bankers know this and, frankly, don’t care. Politicians and executives protect their “fair” share, finding joy building – literally and figuratively – moats around their castles. Calling somebody “high priced” today paints a target on their back.

So it was with BBC radio and TV show host Jonathan Ross. Repaying the seminal public broadcaster a thousand times over for years of giving him a stage, Ross announced last week that’d had enough of critics sniping over his on-camera life and the compensation for it. He’ll work out the last six months of his current contracts and then move on. Rumor has it a major American television network will soon have an opening in its late night talk slot.

The term for this in French is fait accompli. Ross made the announcement before anybody from the BBC was forced to become a bright light in a closet. That’s a lot like showbiz but somebody with a corner office would have drawn the short straw.

It was a gift from Ross to BBC General Director Mark Thompson, who may further deflect thumping and stumping from Conservative Party operatives over the broadcasters’ “profligate” spending, not to forget its independence from political imperative. As a tax supported institution, the BBC is, they say, no different from libraries, schools and city administrations. Other BBC performers have received KBE’s for far less service.     

Neither Jonathan Ross’ talent nor his compensation, directly, is the issue. That remains solely whether or not public broadcasters are leaders, followers or just in the way. It is not a market distortion that attracts the highly talented – from performers and executives to Web designers and journalists – to public broadcasting. Ross said his decision wasn’t based on compensation. For others it was; being highly paid – as well as occasionally rude and crude – is a lightening rod.

“The public sector pay debate will continue,” said Thompson to the BBC in-house magazine Ariel (January 8), “but we are not a county council. If you want someone to run BBC One or develop iPlayer, you need the very best people in the world.” Of course, county council administrators were offended by the remark and immediately interviewed by every UK newspaper.

Commercial broadcasters in the UK are, no doubt, jumping for joy. Other star BBC performers are, reportedly, either taking pay cuts or taking on more shows. As the 21st century is one for bursting bubbles, a big one is radio and TV performers compensation. UK Talent agents will suffer. Executives, as made obvious by the banking sector, will not.

Ross has been a colorful basketful of gaffs, lending question to talent management skill at the BBC. It’s never good enough having performers - particularly the high-priced ones – wander off campus or canvas. 

While some in the UK see his departure – still six months away – as a loss for British entertainment and, especially, the BBC’s game in it, people forget. For broadcast entertainers there is no bigger stage.  "There's no business like show business," said US television talk show host David Letterman, "but there are a thousand like accounting."

UK radio and TV listeners and viewers may also suffer, continue to suffer or continue to believe they are suffering. A stable work environment, “friendly” to creatives, makes the BBC – like many public broadcasters - the broadcast employer of choice. Unstable and accountant-friendly commercial broadcasters take the leftovers. Listeners and viewers will only complain amidst their confusion.