« Facts, frictions & "mainstream" economics | Main | Asymmetric policies »

July 19, 2017


Mike Berry

I think you are missing a broader conception of the 'joint surplus'.

The BBC is able to justify the retention of the license fee because it can maintain a particular audience share. Should that fall precipitously - and some might believe the loss of key 'talent' may erode the audience base, there will be increased pressure from politicians and the Press to scrap the fee and move to a subscription model.

Luis Enrique

On this topic, you may like this recent survey



The whole sector (Media and Sports) is inflated by monopoly profits buy capturing the consumer surplus and positive externalities.

The whole foundation of the industry is a monopoly on distribution in the form of copyright and mass distribution with access to the broadcast bandwidth a limited and regulated commodity.

Even the Unemployed are subject to the BBC licence fee flat tax, and whom have very little alternative sources of entertainment.

The whole industry is about limiting access to a resource that has a zero cost of copying, and distribution. Not to any extent based upon popularity, merit or quality (as the choice is so narrow - four channels plus repeats or movies).

Popularity is defined within very narrow limits, would Hollywood be popular (given few studios and it's output) if a wider range of material was available?

How many Marvel spin offs and remakes can the public endure? The only talent on show, is for self-promotion and marketing.

The copyright lobby is as strong as ever and using vast funds to lobby for the distortion of society and to reduce privacy and freedom. e.g Digital Economy Act, and the nonsense on copyright coming (previous and current) from Europe:


Andrew S

That;s a helpful framework, but I have doubts whether it wholly explains (or excuses) the flagrant gender gap. It makes me wonder whether the BBC is getting away with discriminating against women across its entire workforce


Isn't the Dr Who argument (one I also believe) slightly confounded by the recent history of another franchise with similar properties. E.g. Bond and its current portrayer (assuming we belief the press coverage and pay of the current 007).

Presumably the different production set ups (e.g. BBC vs ANOther) for these similar brands create different constraints in the actors bargaining position as well as a strong fall back option.


Maybe explains Humphreys' antagonism to egalitarian politicians. At that rate he should be a lot sharper at interviewing rather than indulge in false traps and mindless baiting. A lot to pay for a pleasant voice saying so many unpleasant things.


I thought the list quite revealing.

It seemed at first glance that if you mapped the salaries onto the key times for the BBC in the weekly schedule there was a good match. Radio 2 is the most listened to radio, BBC 1 at tea time or Saturday evening the most watched, hence big pay for Radio 2 DJs and actors in East Enders or Holby City.

In which case the stand out salary is Ken Bruce. He should earn far more. And not just because I like his show.


The sex discrimination has no justification and is sexism. The rest of the pay differences seem to have a big element of accident and arbitrariness. Life is all about what you can get away with it seems. And apart from acquiring testicles what you get away with is luck.

derrida derider

"Anybody who’s worked in investment banking knows that similar talents and circumstances co-exist with huge differences in pay."

True pretty well anywhere where productivity is hard to measure, which means inter alia pretty well all management jobs.

Simple luck - being in the right place at the right time - is grossly underestimated as a determinant of wages.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad