Judging salaries

Ya gonna luv this one !!

The judges are complaing about fees-- they are currently paid £ 60, 000 for each of the 12 week series UK-- and the Amer. version -- would you believe £ 250,000!!--( Len & Toni )

Can anyone honestly justify those rates, for the time and effort expended ( add to this all their expenses are paid )
I believe most of us could nominate 4 equally REALLY qualified ( len being possibly an exception ) people to do the same job for half the price !

So, are they complaining it's too much? :lol:

yikes... well, it's about what money comes in, not really about effort expended. Personally, I love the idea of less work => more money. Why work hard for money when you can work easy? I want to work because I WANT to, not because I have to. It's not being lazy, it's just capitalizing on a free market economy! But yeah, I agree that much more qualified judges can be found for much less, but hey, the audience likes the judges, and that's who really matters here...

Don't let any of our regular comp judges here that, or fees are going to go WAY up.

I am not against making money- that was not the point-- to clarify-- again-- i do not believe the quality of the panel is worth more ( not even what they are getting now ).--- I just think one could get " better " for your buck.

I see tangotime's point.

I doubt that judges at NDCA comps make nearly that much, and they have the--in my judgment--far more difficult job of watching many couples simultaneously, making rapid decisions about recalls and placements, standing on their feet for hours in often hyper air-conditioned ballrooms, shifts that may start early in the AM and/or end late in the PM, etc. And though you could consider the travel a plus, you could also consider it a minus (the joys of airline travel, unfamiliar beds, food of variable quality. Furthermore, for every comp in a highly desirable area like Hawaii or Orlando, there is one in a...let's just say "less obvious tourist destination.")

True, they don't have to offer television commentary and risk having their opinions critiqued by millions, BUT I still feel like DWTS is a relatively cushy assignment.

But hey, if they think they can negotiate even bigger and better deals for themselves, good for them! (I personally think there a very limited number of people who would be heart-broken to see Carrie Ann or Bruno replaced, but I could well be wrong.)

Oh yeah, I don't fault them for getting whatever they can, just don't think their judging is X times better or harder than judging NDCA or closed comps.

ChaChaMama said:

(I personally think there a very limited number of people who would be heart-broken to see Carrie Ann or Bruno replaced, but I could well be wrong.)

Click to expand...

Judging from the fact that now Carrie Ann & Bruno are having their own gig, I'd say they're probably much more popular than we think. Remember this is TV, not real dance competition. People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

Heres a fun idea-- if you had your choice-- who would be on your panel ?

We may not think much of Bruno's weekly alliterations and over the top gushing but he does add "color" to the evening for the general public.

The judges aren't being paid to judge, they're being paid to entertain and to influence the audience votes.

If Dancing with the Stars was set up and judged like a regular comp (ProAm) I have a feeling it would last all of one week. Ballroom Bootcamp was set up much more along those lines and only lasted one season.

bjp22tango said:

We may not think much of Bruno's weekly alliterations and over the top gushing but he does add "color" to the evening for the general public.

Click to expand...

I think everyone gets the wheres and the whys--- point being-- there are numerous people in the industry that have "color", that to my mind that are more deserving (I wonder how stage people would feel about us judging their performers ?-- and being the majority of the panel ! )----------

- We have OUR own gushers .

swan said:

Judging from the fact that now Carrie Ann & Bruno are having their own gig, I'd say they're probably much more popular than we think. Remember this is TV, not real dance competition. People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

Click to expand...

True! On the other hand, to me that only means

A) someone at ABC thinks they are popular, or

B) when this show was being planned, the possibility of the writers' strike was already looming, so another reality show seemed like a really good idea!

The show could be a total trainwreck. Then again, if the writers' strike continues (as looks likely), it will certainly get its best possible chance.

Charlie Pinatello (sp?) is an EXTREMELY colorful character, but can also give a very piercing judgement of a dance (his wife even moreso, at least on technical side). Hell, Charlie's daughter is a trip too, would love to see the three of them judge a show together. Maybe not every week, but a guest judging with the three of them would be worth seeing.

swan said:

People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

Click to expand...

(not really directed to you swan, just some general thoughts...)

It's only ridiculous when compared to "real jobs." If I'm a main character on a TV show that grosses the network $10M in advertising, then I think I deserve 2% of that... ($200,000). If someone really believes that their job is worth more, then must always ask themselves, "how much money am I making for the company?" Being on a team of 100 people that creates a $10M product is really not worth much more than $50,000 a year, is it? When a big name baseball player makes an average of $5,000 for every plate appearance or defensive play, he's worth every penny of that and more to the team--because people come to the game to watch HIM, they buy jerseys with HIS name on it, they buy products of advertisers because people tune in to watch HIM--thus HE brings in lots of $$$, and that's why he gets paid well.

Like I just said on another thread, if anyone thinks these jobs and people aren't worth the money, they should try to recruit thousands of people to watch him or her play sports, sing, dance, etc., and see how hard it is! People get paid either a flat fee, or for their performance. If you are salaried, then you have the "security" of a flat payrate, but you are also shooting yourself in the foot because you can work your hiney off and get paid nothing in return for it. In that case it's your fault. If you truly feel confident about your job performance at any job, you should insist on getting paid for results. Then, if you don't get paid much, it's still your fault. But if you get results, which is what most of these high-paid athletes get paid for, then you'll get paid well, in the same way that they do. (sure, they are salaried too, but they have a high salary because of high past performance) My point is that nobody pays a baseball player $5M in one year because they're pretty or a really nice person--they get paid because they are PHENOMENAL at what they do. And if YOU are phenomenal at what YOU do, then YOU will get paid well too!

bjp22tango said:

If Dancing with the Stars was set up and judged like a regular comp (ProAm) I have a feeling it would last all of one week. Ballroom Bootcamp was set up much more along those lines and only lasted one season.

Click to expand...

I agree...yet interestingly enough my ex-sister-in-law was an accountant for Ballroom Bootcamp's production company and told me that it was the most popular show on Lifetime (that was the cable network it was on, right) at the time.

Of course there is a massive difference between a narrow-focused cable network like Lifetime ("Television for Women") and one of the "big four" broadcast networks in terms of viewership and star power.