Ballroom Dance > Dancing on TV > Dancing with the Stars 3 offers a maximum salary of $245,000 to a celebrity

Discussion in 'Dancing on TV' started by Beto, Jun 2, 2006.

  1. Beto

    Beto Active Member

    From the DanceSportComps newsletter:

    Ever wonder why Dancing with the Stars isn’t able to draw A- or even B-list celebrities? Perhaps it’s because of the pay.

    Yesterday on his Sirius show, Howard Stern revealed the pay that was offered to his girlfriend Beth Ostrosky to appear on Dancing with the Stars 3 this fall. (That, of course, is confirmation that ABC is unsurprisingly planning a third season.)

    Ostrosky was offered “a base of $125,000 for the first two weeks of the show,” plus “about $20,000 each week after, until they are voted off,” according to the New York Post. There’s a bonus of $50,000 “if the show is stretched to nine weeks — for an extra recap show.” Thus, that’s a maximum of “around $245,000 for eight weeks of work, according to the contract.”

    The Post assumes this is the same amount that all celebrities are offered, but it certainly seems possible that bigger stars are offered different contracts. Regardless, last season’s winner, Drew Lachey, confirms that the pay sucks. “It’s kind of ridiculous. In terms of TV and for the ratings that the show gets, it’s ridiculous,” he said.

    Article reprinted from

    - The Professional dancers salary has reportedly gone up to $5,000 per week.
  2. SPratt74

    SPratt74 New Member

    Well, of course it would seem like nothing to people that make that kind of money anyways! But to me that's a heck of a lot of money, but yeah... nothing that someone like Brad Pitt would do unless it was all for charity possibly. Otherwise, someone like Brad Pitt that gets paid how many millions per movie isn't going to take their time to be on that show especially if they could be making another million dollar movie at the same time!
  3. new-ish

    new-ish New Member

    What I have read is that there is no shortage of Celebrities or Professional dancers who wish to appear on DWTS. So the need to spend much on salaries just does not exist.

    If there was someone that the network thought could bring along a sizeable audience (hypothetically, lets say Michael Jordan) I think the network would be willing to be very generous.

    I'm sure they thought Ms. Otrosksy would get a lot of on air comment from Howard Stern and grab some of his audience, so they were interested in her.

    Many people here have felt that prior dance experience would be a disqualifier for the show, but I think that low audience appeal is probably the only negative in the network's eyes.

    Of course, this is just conjecture on my part
  4. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    I'm trying to figure out if this is the worlds most expensive lesson package, or the world's cheapest (negative cost)
  5. SPratt74

    SPratt74 New Member

    Actually, I have heard differently. Many actors and actresses have been asked on talk shows if they were asked to be on DWTS, and they have all said yes, but that they had turned the show down. So, I don't think that part is true. I think that DWTS pretty much ruined it's chances of having A listers after the first season.
  6. Ralph

    Ralph New Member

    There doesn't seem to be a big shortage of willing participants though. And besides the money, don't most stars do it for the experience? It's pretty good money, but not the usual what they earn. But can't the stars make an exception for once? Apparantly some stars can. But many can't, sad actually.
  7. waltzgirl

    waltzgirl Active Member

    A-listers can't do it because of the money--they could make millions making a movie in the same amount of time--and because they can only embarrass themselves--they wouldn't really gain anything much from doing well.

    But it is good for those who need exposure or to jump-start a stalled career. It did wonders for John O'Hurley. He got the lead in "Chicago" on Broadway after DWTS, which probably wouldn't have happened without it.
  8. SPratt74

    SPratt74 New Member

    I agree with you completeluy, and was going to say this, but you had beat me to it!
  9. DancingMommy

    DancingMommy Active Member

    I just want to see Angelina Jolie on DWTS. SHe'd probably kick everyone's butts (figuratively speaking)....
  10. onthegostudio

    onthegostudio New Member

    Well for 6 figures i would dance on a TV show......although chump change to A listers
  11. Twilight_Elena

    Twilight_Elena Well-Known Member

    5000$/week for the Pros sounds like it's not that much money. Considering their private lesson rates, how many hours they are practicing, how many hours they have to devote to all the DWTS-related activities and how many shows they have to pull off...

  12. ChaChaMama

    ChaChaMama Well-Known Member

    I think $5000/wk for the pros sounds pretty good, for two reasons:

    A) Let's say that these pros billed $100/hr for lessons, and were currently practicing with their partners or with the other pros 6 hours a day. That would $600/day x 7 days a week = $4200. (True, some of the pros could probably bill more than that per hour, but certainly not all. I doubt Ashly was pulling donw $100+/hr pre-DWTS. I like her fine, but she is not a U.S. title holder or a world finalist).

    B) They are getting enormous exposure and becoming household names. That kind of publicity is HIGHLY appealing in its own right and can lead to further opportunities. I've read that Cheryl has had offers for other work....

  13. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    $5k a week is a nice living. That's like pulling down $125/hr for FULL TIME work. I really have no idea how many BILLABLE hours pro dancers work a week, but it's gotta be less than 40.
  14. Twilight_Elena

    Twilight_Elena Well-Known Member

    It's not shabby, certainly. :rolleyes: It's serious money. And I bet that a lesson from such a high caliber Pro is well worth every penny. But I was thinking more about their after DWTS life. Some of them will have no partners after this break from the comp circuit. But on the other hand, the exposure really is crazy.
    Just saying that they won't make bucketloads of money.

  15. DanceScientist

    DanceScientist New Member

    I agree with new-ish. There's no reason to pay the celebrities and dancers more money. As long as the show has enough dancers and celebrities of adequate quality to pull ratings they do, there's no reason to increase contestant salaries. Would paying millions to A-rated celebrities really increase the ratings that much? Moreover, these C-rated celebrities are benefiting more than $245,000 in exposure. Many people like me never heard of Drew Lachey until I saw him on Dancing with the Stars. I see DWTS as another reality show where everyone benefits -- the producers save money, the contestants gain valuable exposure, and the ratings are through the roof!

  16. DancePoet

    DancePoet Well-Known Member

    Thanks for posting! :cool:
  17. DancePoet

    DancePoet Well-Known Member

    Huh? How come?
  18. DancePoet

    DancePoet Well-Known Member

    It may actually be good exposure for them as well.
  19. DancePoet

    DancePoet Well-Known Member

    Perhaps these dancers might even be able to set something up where they tour the U.S. like the ice skaters, and give performances in major arenas.
  20. SPratt74

    SPratt74 New Member

    Well, either way A listers wouldn't go on the show no matter what. But still a lot of them have said on David Letterman etc. that they would not go on the show. I wish that they would though! But after the first series with so many mistakes, they'll probably wait until ABC has everything right before they even attempt to dance on the show. They don't want to hurt their careers in other words. They'd also would probably rather make movies, but still... these A listers want everything perfect before they agree to do something. ;)

Share This Page