Why Do They Get Paid So Much?

Arts & Entertainment Forum

I have always wondered why TV/ Movie/ Music personalitys get paid so much money.

All that stuff about the cast of friends getting paid $125,000.00 per episode and the movie stars getting $$$$ per movie.

All these people do is entertain!!! They are the modern equivalent of Court Jesters.

We should be putting money to better use, paying our Doctors, Teachers, Public Servants, etc. These people are important and are looking after our futures, "famous" people are only in the here and now and are only looking after themselves, yet we worship them.

They should at least show the Nobel Prize on TV like they do the Oscars. Why should entertainment be the centre of the world?

And then, after being paid all that money, they have the nerve to go Bankrupt!!!!!! WTF????? How you can be a miilionaire and be bankrupt within the space of ten years is totally beyond me. Although, I guess just because you can "act" or "sing" doesn't automatically make you good with money.

Well, I have had my rant now, feel better, thank you. What does everyone else think?

Companies give their "stars" a lot of money because people will pay to see them. People are willing to pay a LOT of money to see a concert or a football game.

As long as people are willing to pay that much money, the owners of teams and record contracts will continuousely pay their "superstars" as much money as they need to keep up their image, and continue entertaining. They're always trying to reach the next level of entertainment, which is why you see really busy, colorful, flashy videos on TRL.

It's a win-win situation for the owners and the entertainers. They're both laughing all the way to the bank because people are willing to buy thier stuff.

Tell me schmiggens, what are the last 5 CD's you bought?

I think the Friends stars get a million per episode... a great deal more than you mentioned

Crazy, but, I'm pretty sure, true...

I think we need to reverse our thinking on the matter-

Television is a device for companies to sell their product, not a tool to entertain the masses. The programs are simply filler in between commericals. Ever seen a 'soap opera'?

The advertisers pay big money to the production company and/or network who in turn pay the actors/writers/directors/etc.

Oh, and the networks remind us to watch their other programs... so we can be encouraged to buy other things. I don't even want to get into subliminal advertising.

If we didn't buy all these super-fab products, then the money wouldn't keep rolling in. That's the only way to bring their wallets back down to Earth. But that would mean the end of capitalism.

Sorry to sound like a commie, but it's true.

-HECK!

It's insane that we can pay people so much money to entertain.
Please... paying the 6 people on friends 1 million per episode is stupid.
Why in the hell aren't we putting our money in places where it's NEEDED?
I don't support sports teams. I love football, and enjoy watching a game each week, but I don't pay to go to sport games and give them that money. They can get their outrageous saleries from somewhere other than my hard earned, very little paycheck.

The marketing and advertising campaigns are the fuel for the television industries, and now the movie theatres have recognized the lucrative potential. They offer the same stupid commercials that we see at home on tv, during the 25+ minute preview before the movie, which used to be filled with upcoming movie trailers, which I liked WAAAAAAAYYYY better than seeing a Britney Spears Pepsi commercial, and still having to pay $12 CAN for that awful priviledge...

Sometimes, capitalism almost seems to go too far, doesn't it??

Why all the fuss? Don't you know how expensive it is to feed a celebrity ego??
Forget families of 4 trying to survive on a combined 2 parent income of 30,000 a year or less, don't you know that the hunger and need for basic human neccessities of your average American family isn't NEARLY as important than television stars' renegotiations for $100,000 - $1 million PER EPISODE? Geez, What is WRONG with you people?

I don't buy CD's. Well not since I discovered the internet & CD Burners anyway (and the CD players in my house & car all don't work), so last 5 CD's i bought were probably, hmmm, probably Spice Girls, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Aqua. I don't know. Pop music from when I was in high school.

OK, so you are just one of the many who have contributed to their success.

Not only does the internet and stuff influence my not buying music, I cannot justify the price, It costs the record company about $5.00 to make a CD, all costs inclusive, yet they charge us $20-$30, even $50.00 for double CD's. Ripped off.

It's a rip-off if you don't think it's worth the money. For some, the value of the music on a compact disk may be worth $100. Some music in my opinion is priceless (i.e. I wouldn't give up my 311 CD's for a thousand dollars).

I don't go to concerts either, the prices are way too high, my friend had tickets to the MJ History concert, cost him $280.00 and he had to sit behind a concrete pole. Yeah MJ is good, but not THAT good.

I went to a 311 concert this past august, and I paid for my ticket $40, and my friends ticket (another $40). I also paid for parking and the gas both ways. I bought a small pop for $4. In all, I spent about $100 to heard 25 songs.

It was worth every penny and I would pay $200 for the next concert if I had to!

So people need to wise up, these "stars" are not worth the money we throw at them.

The only "stars" who aren't worth the money we throw at them are probably the ones on the mainstream radio (each and every one of the last 5 CD's you told me you bought fall into that category in my opinion, no offense)

"Next Level of entertainment"? What is that? If anything the quality of "entertainment" has lessened over the years and these "stars" just get paid more and more and more. Friends was good at the start, I can't even watch it now it has become so shite. And they get paid 10 times as much as they did 8 years ago. Music is nothing now, you don't even have to be able to sing well, as long as you are pretty or have the "X-factor" you can get a record contract.

Well, with out tallent, artists have to figure out how to turn a concert into a freaking magic show. That's what I meant by 'next level'.

I wouldn't mind paying good money for CD's/ concerts, if the people were actually any good, but they aren't.

"Good" is a matter of opinion... But if you're interested, you should give 311 a listen. They're more than "good" on CD, and they're AMAZING in concert.

They get paid too much. Julia gets paid 25 mil to do "mona lisas Smile"

And then you get people like emimem who cry about the media being there faces. Well, i would love to tell them to STFU and cry into there millions rather then say "leave me alone"

The crap that gets me are these sports guys who complain about not getting paid enough. I am a butcher/meat market stocker an I make about $300 a week for 40 hours and these jerks that are 3 string sitting on here asses 3 hours a dya for practice make $200,000 a year. We need to re think things. I feel sports atheletes these days are a severe waist of money with all of the bad influence they bring and money waisting they do. I wish ports would go on a "we only pay if you play" basis.
Anyways NCAA is where the true stars are at!

People are willing to shell out 20 bucks on a DVD, but won't pay a 10 dollar co pay at the doctor. People pay up to $200 for concert tickets, but then pay their babysitter, who is taking care of their child!, only $20. People don't have their priorities straight.

It ain't bragging if you can do it! Isn't that how the saying goes? I mean, I too think that these people are way overpaid...yet we keep paying to see them, or hear them!

<COMMENTS REMOVED - ADVERTISING YOUR STORIES. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, WHICH IS ABOUT WHY ENTERTAINERS GET PAID SO MUCH MONEY>

JUSTIN Timberlake, left, made $24.7million last year, which made him No.21 in Rolling Stone's annual Richest Rock Star list.

Jennifer Lopez is No.15 after making $28.1million while Christina Aguilera landed at No.14 with her $29.7m.

The Eagles were third with $62.9m, Bruce Springsteen came second with $81.7m but the Rolling Stones' 40th anniversary year made them $84.1m richer.

Do you realize some baseball players ala A-Rod can go up to the plate, take three pitches for called strikes, and earn more money doing that than most of us make in a year. And oh yeah, YANKEES SUCK!

Back in tha' day.

It wasn't worth micheal Jordans time to pick up a $5 bill. Because the time it would take he would have made that (5 bucks) plus some more $$ just being MJ.

and, oh yeah. BaseBall Sucks

yeah that is how it goes....like if u got why not it flaunt it...(something like that)
i think ppl pay for it cuz its something to do when ur bored besides work and live....it gives u something to do.... and I THINK ITS A LOAD OF CRAP------ i do admit i do buy music but STILL

oh and heather15644 u got a good point.

I wonder how much different the world would be if we paid teacher, garbage collectors, nurses, day care workers, and social workers what they are worth and paid stockbrokers, actors, athletes, and politicians what THEY are worth.

What amazes me the most is that we still have singers and writers that expect more money from their shows. That is absolute greed. Have you heard of the latest Rolling Stones stint where they asked $300 dollars just to sit at one of their concerts? I'm afraid that it is already getting out of hand and needs to be stopped. On the other hand, I do not mind going to a concert where the musicians are actually good. When I was a teen, i used to go to a Janis Joplin concert for next to nothing and really thought the show was excellent and her singing was superb. Good musicians and good singers i do not mind buying their CDs. Its a shame that musicians are getting this greedy
Especially when children are starving in the streets around them. Some without jobs, homes, money, food etc.

whutever~~~~~~~~~

I know this is an extremely old thread, heck, it's almost two years old, but I don't see what's the fuss about people getting paid these high salaries when it's the owners making much more money. The owners are making millions and millions for not doing anything, but manage the business (not a small feat), but why aren't you complaining about them. The reason why actors/athletes/artists ask for money is because they know that the only reason that these people running the company make money is because people by the products because of them. They go to the football game to see the athlete score the touchdown, not to give money to the owner. They go to a baseball gameot see the homeruns. They go to concerts and buy music because of the singer, not because Tommy Mottola owns Sony. They watch the TV shows and movies because they are entertained by the particular actor.

We have to remember the stars aren't getting the biggest chunk of the pie necessarily, but if they can get a big chunk, why should they be prevented from doing so? I often find the anger misplaced, especially with athletes. They are scientists, thus it somehow legitamizes them being mistreated or worthy of criticism saying they aren't worthy of a salary. I know that if I were an athlete, I'd ignore the fans and the press, they don't care about me, so why should I waste my time if the people only want me to be a lapdog? I'll get paid for doing what I do best, winning games.

Many sports people get paid lots of dosh because they endorse certain products that young people, on the whole, go out and buy. I mean, I know next to nothing about Basketball – because I am British – however, I know that Michael Jordan was paid a fortune to advertise Nike trainers (or sneakers to Americans), which inspired many poor black Americans, and some white Americans, to part with their dosh.

This leads me to remark on how I nearly always laugh my head off whenever I see young kids wandering around in all of their latest clobber: trainers, track suit bottoms, tops and caps, which are branded with some laughably oversized logo. I mean, it still splits my sides everytime I see people mindlessly wandering around in clothes that have giant logos stamped across them. In effect, such people who wear this sort of get-up are simply paying a FORTUNE to advertise some very wealthy corporation's logo. It is hilarious. Surely it should be the reverse – companies paying the kids to advertise their logos

The likes of Nike, Adidas and Reebok must be rolling around on the floor in hysterical giggles when they see the way in which some young kids have turned themselves into walking billboards. If only the kids who wear such sporty clobber woke up to the fact that their tribal fashion has been invented by a bunch of middle class, wealthy advertising gurus who are the antithesis of the those who wander around in such 'street' fashion.

Preston

Well maybe it also shows the talent that these advertising gurus have to make the population feel that way and if you have that talent you should be well paid for. it's funny how people target the sports goods as for thier walking billboards but ignore every one else why do Ford have to put Ford tags on thier cars, supermarkets have thier names on the shopping bags it's exactly the same advertising.

Also it's worth noting what Phil Knight has always said " these are not fashion goods they are athletic goods" Thats a question is Phil Knight the only track start to create sporting goods or ar there others?

Lodge,

It's almost impossible to buy a car without inheriting the badge that comes with it. However, with tracksuits, there are many choices where giant logos are not splashed on the reverse in order to create a corporate identikit fashion. I'm sure many people would buy certain cars even if you removed the badges, however, I doubt this can be said of in-your-face logo-styled tracksuits. Self billboardisation, it seems, is merely a symptom of brainwashing. That said, I nearly always giggle whenever I see some underpaid twit garbed in such overpriced logo-monopolised garments.

In the book 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, she tells a story about Tommy Hilfiger, who, when he was in his early twenties, had one ambition: to inveigle people into wearing his name on the back of their tracksuits; in other words, turning them into billboards. Well, he was obviously aware that there's a sucker born every three minutes.

As for plastic carrier bags, In England, we don't have to pay for such bags. And I hardly think people carry them because they look cool or fashionable.

Preston

[QUOTE]h@ts said this in post #35 :
[B]

Of course I don't want logos banned. I also know that whatever argument I make about people walking around as unpaid advertisements pales into insignificance compared to the effort, skill and expertise made by companies to convince the public that it is the thing to do. They spent $billlions to win that argument, and they continue to shovel $billions into making sure that argument doesn't go against them.


I think the only thing that convinvces the public to buy any product is the qaulity of the product, the fact the like it and affordability. Granted I have seen advertisers try and get these p;oints over to people and if that is what you are talking about there is noting wrong with that it is business. Thje fact remains that people are not stupid and they have a choce buy the products or not and they make the choice everyday.


Footballers won't advertise rebok for nothing, billboard owners want money, TV companies get paid etc etc. I'm not saying go and ask nike for money. I'm telling you that you not only don't get paid to advertise their products, you pay them so you can then work for them. It's a knock-out deal!

WEll footballer get paid becaue they have a god given talent and it looks good if your products are endorsed by them normal guys in teh street don't have that impact do they, billbords and TV can reach millions of people and get across a specific message or product line again the average guy in the street cant. Again though you deem it advertising I say it can't be that effective when the companies are advertising through other genres.



Nike have changed. But they changed their working practices because of pressure from people like Naomi Klein and the bad publicity that started to effect their brand image.

Yes but they did chage I can think of comanies that have not changed

Here's a couple of interesting things about nike reported in the press, although I'm sure they would equally apply to many other companies.

The whole Jordan thing well I don't know what the avreage wage is in Indonesia but thats always going to happen doesn't make it right but it will happen.

Lodgebo said:

"I prefer to wear Nike gloves and Adidas boots so if you take the logos off how do I know what I am getting?"

I'm not sure you understand the debate. Your gloves are functional. They are de rigueur if you're at all serious about football. Expensive, logo-monopolised tracksuits, worn as 'street' fashion are not de rigueur.

Lodgebo said:

"Are you against the big logos or all logos".

Careless question. Of course I'm not. I've got no objections to logos on the inside of clothing items; also, I don't object to logos on carrier bags. Furthermore, I don't have any sleepless night worrying about ferrying about carrier bags with a supermarket name on its side – all because such bags are FREE and functional. However, as H@ts has pointed out several times, idiots who pay money for items that are overpriced and unnecessary and which are splattered with giant logos are VOLUNTARILY PAYING to advertise the name of that company without being paid for their efforts. That's what makes me chuckle. It's hilarious, man.

Lodgebo said:

"Are you saying that all your clothes are unbranded"

95% of all my clothes have the logos or names of the respective makers on the inside of the item. It's a matter of aesthetic sensibility. I think it's unquestionably crass to sport a logo if you have the option not to do so – it's the hobby of full-time twerps.

I also don't wear jeans. Haven't worn blue jeans for years. In my opinion, blue jeans are to fashion what Macdonalds is to food, namely, they are bland looking, almost everywhere, and simply damned uncomfortable to wear in the heat or rain, not to mention how quickly the knee area wears through. Blue jeans are the fashion item of the damned right lazy minded sort. A fast-food fashion item. But that's a personal preference.

Lodgebo said:

"I do see folk going into sports shops and buying a Nike t - shirt and from what I can gather they seem perfectly normal"

It's normality that is a curse. Normality is a product of the dim witted and unimaginatively minded.

Lodgebo said:

"So whats your answer Preeston remove all logos from all clothes or what?"

Don't be so daft. If I was in favour of that action, I'd have very few people to laugh it.

Lodgebo said:

"Well you don't have to pay for them here buy you still use them right? it's still got the supermarkets brand on it right? so it's still advertising that you do for free regardless of whether it's cool or fashionable you still do it. I will guarantee that this week you will have minimum sponsored 5 brands knowingly or unknowingly but as long as it's not a big America or German multinational that's ok is it?"

As I've previously stated, I have no problems walking around with a FREE supermarket-branded carrier bag. Paying for it would be out of the question. I pay very few people to advertise for them, other than the makers of my watch, which has an acceptably sized, small logo on it, which means that it's not vulgar. But my watch is functional and not a fashion item.

You see, Lodgebo, almost everything I buy stems for the pursuit of function over brand, unlike the twits who buy brand over function. Q.E.D. But that's their tough luck if they want to toss away hard-earned dosh.

I've never 'sponsored' any brand. What are you talking about? Really, you ought to chose your words wisely, old boy.

Preston.

Madonna deserves every penny she makes. She even has this cool web site called http://madonnasthoughts.blogspot.com

It is so cool.

They are paid according to the entertainment value they bring to the audience? The more people are willing to pay for their performances, they more they earn...we are both willing parties I guess...