Is Jonathan Ross really worth more than a FTSE chief executive? The BBC trustees have taken on the role of a remuneration committee and decided the £18m he is allegedly receiving over three years is the market rate but they seem to have failed to spot that the Beeb is the market.

There are so few customers for his sort of talent that this is an oligopsy - the buying equivalent of a monopoly. The only serious competition to sign up such celebrities is ITV with Channel 4 and Sky trailing behind. For radio there is even less competition. The BBC is thus not paying market rates when it takes on such talent, it is setting market rates.

Indeed, in the case of the talent it has signed up one has to assume it paid above market rates because it won the auction. If ITV had offered more for Wossie he would have been tempted to go there. And if the commercial channel did not top the Beeb’s offer it might be because it has to apply the test of whether additional revenues would cover Ross’s cost - and maybe he failed the test.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong in star performers being paid more than managers or directors: many companies pay their top salesmen more than the chief executive and some City traders earn far more than their bosses. Ross may bring in viewers but the BBC has no profit or revenue test of whether he pays his way.

And if the BBC is the market, it also creates the market value by giving exposure to its performers. By providing the programmes and formats for presenters as well as the prime-time spots it makes them commodities for which rivals might bid: it needs to write contracts that reflects the investment it makes in performers.

The trustees were right to investigate the BBC’s talent buying policy but have failed to provide the ruthless answer that would cut rates to the benefit of the whole industry. The BBC is big enough to build its own talent without constantly having to bid for established stars.

The Corporation - in which we are all shareholders - needs to question the celebrity culture that requires named stars to front even mundane programmes. Does University Challenge needs the expensive Jeremy Paxman as a presenter or Crimewatch require a star newsreader. Concentrating on content would mean less falling back on celebrities to boost ratings.

And before signing more multi-million contracts for presenters the BBC has to ask why, as a public-service broadcaster taxing viewers, it is chasing ratings. If it refused to pay Ross’s wages and he defected to ITV (presumably at a much lower fee) the public would still have access to him: why then does the BBC need to pay above the market rate to provide him?

Share this: