Sandi Toksvig earns 40% of what Stephen Fry earned for hosting QI - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45460322 Tourist information: QI is a popular BBC comedy panel show based around obscure facts. Was hosted by Stephen Fry from its launch in 2003 until 2016 when Sandi Toksvig took over.

She gets the same as Alan Davies, so it's not really that weird. Stephen Fry was something special and I don't think anyone can replace him. I stopped watching when he stopped hosting it and I don't think I am the only one. That might have something to do with it too.

stephen is also enormously more popular than sandi. i had never heard of her before QI and even after having stopped following QI quite a while go during Fry's period even, i havent heard of Sandi anywhere else. she was atleast rather enjoyable as a panel guest but this is entirely due to popularity, hardly due to her being a woman.

I'm sure plenty of Qi's success was Fry being involved. And I'm sure plenty of people simply don't find her funny. Frankly, Stephen was almost entirely the reason I watched.

She's worth more than 40%. She's actually pretty smart and funny. Maybe not Stephen Fry funny but that's not really an excuse to not pay her more.

I never found her particularly funny, but she was always a good panellist for how much she knew and how she almost always ha a story. I can see why she makes less than Fry but it should be more than 40% of what he made.

Why did she accept the contract?

From my perspective across the pond, I know who Steven Fry is. I don't know who Sandi is. It seems Fry is a lot more known, right? Surely being a bigger name comes with s bigger check?

Fry is more well known = more viewers = more money kinda makes sense, sucks for her but what do you expect?

There is a gap between how much female and male actors earn, that's for sure, but in this case I am pretty sure it's because Stephen Fry is more known person. Personally I have no idea who Sandi Toksvig is (I haven't seen her before other than QI), but I have seen Stephen Fry in the movies and other shows.

I haven't watched much for a while, but from what i have seen it just isn't the same without Stephen. Sandi was great as a panelist and she's obviously not a bad presenter, but i think the show's missing some of it's elegance and class now he's no longer there. He added a unique sort of charm to the show and was one of the big reasons i liked it so much. It's still a good show and is interesting, but without Stephen it doesn't have the same sort of gravitas. In a way it sort of felt as if he was a knowledgeable professor lecturing/quizzing the panelists, and that added fit perfectly with the theme of the show.

Stephen Fry was probably sitting on a paycheck made out of a bunch of contractual and negotiated raises and bonuses over the 13 years he ran the show as well as incentives to keep him around since he would have been a strong draw card for the show and the fact that the audience for the show would have become accustom to having Stephen presenting it . As Sandi gains more years on the show and becomes a draw card like what Stephen was and as the audience gets used to her hosting the show, she will start getting paid more and will start receiving the same raises and incentives to stay the Stephen received. . When Ashton Kutcher replaced Charlie Sheen on the main cast on Two and a Half Men, I doubt Ashton would have been paid anything remotely close to what Charlie was pulling in for the position.

I had zero interest in QI after the regulars started leaving, though I always really liked Sandi

Considering i dont really know her versus Fry it seems to make sense that he was paid so much more. His big name commands a higher fee in general.

She was great on The News Quiz. And I do actually like her on QI a lot, but in terms of "star-power" she doesn't match up to Stephen Fry so I can understand her earning less. That being said, 40% seems lower than I'd have expected. I would've (wildly) guessed 75% or something.

if she can create a moment comparable to this then i'd complain but i wont https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdvD4Fhc_K8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3qREbKqLw

She's no Stephen Fry matter what, but i still she does one hell of a job. And that moment wasn't all his to be fair, the guests on the show are just as important. It's all about chemistry. My favorite moment from Toksvigs era is this: https://youtu.be/g6EtvTIQoFY?t=2063

To be fair, this is a new(ish) presenter vs someone who's been on the job for 13 seasons. Of curse a newbies pay is going to be lower than that of someone who's been on the job for a lot longer.

I only knew who she was because of her appearance on Whose Line Is It Anyway. Somebody who is well known and brings views getting paid more isn't surprising. It's like complaining that Sandra Bullock got paid more than somebody else having their movie debut.

Stephen was spectacular as a host. But I actually really enjoy Sandi quite a lot too. She deserves a bit of a raise. Both her and Alan do.

Sandi was a fairly regular panelist on QI but other than that I think she was mostly involved in comedy programming on BBC radio so she definitely won't have the same international presence as Fry did.

IMO she was one of the best panelists, probably THE best if we're talking knowledge. she always made it engaging and had great chemistry with fry. that QI lacks that magic despite sandi being such a good fit just goes to show stephen is a once-in-a-lifetime personality

Question is - what was Stephen Fries starting salary in 2003? I can't imagine him having the same salary all these years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbIXGIKt_NM

Fry had also been hosting it for 13 damn years

60% and guest pay is still pretty damn steep.

Do they always introduce the guests like this now?

This is preshow, before the start of the actual TV episode footage. I can't say for certain but I imagine that Fry-era QI had one-by-one introductions for the guests similar to this.

lmao such a click-bait, shit-stirring title. If I worked a job for 13 years I'd expect to be paid 60% more than someone who just joined. COMMON SENSE? I bet the article would've made mention about a 'sexual orientation pay gap' had they not both be gay.