Michael McIntyre or Holly Willoughby? Which presenter is the worst value for money?

By Chris Hall

Last updated at 10:00 PM on 13th August 2011

Multiply a presenter’s airtime by their audience. Divide that figure into their salary. In our version of Celebrity Squares, sadly, biggest does not mean best...

Above, the league table of value for money. This shows A) each presenter's audience-hours for 2010 (how many hours they spent on air multiplied by their average audience); B) their reported salary, and their final score (B divided by A), which equates to the size of their picture

What really makes a popular presenter?

You might find them witty, erudite and charming – or they might set your teeth on edge. Some of you might swear blind that Alan Carr is the best thing on TV – there’s no accounting for taste.

But what happens when you take a slightly more objective look at the world of broadcasting?

We analysed the reported salaries of several household names from the world of TV and radio compared with the number of audience hours (see right for details) they racked up in the course of a year, to result in a rough coefficient of ‘value for money’ – excluding those whose shows clearly require a disproportionate amount of preparation time off-camera.

The unfortunate top spot is occupied by Chris Tarrant, who remains on a highly lucrative retainer at ITV, despite Millionaire no longer attracting the audiences it once did.

At the other end of the scale are the breakfast radio presenters – like them or loathe them, Chris Evans, Chris Moyles and John Humphrys put the hours in and rack up the listeners like no one else.

* For ease of use, the final score (right) has been scaled up by a factor of 1,000