Xchroma
03-30-2004, 12:18 PM
I noticed that there is a huge gap between the low end and the high end of salaries in my market. I would say that it is probably pretty accurate but here's the reason for the huge gap:
There is one small independent station in town that pays crappy. That would account for the low end. The other stations pay a more decent wage, but it's still pretty low and they base that wage on salary surveys. If people look at the salary survey and see that the salary range to work here is 20,000 to 55,000 a year, then they are probably willing to take somewhere on the low end to come here. With new photogs coming in to the station (that is most likely to hire them from a smaller market)that pays crappy, how are the salaries supposed to ever get any better? The cost of living has gone up considerably since I've worked in this market, yet the salary range has stayed the same. I asked my human resources dept (I DON't work at the crappy station)how they decide salary range and they said it's based on a salary survey of the area. The crappy station has a higher turnaround because well....it's crappy and that lowers the average! Yet they won't raise their bar because they know that people will get a general idea of what this market is paying by looking at salary surveys such as on Broll and TV jobs. Shouldn't salary surveys be more specific as to which station and what year? This way at least people will know that the low end pay is due to that one station paying crappy and know that the data isnt from 1995.
There is one small independent station in town that pays crappy. That would account for the low end. The other stations pay a more decent wage, but it's still pretty low and they base that wage on salary surveys. If people look at the salary survey and see that the salary range to work here is 20,000 to 55,000 a year, then they are probably willing to take somewhere on the low end to come here. With new photogs coming in to the station (that is most likely to hire them from a smaller market)that pays crappy, how are the salaries supposed to ever get any better? The cost of living has gone up considerably since I've worked in this market, yet the salary range has stayed the same. I asked my human resources dept (I DON't work at the crappy station)how they decide salary range and they said it's based on a salary survey of the area. The crappy station has a higher turnaround because well....it's crappy and that lowers the average! Yet they won't raise their bar because they know that people will get a general idea of what this market is paying by looking at salary surveys such as on Broll and TV jobs. Shouldn't salary surveys be more specific as to which station and what year? This way at least people will know that the low end pay is due to that one station paying crappy and know that the data isnt from 1995.