Painful to watch

[Nino]

A few days ago while working at a Spring Training camp (for the first time in ten years not for ESPN) I was setting up my stand-up (backlit, silk and HMIs) on the right field line and I saw on the left field stands one of the ESPN staff shooter setting up a stand-up with my good friend Peter Gammon. Front 45 degrees direct sunlight and that was it. Knowing Peter very well I was wondering how that shot will turn out.

As all these talents have their very own little differences and requirements, over the years we have customized our lighting as per individual needs with the ultimate goal to make them look the very best on camera, that’s what a professional behind the camera should do.

The same evening I looked for the shot on Sport Center and it was painful to watch. Peter has very light skin; he has very sensitive eyes and wears thick glasses. The direct sunlight cast a heavy shadow of the glasses on his face. The magnification of the lenses added two large white spots and of course he was squinting trying to fight the sunlight. It was worse that something that you would see on the local news.

Two days earlier at another Spring Training camp just minutes before the start of a presser an ESPN producer that of course I’ve worked with him for years (before this year) came up to me and asked if I had an extra battery, I use NP batteries so I couldn’t help him. The staff shooter forgot to charge the batteries the night before. The producer rolled his eyes, shook his head and whispered in my ear: “you have no idea of how much we miss you”.
If that would have been my screw-up while working for them I would have heard from the assignment desk the next day.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I have a feeling the fulltime staff camera crew thing they are now implimenting won't last long.

Not only due to the comments you made here but when ESPN realizes that flying a crew and putting them up in hotels, renting a car for them and shipping all their gear, not to mention health ins. and all the rest is waaaay more expensive than hiring a local crew, they'll be back to freelance crews soon.

I just feel sorry for someone who is hired by ESPN as a fulltime staffer, thinking he has a long-term career there, only to be let go a year or two later in favor of freelance crews.

Warren

[Stoney]

I wouldn't bet on ESPN going back to freelance anytime soon. Freelance shooters cost a boat-load more than staff usually. Staff shooters cost the company insurance and benefits... but the daily pay is less than a regularly hired freelancer... assuming they used freelancers very regularly. Plus, if the company owns the gear they don't pay rental costs.

Of course there are the obvious quality differences if the staff shooter is not given adequate gear or is not very good as a shooter. However, that is always secondary to those with the purse strings. Accountants care about costs, period. So, if staffers are cheaper then freelance... guess what happens?

[CrewU]

I had put my name in the hat for a full time position twice at ESPN and both times it simply came down to money. Top rate of 50k for the year...live in Bristol...and get sub-par gear...Travel all the time and maybe make 85k by the time its over with for the year. the money would have been good after the OT but no life and living in Bristol... It was a painful thought.

I agree that the full time positions are not going away anytime soon at ESPN for their Photogs and the quality is not going to be as good if it were a freelance crew with better lights and good audio.

Bean Counters rule there now as they do at every network and production company. Thanks to avenues like YouTube the public doesnt really care what it looks like anymore just as long as they can see it.

[F4 Fan]

Look I agree with everything said here. But as Stoney wrote, for the foreseeable time being networks and stations will be using their staff shooters more and more as opposed to stringers and freelancers. Forget quality – it’s all about saving money. And let’s face it a staff shooter (like myself) costs the company a fraction of what a freelancer costs. Even with benefits, insurance and with the depreciation on equipment spread out over years, we are much more cost efficient for the machine.

The real question is what can photographers do with the limited equipment and under the limited time constraints that many of us face?

Nino do you have anything in the website of yours about doing more with less? And congratulations on a million hits to your web site.

The reality for most news shooters is that they are lucky to have a couple of lights with dichroics or maybe a flex-fill for a reflector. Forget HMI’s and overhead silks, they usually don’t have the time to use them if they did have them. Sure anyone who forgets to charge their batteries the night before probably shouldn’t be in this line of business, but a lot of people have forgotten the reality that stares most television shooters square in the face every day.

It’s hard to put a quality product out there when you are competing with You Tube.

[No half-days]

What seems to be getting lost in this discussion about freelancers vs. staff, is that there really are no absolutes in this business. While ESPN may be trying to hold the line on the budget, the fact remains that a large part of a freelancer's value to a client is his/her ability to get to an assignment on a moment's notice. That's not going to change, nor will the unpredictability of the news/sports business.

Randy

[Icarus112277]

I've seen it happen before- a facility/network/etc tries to go staff and is extremely disappointed with the results.

Sometimes the problems work out; more often they don't and the place goes back to freelances or to a hybrid of staff and freelancers.

Knowing ESPN they will be using freelancers again within a short period of time. They are VERY demanding. And we all know that quality costs money.

Plus there are most certainly people who were in charge of crewing that had established relationships with some of us...and there skills are not being used and they will make a point (along with upset producers and directors) of griping about the change.

[Nino]

This whole thing with ESPN started about a year ago when I start getting calls from cost analysts asking me to describe in details my methods of charges for assignments, I knew back then that something was brewing and wasn’t good.

Don’t get me wrong guys, ESPN still use freelancers. Since the beginning of Spring Training and since I got released from what was my regular annual 3 weeks stretch I got 8 calls from them, but I was able to do only 3 out of those 8 because I was already booked with other clients, and they were not very happy, not with me but with themselves, this time of year is not easy to find a last minute good crews here in FL. They will use their staff for multi-days shoots as financially it makes more sense. Keep in mind that my average gig for ESPN is only about five hours long, one interview or one live hit and sometime some b-roll. Most of the time they don’t even bother to send a producer as after so many years I know the drill more than the average producer does. We do a telephone speaker interview or my soundman asks the questions, and that’s even a better value for them. It doesn’t make financial sense to send a staff shooter for these gigs. I’m sure that when Disney bean-counters implemented the new policies quality wasn’t an issue as I’m sure that these guys know $hit about quality, and the higher up at ESPN were not going to argue the “quality” issue; in the corporate world you don’t stand in the path of the hatchet man when he swings his hatchet.

ESPN has reorganized his programming to be less dependent on location assignment and therefore less need for freelancers, what we’ll be seeing from now on will be more games and archival footage and more talk from the anchors, I have actually seen telephone interviews with a still photo of the person being interviewed during prime programming, I guess if it work for CNN it can work for ESPN. Personally I feel that their timing is very wrong and the damage could be irreversible as they are getting some solid competition from the NFL Network in what’s ESPN biggest moneymaker, football. Can an NBA and MLB dedicated cable networks be far behind? By reducing their quality of coverage that made them #1 in the first place they are just opening the gates to competition.

[Baltimore Shooter]

...and the higher up at ESPN were not going to argue the “quality” issue; in the corporate world you don’t stand in the path of the hatchet man when he swings his hatchet.
Well, it's about time someone DID stand up for quality. History will be repeating itself, this time in television. The higher-ups at the American automakers apparently didn't stand up for quality and now look at them, American auto buyers went for foreign cars because they are of higher quality. With 16:9 HDTV televisions costing $2,500, viewers will be demanding high quality more and more.

Personally I feel that their timing is very wrong and the damage could be irreversible as they are getting some solid competition from the NFL Network in what’s ESPN biggest moneymaker, football. Can an NBA and MLB dedicated cable networks be far behind? By reducing their quality of coverage that made them #1 in the first place they are just opening the gates to competition.
You're right, their timing couldn't be worse. Not only because of NFL, NBA and MLB but from the Comcast owned Versus (formerly Outdoor Life Ntwk.) who wants to go after some of the pie that ESPN has been enjoying for 20+ years now. Now, ESPN is just making it easier for Versus.

I have actually seen telephone interviews with a still photo of the person being interviewed during prime programming, I guess if it work for CNN it can work for ESPN.
Actually, that's nothing new. I've seen it happen ONLY when that can't get a camera to someplace or when there is a technical glitch and it's too late to kill the story or it's too important. This is television after all, not radio. Remember the first rule of television production - show don't tell.

Just my thoughts.

Warren

[dhart]

Disney "cost-cuttting" is kinda of funny. I do work for ABC News. They refuse to pay for tape. I charge $25 per cassette. I often only use one tape. I indicate on my invoice how many tape(s) I use and about 6 weeks later a FedEx overnight, early AM delivery package shows up at my door. We all know what that costs.

To review, I assume tape costs ABC the same as it costs me. Add to that they pay someone in accounting to keep track of all the tapes they owe freelancers around the world. Add to that overnight rush shipping. I suspect they have internal costs are nearly $100 for a tape I would have charged them $25 for. Hey, it's their money.

[joecam147]

Stoney is right. It's always much cheaper to beat the crap out of a employee than to hire a freelancer. Bean counter rule # 27. Even with all the expenses... so you ever wonder why staffers get a little say 'negative' as time goes by...they also don't need to worry about hustlin their next gig, it's a bad situation but thats why they invented 'unions' but then even that is a bit of an atiquated concept these days. There you have it.

[Run&Gun]

Since I do so much for ESPN, as well, I feel like I need to jump in here, too. "Budget" has been the new buzz word around Bristol for at least the last 8 to 12 months. I started to notice some cut-backs about this time last year. It's kind of a "rob Peter to pay Paul" type of thing right now. They are spending insane amounts of money on the NFL and NASCAR and cutting back on other expenses(heck, they even cut back on some NFL spending). On some level, I feel like they are robbing Nino(less spending on baseball) to pay me(I'm in the NASCAR loop), but it is more than just that and I do see the difference in some things on air now. Last week for the NASCAR race in California, one of the staff shooters went(I'm not talking about the broadcast/remote crew) and I could immediately tell the difference, not because of the "shooting", but by the way the video looked, yes they have VariCam's, but it was very obvious that they weren't "set-up". The picture was very flat and there wasn't the "punch" to the colors and crispness that my camera(and one of the other freelancers) has because I took the time to find a nice set-up to make it look better.

And as was also mentioned earlier, phone interviews during "prime time" shows. I won't mention the people or show, but I was actually involved in that exact same incident a few days ago. And the funny thing is, about an hour before the show, I was shooting a sit-down interview for the same show with the person that they did a phoner with that night! And it wasn't a matter of someone didn't know, they just made the decision not to make it a "live shot". But the week before, I did a LS with someone and turned around and did a sit-down with him immediately after the shot with the producer conducting it over the IFB. They could have done the same thing a couple of days ago, but for whatever reason(probably money), they didn't. Go figure...

Hopefully the cut-backs are just temporary and ESPN will step back up to it's usually high standards that have made it the benchmark that it is today.

[Cameradude]

Nino is sounds like your market is more adversely affected than where Run&Gun and myself are. We rarely, and I mean 1-2 times a year, see an ESPN staffer in this market and ESPN spends several hundred thousand dollar here each year in crews, sat trucks, etc. We are the heart of NASCAR, so a lot if racing, but there is also NFL and ACC basketball and football.

ESPN is far from replacing the freelance shooters with staffers. I guess in situations where they are in town for a training camp it would behoove them to use a staffer, but for the one day short notice shoots they can not get the cost effectiveness they get with a freelancer.

Many of their reasons for doing what they do don't make sense to me business wise, but as long as they are scratching out the checks I will take my 30-35 days a year and be happy.

[Nino]

Cameradude you are having a busy days here on B-roll, but we appreciate all your inputs.

Okay, let’s put things in proper perspective on this topic. When I said that ESPN has been cutting back I did not say that I was out. Yes they have been reducing their dependence of freelance assignments, even the staff producers that do mostly field assignment are experiencing a reduced work load and some fear that layoffs or reassignments to lesser duties might be just around the corner. Cameradude I’m talking about a little more than 35 days a year, for the last 7 years I’ve been averaging between 150 and 180 days a year for them alone, understandably I’m a target for reductions but not elimination, their entire system is based on a good network of freelancers therefore they will not eliminate freelancers but use them more wisely. Last year I hit the lowest point in seven years with “only” 98 days. When my other clients got the news that I had free days they nicely filled the vacant days. What ESPN is doing is evaluating were freelancers are needed and were it could make more financial sense to send staff shooters. As example, for the annual MLB meeting we usually would have 3 crews covering the 3 days event, this year I was the only freelance crew and they sent down two staff shooters. I was given the more equipment demanding segments and the staff shooters were running around all over the place, and that’s just fine with me. Also understand that I’m not a kid anymore, I’m probably the oldest guy on this board and I don’t like to run around with the camera on my shoulder anymore and there are many jobs that I just plain hate to do, NASCAR and particularly Daytona being on the very top of that list. I made it clear and they don’t ask unless they really have to, so you might say that this days reduction thing was my doing.

This year I will probably end the year with ESPN ahead of last year and even thou I don’t get to do the continuous long stretch of days that I did in the past I’m still averaging 2/3 days a week with them.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Nino,
Since you're doing 2-3 days a week w/ ESPN, are you giving them a discount off your standard day raye or are you charging them full rate? (assuming you want to disclose that here)

Warren

[Nino]

Warren, 2-3 days a week is still a very respectable volume from one single client. My deal with ESPN, (as I said it one zillion times before) is that I will not charge for extras unless they ask for those extras in the first place. In few words if I feel that I need an HMI or anything else in my van to make my work look better I will take it out and use it, but we went down this road before didn’t we?

When they hire me for a three weeks stretch they ask for a better deal, usually is a 10% off my regular rate. Also keep in mind that most Spring Training camps are done by 1pm. and on game day the team doesn’t practice until just before the game. So in reality I was giving them a 10% discount for half a day of work, it wasn’t a bad deal at all and when things are too good they usually don’t last. In the long run this spring training I’ll work less days but more hours each day and make almost the same $$$, and that’s not bad either.

[Cameradude]

Nino thanks for the welcome.

Ya, 150 days a year makes you a target with a big old bullseye when they decide to cut expenses. I only shoot about 160-170 days a year, so if I was doing 150 days for one client I would be nervous!! I did close to 60 days for them year before last and that made me a little uneasy dedicating that much time to one client.

As for, "...there are many jobs that I just plain hate to do, NASCAR and particularly Daytona being on the very top of that list..." I can agree with you totally. I spent many years covering NASCAR for ESPN and FOX and it made me hate a race track. I like racing, just hate race tracks. The money is nice, but it made a "really cool job" as a cameraman into just a job.


BTW Nino, did you work on the Dale Earnhardt trinute concert several years ago? We hired a shooter out of Tampa, but I never really got to talk to him that much.

[Run&Gun]

Cameradude, we kinda met him at the Sports Century HD conference in Bristol a couple of years ago.

[Nino]

Having most of my eggs in one basket makes me very nervous, but what can I do, turn the client away because I’m afraid that someday he’ll go away? The best we can do is to have a good back up plan and an emergency cushion in the bank. This new ESPN policy is a wake up call. This could be a good thing in the long run; the way that I get most new clients is from people who left ESPN and now work for other broadcasters.

Cameradude I worked at that concert for ESPN but I know another shooter from Tampa that was also there. Did you by any chance worked in Daytona on a Kurt Busch story for FOX about 2 years ago. You flew in on a private jet with Bush.

R&G, today must be the day, I just got off the phone with someone else that was at that HD meeting in Bristol and needs some help for a shoot in Tampa.

[Cameradude]

Nope did not fly in with Kurt. Probably Kevin Mooney or Skip Clark if it was for FOX. I have flown/shot with many of them, but not him.

The "all eggs in one basket" is something I try to avoid. You can ask R&G about my 25% rule. No more than 25% of my work from one client. I figure I can survive 25% of my work disappearing overnight. A couple of years back ESPN was around 27%, but I stayed calm...LOL!!! Ironically two of the outdoors shows R&G and myself worked on got cancelled, and Classic kinda started imploding. LOL!!

[Run&Gun]

Ironically two of the outdoors shows R&G and myself worked on got cancelled, and Classic kinda started imploding. LOL!!


What's the body count up to now, 4 ESPN shows over the last 4 years or so?

By the way I did talk to Sue a few days ago, and she has several options with the co. that she is looking at and she said that people are being re-assigned and not just let-go.

[Mike]

Hey Run,

That is good to hear about Sue. I know her, have met her, and have worked for her and she is a good person.

--Mike

[freedom]

Camdude & Run
I was under the impression that the outdoor shows were very cheap. Can I assume there's a range of production rates that includes some good paying projects?

[Run&Gun]

Mike, all of us that have worked with the folks at Classic are glad they are not being tossed aside. They are all good people and good to work with.

Freedom, the shows that we were talking about were actual ESPN shows, produced by and under direct control of ESPN not from outside packagers, so the rates were all standard ESPN pay. They were fun while they lasted, we got paid to go out and shoot on the lake most of the time. They were disorganized at times, but it could have been worse, we could have been diggin' ditches instead of getting a dayrate to go fishing. :cool: