I guess I'm a little confused.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I honestly think that TV production, including news, is in a distillation phase. See Sinclair producing local news nationally, just leaving spots for "your call letters here" or "your weather here." Hell, the mere existence of things like NBC NewsChannel should have clued you in on that.

A local photog in Pittsburgh will never (again, if ever) earn what his compadres in NY, DC, and LA get. Why are we even talking about this?

I have been freelance again for 3 months now. If I had my own gear I'd get 1/3 of the work I do now, since when things were fat everyone around here bought gear. That means after the gear is paid off I'm even. Every shop I market myself to has their own cameras and lights, and I know how to use them... well.

Your skill is what gets you hired back. It's always been about what you can do for an employer, whether you're a mason or a mortgage banker. If you're good at what you do and can prove it you'll be hired by somebody. if you do a good job you'll be hired back.

Again, why the hell are we talking about this still? If you're in danger of being replaced by a VJ, then become a goddamn VJ or be better for your employer than your replacement!

Shaky - your **** is getting tired, BTW. Be a banker. Leave the business. I'm friggin' ecstatic for you. Stop being a douchebag to those of us who like what we do.
 
Tippster said:
Your skill is what gets you hired back. It's always been about what you can do for an employer, whether you're a mason or a mortgage banker. If you're good at what you do and can prove it you'll be hired by somebody. if you do a good job you'll be hired back.

Again, why the hell are we talking about this still? If you're in danger of being replaced by a VJ, then become a goddamn VJ or be better for your employer than your replacement!

Shaky - your **** is getting tired, BTW. Be a banker. Leave the business. I'm friggin' ecstatic for you. Stop being a douchebag to those of us who like what we do.
Click to expand...

Thank you for summing that up. I don't know who Shaky is, but the doom talk has become so old and pointless I have to wonder what the motive is of those who get off on saying it over and over again.
 
I'd always wondered what happened to Shaky and Blue. I guess now I know. He's banned now. I wonder what happened. I don't know the complete story of this poster because I have lost track of him for the past four years. But he always had a love hate relationship with the business, as many of us do. However, I am committed to it -- until I'm committed, period.
 
I certainly didn't ban him, and neither did Kevin, as far as I know. I think he banned himself for a while, but has returned over time in various guises. Fine, have at it, have fun. I'm just saying that it's a bit weird trying to poop in the sandbox all the time.
 
Go Daddy,
I am curious about this :"Regardless of how much or how little you make a year (a reference to Nino believing your dayrate determines your value in this business)"

So how do you figure your value in this business? Just curious.
 
Nino:

Let's look at this intelligently. TV stations will not continue to pay two people for a job that could be done by one. That's why VJ is so attractive and that's why the concept will prevail.
 
That’s really the issue isn't it? can it be done by one?
My answer would be under the right circumstances a VJ can do the job.
The problem with that is often in news there is not the ability to control the circumstances it is shot in. So VJ’s have to make one compromise after another and it shows.
Ultimately a VJ means a slower, poorer quality program.
Not even Michael disagrees with that.
He argues instead that the VJ quality is good enough if there is a lot of it.

The thing is with all the financial stress in the world right now every economist I’ve interviewed… and I’ve interviewed a lot… says the worst place to be right now is selling a product that is low quality depending on high volume. That my friends is VJ.

Will management be smart enough to realize that VJ’s will cost them more in income than save them in outgoings? That is the real question.
 
verdantFOX said:
Nino:

Let's look at this intelligently. TV stations will not continue to pay two people for a job that could be done by one. That's why VJ is so attractive and that's why the concept will prevail.
Click to expand...

I am looking at this intelligently, management isn't.

First, I said it repeatedly for years, I’m not against the one man concept, I do OMB often and I’ve been doing it long before most people on this board were merely a twinkle in their parent’s eyes. The big difference here is that the OMB jobs were done by people with more skills than the average photographer and not less. It was never done for cost saving, it was done and still is because first there’s plenty of time to do it and second because the photographer wants total control of the project and management has the confidence on his ability to turn in a good product.

The major and fatal mistake here is giving clients (viewers) a cheaper product under the pretend that they don’t know any better. Educator at the Harvard School of Business will have a field day once they tackle this issue, and soon or later they will because this is a textbook example of how not to do things in business.

Let’s look at this mess from a business standpoint.

Here are stations that are losing audience and business, and of course revenue.

And the reason is? People are tuning away and going to other stations taking the advertisers along with them, meaning that they are not interested and not being attracted to what this particular station has to offer.

So what’s the current solution? Let’s make up for the loss revenue by taking away budget from the programming thus resulting in even lower quality, the same lower quality that has driven viewers away in the first place, making the original problem even worse. And you think this is “doing things intelligently”?

Usually the concept of “the public doesn’t know or care” comes from decision makers who also don’t know any better and Rosenblum is the monumental example of this, I have never in my career seen anyone engaged in marketing this business who knows less about productions and the technical end of the business that MR does. This only proves that the current level of management is at the lowest level of competency ever. But I do not want to generalize it because if you look at numbers you’ll see that Rosenblum makes more noises than he has actions. Very few stations made the move toward his VJ system, in six years three stations to be precise made the conversion, this out of 4,000 operating in this country, not exactly a stellar performance; with these sad numbers every other business would have folded long ago. Other broadcasters are becoming engaged in the OMB concept on a more business-like approach, the evidence of this is that Rosenblum hasn’t been selling his stuff to any station and his target are newspapers, and those are going the same way as those few stations who made the conversion went, downhill at ultra speed.

How many more warnings and examples the industry needs in order to realize that in the current format VJ by any name do not work. Again, incompetent management wearing horse blinds and seeing only one thing, their own career and buying themselves as much time as possible.

MR congratulates himself and gives himself headlines every time some broadcaster even think about partially going the solo way, even thou he has absolutely nothing to do with the decision as if he never existed. Why do you think this is? If he is the self proclaimed “guru” why is he left out in the cold? Because stations knows the importance of quality, quality can be manipulated to a certain point but it can not be taken away completely or audiences will find other places to go, as they have been doing.

Rosenblum concept of mass and cheap labor to supply the large number of television station and cable network with tons of cheap programming to fill their 24/7 needs is the most sure failure grade in business. To survive stiff competition you don't join them on the same lever, you have to raise above them.

So how should it be done? The same way that it was always done just do it more often and follow a business approach.

THIS IS FOR YOU MANAGEMENT.

The one size fits all concept is good for baseball hats not for business. If you went to business school this is what you would have heard from the first to the last day of school.

Employees are your prime resource; until you learn to manage those resources you’ll go nowhere. Each employee must be evaluated for strength and weaknesses and job assignments will be determined by those strengths. In few words as a manager you evaluate each job and assign the proper employee to do it. Over-killing by assigning your best people to job that lesser skills could do it is a waste of money and human resources, on the reverse side giving out a job to unqualified people is also a horrendous waste of money. They will all come back with something but not what you should be getting if you manage those resources correctly. The skill of delegating duties is what separates success from failures.

This is also happening in the freelancer’s world. I’m not expecting to do all the assignment in my territory. There are job that require very little in term of skills so why pay top dollars to do those. In many cases I make that decision based on saving my client money when I know what is necessary to do a job, I do the micro management. This is why I’ve been asked to crew many large jobs, I know who can do what and his rates and I evaluate the correct skill/rate ratio for that job.

This is how business is being done everywhere, except in our business and this is why we are suffering, incompetent management making incompetent self serving decision, in few words “I save my butt first and this might buy me a few more years while I send out resumes” who cares what will happen then.
 
I don't think the question is whether or not the job of television photographer/reporter/producer/editor can be done by one person. We know that when money is tight, when jobs are threatened, when layoffs loom, people can and will do anything to keep preserve their incomes.

The real question is whether or not a television news SYSTEM that relies on the model of the one man band with a laptop and small video camera can produce a product that will appeal, day in and out, to a mass audience. The debate isn't about individual capabilities. Rather, it's a concern, as we project into the future, that deconstructing the current production model in favor of a less expensive one-job-fits-all approach is efficacious for the entire SYSTEM across the entire nation.

More succinctly -- should we totally tear down what is in place now for either the sake of saving money OR because it's a "better" approach to the task of reporting television news?

Anyone who suggests they know the complete answer to those questions is, frankly, a fraud. But I can extrapolate the idea far enough ahead to know one thing. It would be a mistake to rototill the entire video news gathering process as we know it based on a financial hunch. And the networks have to agree. CNN, right now, is placing little camcorders in the hands of VJs in mid-market cities to gauge their viability. Other entrepreneurs are doing the same with international reporting. There's no doubt that the VJ point of entry into television news makes sense for new ventures looking to circumvent complicated, capital-intensive news gathering. But will the VJs last? Will large format news production wither and die altogether? Those remain unknowns.

So define the term "prevail"? There's no need to argue that VJs won't work. They are working in some form in some places. What is the sense in arguing whether or not that's true. It is true. It's a fact. But if you mean by "prevail" that the VJ model will obliterate other television news production modes, will replace them completely, well then you expose yourself as an over-the-top zealot and you deserve every ounce of contention you receive on a message board that is dedicated to working television news photography professionals. If you can see that far into the future then you're in the wrong business. Las Vegas is the place for you my friend. Put your money on the table and roll the dice because you must already know the numbers that will come up with that kind of ESP.
 
Nino said:
The major and fatal mistake here is giving clients (viewers) a cheaper product under the pretend that they don’t know any better.
Click to expand...

I have never once sat in a room of people and heard them say: "Oh look at the color temperature of that video! Let's change the channel!"

I've never heard anyone say: "Look at that shaky video. Was the videographer smoking ganja?"

I've never had anyone tell me "Station WXYZ has such s video. I'm gonna start watching WABC."

People don't care about quality. They want a hot babe in the anchor seat. Look at movies like "Traffic" and "There Will Be Blood" purposely shot out of focus, out of balance and they won Oscars.

The average Joe thinks good video is the video he shot. I have a friend who showed me a picture of his sons sleeping and he inserted "talk balloons" with the word "ZZZZZZZ" using Adobe. He was ecstatic. "Look at that! Look at that!" I didh't have the heart to tell him. Or the energy.

The bean counters that run this business have to answer to the shareholders. Revenue is on a kamikaze dive into the ocean. Eliminating positions or consolidating them is always good business in times like this. BTW, things are going to get worse before they get better.
 
js0000 said:
I have never once sat in a room of people and heard them say: "Oh look at the color temperature of that video! Let's change the channel!"

I've never heard anyone say: "Look at that shaky video. Was the videographer smoking ganja?"

I've never had anyone tell me "Station WXYZ has such s video. I'm gonna start watching WABC."

People don't care about quality. They want a hot babe in the anchor seat. Look at movies like "Traffic" and "There Will Be Blood" purposely shot out of focus, out of balance and they won Oscars.

The average Joe thinks good video is the video he shot. I have a friend who showed me a picture of his sons sleeping and he inserted "talk balloons" with the word "ZZZZZZZ" using Adobe. He was ecstatic. "Look at that! Look at that!" I didh't have the heart to tell him. Or the energy.

The bean counters that run this business have to answer to the shareholders. Revenue is on a kamikaze dive into the ocean. Eliminating positions or consolidating them is always good business in times like this. BTW, things are going to get worse before they get better.
Click to expand...

A one time success is not a trend. Companies who have had one successful product did not survive, to make it today you have to be consistent. Forget about concentrating in a one hit wonder, that will spike the short lived success and raise the public expectation that everything you do will be at the same lever, when it isn't there anymore you'll go under really fast. Look at the Blair Witch Project as an example, made a ton of money because it was different, there were thousands of copycats that got nowhere, including a sequel by the people who made the first one. To succeed you need consistency, you need to build a brand of quality and stay with it no matter what.

Cut wherever you can but do not touch the quality of your product and never underestimate the power, knowledge and intelligence of the clients.

Viewers (clients) don't say anything, who would they say it to? Who is listening and who is asking? They are talking loud but incompetent management is not hearing. They are talking thru their remote control. Viewers have the ultimate power to put you and management out of business with a simple click on their remote and by doing so they are taking sponsors, advertisers and millions in revenues along with them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously people can be entertained by bad video. Also, viewers of television news are not that visually discriminating. But let's be honest, if everything on television were a jumble, if bad video was the norm rather than the exception, the reaction to it would be enormous. If every movie looked like the Blair Witch Project, movie goers would curtail that activity. If every book author wrote in the half-assed manner of Stephen King, readers would be disappointed.

The public DOES care about quality. And by and large they get quality on a daily basis. When you reduce quality across the board, when you make it the standard, when you feed people a steady diet of crap, they'll catch on quicker than cynics allow.

I find the "viewers don't care about quality" argument to be one of the stupider debates on this board. And those who promote it are as intelligent as the argument they make. Viewers put their trust in broadcasters to deliver a thoughtful, interesting, honest and quality product. If they are fed crap to the point that they become accustomed to it and don't realize something better exists, when they DO become aware that a better alternative is possible, they will want it -- and not just better LOOKING news, but better news, period. Broadcasters who would make a bad looking product will also (one would think) make a bad product overall.

It's a slippery slope. Once you believe your audience doesn't care, you stop caring. Once you stop caring, you make crap. If that's a cycle worth arguing for, then go ahead, make that case. But I believe there will ALWAYS be a market for quality. And THAT'S where I want to work. You can go over there and make crap all you'd like. If you believe your audience is so stupid they'll continue to buy it over time, you make that bet. One thing I know is that consumers DO care about quality. The smell of it gets attached to you. People know it's what you're about. When it becomes too expensive to make a quality news product, when crap is king, baby this business won't be worth working in. I'd rather take tolls in a little booth out on the highway for my daily coin.
 
Tv Shooter said:
Go Daddy,
I am curious about this :"Regardless of how much or how little you make a year (a reference to Nino believing your dayrate determines your value in this business)"

So how do you figure your value in this business? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you ask this question, I was going to do it but I had all confidence that this question will come up by somebody else. The sure way to get rid of noisemakers is to ask intelligent questions. I've done the same on Rosenblum blog and ask the same question to MR and both of his followers.

The question was of course about money considering that is the only way to make a living these days, pride and self glorification doesn't put food on the table. A very touchy subject with avid VJ supporters and one seldom addressed.

After similar lengthy exchanges I finally asked the burning question:

"What criteria and/or formulas do you use to determine success in today business environment."

You'll be surprised of the answer I receiver by him and by his very vocal supporters.

Read carefully:
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................

Precisely, nothing!!!

They all performed the well known Rosenblum's disappearing act when faced with embarrassing but very life real questions, leaving the question just lingering there in limbo hoping people will forget and the passing of time will make them fade away.
 
Hiding Under Here said:
I don't think the question is whether or not the job of television photographer/reporter/producer/editor can be done by one person. We know that when money is tight, when jobs are threatened, when layoffs loom, people can and will do anything to keep preserve their incomes.
Click to expand...

Honestly, is that what's happening here?
Is it really, really, really a financial meltdown of volcano like proportions?
Financial doom?
Big time layoffs?
Television is watched, on average, about two hours a day by every American.
And suddenly there's not enough money to go around?
People are buying thousand dollar sets, and there's not enough money to go around?
Yeah, if you think that's the real truth of this, I've got some national monuments to sell you... and with the price of copper these days, you'd be a fool to pass them up.

WKRN is buying up P2 500s now.
What?
They've got the money, all the sudden for, 2/3" HD P2? And they still have the Z1us. And now they bought HVX200s. And laptops for all that gear. So they have cameras flying out their butts. Some photogs have a choice of cams in the trunk.
Wow! What a fantastic turnaround! All of the sudden, they started coughing up money, like they had it.
Dudes, they always had the money.

Let me repeat.
They always had the money. A million dollars (very unlikely, that's 50k each) in ENG cams, spread over ten years is a max 100k a year in depreciated camera costs for a 20 man department. Even if you get a couple of 4s or 5s every day, you're still raking in millions. Add cars and salaries in, and you're still, no matter what, looking for at least a 25% profit margin for a news department in any major city.
Push the numbers beyond what you expect? Pure profit.
Offer someone a chance to make a 25% a year return on investment, almost guaranteed, and they're going to buy in.

It was greed, always was greed, and will always be greed that drives a one man band operation. Pure and simple. Flat out... straight up.

"Well, Mike, how can we make these regular employees take a paycut, and work and pay them like an East Timorian textile worker?"
"Well sir, a textile worker is not a deeply trained or intellectual..."
"Shut up!"
"I'm just saying that getting skilled..."
"I'm listening to ideas now. Shut up."
(Off to the side)
"Little cameras... that means little pay."
"Brilliant!"
 
Nino said:
"What criteria and/or formulas do you use to determine success in today business environment."
Click to expand...

How do you determine success?

Jesus Christ, you're doing the same thing today [09.29.2008] that you did your very first day on the job! That's like being in the army for 40 years and coming out a buck private!

Didn't you even want to be a corporal? Or a sergeant? Or a captain?

Where's your motivation? Where's your initiative? Where's your self-esteem?

Who spends four decades at the bottom of a company, never making any progress?

???
 
js0000 said:
How do you determine success?

Jesus Christ, you're doing the same thing today [09.29.2008] that you did your very first day on the job! That's like being in the army for 40 years and coming out a buck private!

Didn't you even want to be a corporal? Or a sergeant? Or a captain?

Where's your motivation? Where's your initiative? Where's your self-esteem?

Who spends four decades at the bottom of a company, never making any progress?

???
Click to expand...

…..and I wish I could squeeze another 20 years out of it, but I know it’s not possible.

Are you sure you want me to tell you about my career? It will make you look even more stupid that you really are; but might also be an inspiration for you and your pals to get off the stupidity wagon and do something with your life.
 
Oh, and another annoying thing about you.

Your practice of working for free or as you state it, helping networks "for not a penny".

When you do that, you become the networks' b****.

You're dropping your drawers, bending over, and saying "Here I am baby!"

And the networks are saying "Ooooh, I'm going to love this!"

To everyone else on this thread - except for you - I will say it for the 1,000,001th time:

Your time is valuable. You deserve to be paid for your time.

I cannot tell you how many times, some ND, some chief, some GM has said to me: "Oh yeah, ya gotta put in some extra hours in this business if ya wanna get ahead."

BS

There is no profession in the world that works for free. Not plumbers, not electicans, not laywers. Everyone trades labor for financial compensation.

Except camera guys.

When you spread the message that we work for free, everyone thinks we're nobodys, that we don't have bills to pay, kids to feed. That's what's gotten us into this mess. We don't have self esteem.

Your station has rubbed your face in a pile of s for the past 40 years and you actually believe the BS they feed you! They've so dehumanized you and threatened you with your single-point-of-failure job you're not a man any more. You're a rabbit!

Everyone here makes excuses for this behavior. Because everyone here is a rabbit.

You don't stand up for yourselves, you don't stand up for your co-workers who get fired. And that's why your bosses take advantage of you all day.

That's why there are VJs. Management knows they can screw you again. They've done it so many times before. And you've let them!

!!!
 
js0000 said:
How do you determine success?

Jesus Christ, you're doing the same thing today [09.29.2008] that you did your very first day on the job! That's like being in the army for 40 years and coming out a buck private!

Didn't you even want to be a corporal? Or a sergeant? Or a captain?

Where's your motivation? Where's your initiative? Where's your self-esteem?

Who spends four decades at the bottom of a company, never making any progress?

???
Click to expand...

Or in Nino's case, yep he's still the owner of his own company.

That's a little different than being an "indian" working for others who own the company. ;)

That being said...I agree with js0000 about, as a fellow "indian" in this world, not working for free for the company "chiefs" who own and maintain my camera gear, vehicle, supplies my group health insurance, 401K, give me my paid vacations and pays my check every couple of weeks.
 
js0000 said:
Oh, and another annoying thing about you.

Your practice of working for free or as you state it, helping networks "for not a penny".

When you do that, you become the networks' b****.

You're dropping your drawers, bending over, and saying "Here I am baby!"

And the networks are saying "Ooooh, I'm going to love this!"

To everyone else on this thread - except for you - I will say it for the 1,000,001th time:

Your time is valuable. You deserve to be paid for your time.

I cannot tell you how many times, some ND, some chief, some GM has said to me: "Oh yeah, ya gotta put in some extra hours in this business if ya wanna get ahead."

BS

There is no profession in the world that works for free. Not plumbers, not electicans, not laywers. Everyone trades labor for financial compensation.

Except camera guys.

When you spread the message that we work for free, everyone thinks we're nobodys, that we don't have bills to pay, kids to feed. That's what's gotten us into this mess. We don't have self esteem.

Your station has rubbed your face in a pile of s for the past 40 years and you actually believe the BS they feed you! They've so dehumanized you and threatened you with your single-point-of-failure job you're not a man any more. You're a rabbit!

Everyone here makes excuses for this behavior. Because everyone here is a rabbit.

You don't stand up for yourselves, you don't stand up for your co-workers who get fired. And that's why your bosses take advantage of you all day.

That's why there are VJs. Management knows they can screw you again. They've done it so many times before. And you've let them!

!!!
Click to expand...

Not that I need to explain this to you but I love to make big mouths look like fools, not that you need any outside help.

I underestimated you, you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for. You have no clue what's going on in the real world do you?

Most likely with your attitude you'll never find this out on your own but when a client gives you an average of 180 days of work a year at a rate that combined SD and HD comes to an average $1700 per day (you do the math, if you can) and never asks for a penny of discount you give a little back even when not asked for. The idea is to become indispensable and the reward for that is high.

You remind me of my oldest son when he was 17, he will be 30 this year and he is a successful banker with an MBA, courtesy of my hard work. All my kids worked with me. He told me back then that I kiss the client's as$es too much. He continued working with me anytime he was home from college. On papers he wrote on his last year of college he used me as an example of what customer's service should be. Maturity went from kissing a$$es to outstanding customer service.

I sincerely hope you are 17.

I think I explained this before but never penetrated with you. I volunteer to do the extra work and it's not an everyday thing but only when the job calls for multiple crews. I help producers and assignment editors do the crewing but most important by doing this I can guarantee that good photographers in my area get the gigs because I don't like to work with incompetent jerks, this is why you'll never make my list. We also have the same cameras and are all maintained and set up by Roger Macie so there's maximum compatibility.

Is all about helping your fellow photographers, and I don't take a penny from them either, even thou they always offer to. I don't even bill the client for their work, they bill it directly. Once in awhile they take me to lunch and that's about it. We have developed a good circle of friends, we always help each other and we are all doing very well. This is not different from when a B-roller asks a question and I can share what I know to help them out.

You see, I just did it again, I'm working for free by telling you all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top