"Massive" ABC cuts coming...

[Icarus112277]

Ha, yeah guys I think he meant it as an insult otherwise he wouldn't have used the phrase "certainly doesn't qualify". And I disagree with your definition of network. CNN has a massive affiliate network all over the world. It may not be a "network" in the old school tradition of tube tv tri-opoly broadcast news. But I have learned the hard way that B-roll.net is a place that loves to take a flamethrower to CNN, so I don't know why I should be surprised. It's nice to be reminded why I don't post here much. Thanks!

It's not the same.
It's also not worse- or better- but it's not a network.
And that's being completely objective.

 

[eb]

Ratings decline is the reason for the layoffs. Not unions.

There are many reasons for ratings decline. More competition, the internet, etc... And there are plenty of places to cut costs... not just the working man's hourly wages and benefits.

And yes, it is a tough time for those getting laid off. Don't lose track of the people who have to deal with a major change in their lives. We hope for the best. And hope that we too... have work.

 

[Hiding Under Here]

OffSticks, you are off your rocker. I said CNN didn't qualify as a network, They are a cable outlet that doesn't have a NETWORK of local stations that broadcast its programming. Lighten up Francis. I have shot many many things for CNN's magazine programs. It blows my mind how testy and defensive some people are.

 

[Nino Giannotti]

A typical network set up. How many people do you need to do a live shot?

Hint: There are 7 in the picture and 3 more on a food run.

We had 2 photogs and a reporter and had to cut packages between hits.

I've always seen lots of excess with the networks. These cuts don't surprise me.

I have yet to see in recent years any of the networks getting a crew this size.

This is the standard for a live shot

Almost all our assignment for ESPN or any other sports and cable networks the crew consists of 4 people, on air reporter, producer, cameraman and sound. It’s my call depending on the job to hire a grip if needed. On two camera shoots, and we do many of those, we just add one cameraman. If the cameras have to split on the job then we always hire a second sound unless is only for broll.

Again a lot depends on the job, most of the times it’s my call to get additional people to help as we might need,

Smartly and wisely any cost cutting measures coming from ESPN have left the crews untouched; this is why they are the best managed, most successful and most profitable cable network ever.

You don’t mess with the quality of your prime revenue producing product, cut everything around it but leave your bread and butter alone.

Often if the reporter doesn’t have to be on camera we do phone interview; nothing complicated like using JK boxes audio connections, although I have several of those I haven’t touched them in a few years. I put my iPhone on a stand where the reporter is supposed to be and they can have a nice conversation.

On many shoots the producer also stays back in the office. After we’re done with the set-up I take a still of the monitor and e-mail it to the producer for his final approval.

Please keep in mind that this isn’t bragging, but the main reason that sometime reporters and producers can stay back in the office and save the company a bundle is that they have confidence in the ability of the crew to get things done and done well on their own. All the arrangements are made by the producer and reporter over the phone and always everything is like clockwork.

This is when a good crew becomes valuable to the clients. Even if they have to pay the crew $1000.00 more per day the client still save big.

This is what I’ve been saying for years, in the real production world when the budget is critical smart clients hire the best crew not the cheapest because a good experienced crew can get things done twice as good and twice as fast when compared to a cheap crew.

This is what the crew for a golf instructional looked 15 years ago.

There are nine people in this picture, plus me that I took the picture and a few more behind me. We had two fixed cameras and one on the jib, a grip truck, generator, one tent for the producer and make-up and another tent for catering.

I still do these on occasion, only today we have one camera, soundman, instructor/talent, producer and a PA who logs time code and takes lunch orders.

 

[prosheditor]

iHD,
While I agree in part about unions contributing to this problem I must defend the 2 man crew (Cameraman & Soundman) approach. The Soundman is valuable for many reasons. Try getting clean sound from 2 or more people at the same time, esp if they are in different areas of the place you are covering where the shotgun in your hand can't reach. There's a reason they have a 14th or longer boom pole. The Soundman can also watch your back as you have to backpedal. He can be your eyes and ears as to potential sticky situations about to happen. And yes, they can even help you carry stuff and set it up (though I'm sure they don't want to admit that ).

One man vs two person crew (camera/audio). I've worked both and I'll take a 2-person crew any day of the week and the end product IS better. One person doing both picture and audio is extremely limited in the sound he or she can capture, . . .

I agree with the value of a sound mixer. Before I worked with one, I too thought what's the big deal because I had to do it all by myself. I haven't had one while shooting news but have had one many times when shooting reality and let me say, those that have never had one don't know what they're missing! Not having to worry about levels, multiples and having that extra set of eyes. They make good pack mules too. Just kidding.

. . . Finally glad to hear the network is going to use more freelancers. Good news for us... freelancers What's really expensive, is flying three or four people with gear around the country on last minute air fares. . . .

But who do you think their gonna call first. The ones they just let go. As far as the travel expenses . . . Yep. More and more you'll see on production job boards "must work as a local", "company will NOT travel a crew", "if you're not a local do not apply". I've known a couple of people to pay their own hotel expenses to work as a local because the day rate was good and it was for a long enough period to offset that cost.

You and a few others whom I'm sure don't have the first ****ing idea what goes on inside ABC at 67th street. . . .

. . . They will try to go the 'preditor' route, and will undoubtedly fail, as that system doesn't allow for the development of superior skills.
The news magazines are the ones who will feel it the most.
Probably good news if you freelance for one of them. . . .

You left the shooter out of that job description unless you specifically meant producer/editor. I am a prosheditor, but only out of necessity because of the evolution of the industry. I would like it the way it should be with everyone working in their specialized skill, but it ain't. And when I say producer, I don't mean in a full capacity as what is considered a real one. I mean on some projects I am forced to shoot, mic, light and field produce (sit by the camera and conduct the interview). However, I don't mind doing that for about $1600 with my own gear and that's after expenses.

Now here's an interesting question. If the quality of the product doesn't suffer, would most of you not mind doing the work of three if you were appropriately compensated?

 

[grinner]

Grinner and those of his mindset, driving out institutional knowledge is a very dangerous thing to be advocating even though it may be in vogue in many newsrooms. If you don't see why, the loss is yours and if you are in news, the community you reside in as well.

While I've not worked in news since '92, you'll never hear me advocating lack of knowledge or eduction. Not only have I designed college programs from the ground up, I teach video production and post to many homeschool groups. You can't properly break rules until you fully understand all of them.
I'm not sure what this has to do with ABC making cuts we all could have predicted. They, like us, have the right and the opportunity to compete or to fail. It's really that simple.

 

[grinner]

And Grinner, I get a kick out of your (since deleted) reply to my posting a Super Bowl video showing the IBEW workers.
You obviously don't know **** about production outside of a handicam and a desktop. You should stay there and keep your comments to things you know. Otherwise these guys are right- it's glaringly obvious you're a ****ing amateur who can't keep his mouth shut for long enough to learn anything.

Why the anger, man? If you are proposing I listen to you so I can cut my income into a fraction by doing what you do, I'll respectfully decline.
I've been in this industry for more than a quarter of a century and have worked on everything from feature films to, well, local news back in the day. I think I understand plenty about production. I at least know enough to not act surprised by these layoffs so many of you seem to be surprised by. There will be more. If that makes you mad at me, so be it. I'm not the one who failed in this equation. The inability to evolve with the times is what this thread is about. While old greasy diners can do great by following a model they started 67 years ago, networks? mmm not so much.

 

[Chicago Dog]

Why the anger, man?

Because, once again, you're trying to make it sound like you have any idea what the hell the topic is about when it's painfully obvious you don't. As many people have already pointed out on this thread, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't know how many times in how many different ways so many different members of a professional forum have to say you look like an idiot before it finally drills its way through that thick Neanderthal cranium of yours. The numbers are pretty high up there already.

It's very obvious you're lying about most everything in your background. If you'd like to continue digging your hole, by all means -- carry on. I'm certainly glad Kev added the reputation bar. It's not long before your account is disabled in the PRO forum.

 

[Brock Samson]

CNN doesn't qualify eh Hiding? OK, whatever, you say. Ratings troubles aside, I think I can speak for my friends who have risked their lives and been injured and killed working for CNN who would disagree with that idiotic statement.

When you get right down to it, my humble opinionator says that I believe CNN does it pretty much the way it should be done. From what I've seen they don't get crazy with the number of people, yet don't under-staff, either. Too bad they don't employ enough crazy-ass pundits to fill in the gaps between real journalism.

 

[Brock Samson]

Now here's an interesting question. If the quality of the product doesn't suffer, would most of you not mind doing the work of three if you were appropriately compensated?

Certainly valid. I would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is, the way the industry is moving we wear all of those hats anyway. I can't think of a single outlet who pays appropriately for someone who can, in essence, one man band. Most OMB's make crap money because it's considered a small market gig.

I'm sure there are exceptions, though.

 

[grinner]

To me, this is part of the evolution of the industry.
As a prefered vendor for the company that does the most video in my market, I could see a big budget change on the horizon a few years ago. At the time, they paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to edit what they paid hundreds of thousands a year to get produced/shot. While it was in no way efficient, it's they way it had always been done and nobody was griping about it. As I saw producers, videographers, editors, and talent weeded out in the name of budget cuts, I saw opportunity in one-man-banding the same kinds of shows I'd just been handling the post-production on for the last 6 years. Today I have my own show on their network, charge a flat fee per episode, and ensure a steady income by saving them a huge amount of money every year.
Now, every time I mention things like this here, I get a stone-thrower or two yelling I'm lieing or this trend is just a fad. Facts are facts and while hand-held reality vibes bacame a popular look due to the writer's strike, the fallen economy and ever-growing web programming are what will maintain this trend.
I won't pretend to know the mindset of ABC but I dare say as they have advertiser after advertiser pull funds, they have not been countering with web packages. The bottom line here is people can't afford to pay for folks to hit the fridge, pee, or tivo through their spots. Times are changing faster than they are.
Hence the layoffs.

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

As a prefered vendor for the company that does the most video in my market,

What company would that be, the Institute for the Deaf and Blind?

Warren

 

[Nino Giannotti]

I don’t intend to minimize the severity of all these cuts, but 300 to 400 jobs with a company the size of ABC is not a devastating news when compared with what other industries are experiencing, although I’m sure it could be devastating for those who will receive pink slips.

The problem with maintaining steady employment in this industry is the wide availability of freelancers, no other industry has such independent pool of (mostly well qualified) daily labor available.

The cost of a freelancer, even thou his rates might be as much as ten times the daily cost of an employee, in the long range is a more economical option and a better controllable cost. Not to mention that the company doesn’t have to worry about investing and updating equipment.

Freelancer’s costs are added to each specific job, thus he (she) is no longer labor, now becomes a “cost of sales”, meaning that if there are no sales (assignments) there are no costs; an employee on the other hand is a fix liability on the company books thus effectively bringing the value of the company down.

Most freelancer that I know, (the experienced one with an extensive equipment package) in spite of the economy have seen their business skyrocket in the last few years as more and more companies are opting to go the freelancers way. I just heard that recently The Golf Channel have eliminated all the photographer position and are now going exclusively freelancers.

Also let’s keep in mind this is only happening to the news industry and that amounts to less than 10% of television business, there’s still another 90% percent out there that is doing very well.

 

[kriso]

lay offs

I think we have so many print J colleges, but not so many job opportunities after college and with the newspapers dead, so they come into TV. Best position photog, point and shoot write for website. Soon many old school photogs will loose their jobs to DJs.

 

[couryhouse]

but this looks like our city cable station

but... I will add... there will be budget cuts there too ... soon.

A typical network set up. How many people do you need to do a live shot?

Hint: There are 7 in the picture and 3 more on a food run.

We had 2 photogs and a reporter and had to cut packages between hits.

I've always seen lots of excess with the networks. These cuts don't surprise me.

 

[Icarus112277]

Why the anger, man? If you are proposing I listen to you so I can cut my income into a fraction by doing what you do, I'll respectfully decline.
I've been in this industry for more than a quarter of a century and have worked on everything from feature films to, well, local news back in the day. I think I understand plenty about production. I at least know enough to not act surprised by these layoffs so many of you seem to be surprised by. There will be more. If that makes you mad at me, so be it. I'm not the one who failed in this equation. The inability to evolve with the times is what this thread is about. While old greasy diners can do great by following a model they started 67 years ago, networks? mmm not so much.

The only reason I get upset is that you're passing your ignorance off as truth. It's very apparent that you have ZERO actual knowledge of this situation and you should keep your mouth shut to avoid further embarrassing yourself. You throw out the usual anti-union BS that we've all heard a million times as though it were something new or revelatory, or even relevant. It's not.

The fact is the union did not fail (in this instance)- the people piloting the ship have, and their budgetary excesses go far beyond union waste (of which there is plenty). The union is not blameless, but its share pales in comparison to that of ABC's inept management. The internal memo I posted reflects this.

See my post about the Network Release facility- a 35 million dollar albatross, obsolete from day one, only up and running for part of 4 years. Or about how the heads of news demanded multiple hot control rooms for their shows. Thats a full control room full of crew redundancy for most (EMN, GMA, WNN and others) news shows.

Also, I could not care less if you listen to me or how your business is going and I don't give a **** what you claim to have worked on.
If this were a post about feature films or local news, or desktop editing maybe your posts wouldn't be so full of BS. But it's not, and they are. And most people here can see right through you.
So deal with it.
Tho, if I were going to give you business advice, it certainly wouldn't be about unions. I'm only in them because my clients have union houses. I appreciate the healthcare funds, the 401ks, extras like pay for vacation time in my check, and the ability to pick the heads out of people with far greater experience than I...but I make the deals that are best for me. And 'union scale' is a floor, not a cap.
If I were to give you advice it would be to take better care of your equipment, since its how you earn your living. Secondly don't post pictures of you taking poor care of your equipment- if you can't take care of your own stuff why would anyone trust you with theirs (or a client with their project)?

To top it off, you followed my post of a behind the scenes look at IBEW members working the Super Bowl with all your BS about union laziness. CBS execs were all VERY pleased with the work WE did to make the show happen.
By the way, it was the biggest televised event in history. Guess all us lazy slobs got lucky that the work did itself that week. But I'm sure you could have done better with a handicam and a desktop and eliminated all that waste.

 

[Icarus112277]

You left the shooter out of that job description unless you specifically meant producer/editor. I am a prosheditor, but only out of necessity because of the evolution of the industry. I would like it the way it should be with everyone working in their specialized skill, but it ain't. And when I say producer, I don't mean in a full capacity as what is considered a real one. I mean on some projects I am forced to shoot, mic, light and field produce (sit by the camera and conduct the interview). However, I don't mind doing that for about $1600 with my own gear and that's after expenses.

Now here's an interesting question. If the quality of the product doesn't suffer, would most of you not mind doing the work of three if you were appropriately compensated?

I meant both, and used the term preditor because it came to mind first. Still not used to 'prosheditor'. I can see ABC using it for smaller shoots, but I can't see them accepting that as a real method of production on anything they value.

I can't honestly answer your last question because I haven't been faced with it.
I'd really hate to put other people out of work for the sole purpose of padding my own pockets.
If a client demanded it, I might give it a go.
But most of my work is live and even trying to do the work of two (I've done it when someone calls out or when I get a moron on my crew) is pretty aggravating.

 

[grinner]

If I were to give you advice it would be to take better care of your equipment, since its how you earn your living. Secondly don't post pictures of you taking poor care of your equipment.

ahhh
Glad I sisn't ask your advice then, brother.

Someone woke up fussy this mornin'.

 

[Hiding Under Here]

I defined the "networks" as ABC, CBS and NBC. I included FOX in that group because they are the only entity that I know that has copied the traditional network model, producing entertainment programs and syndicating them to an audience using a system of local stations. But even FOX is different because their news operation has a separate outlet from its entertainment space. FOX News -- the national news -- is located on its own channel. ABC, CBS and NBC run their news programs on the same local stations that carry their entertainment schedule.

While the national network news entities have full-time, union crews, the vast majority of the work in the field is done by freelancers. CBS is an IBEW union shop. ABC and NBC are NABET shops. The freelancers belong to the unions. However, they rarely attend meetings and they are underrepresented in the negotiating process because they are really adjunct arms of the unions.

There are several reasons for that disenfranchisement. First, the unions are located in the big cities -- New York, Washington DC and Los Angeles. Freelancers live all across the country and cannot attend meetings without incurring expensive travel costs. Second, the unions really exist to negotiate for full-time employees. In fact, most of the union representatives and union management are full-time employees. The vast majority of union members work in those big production cities so it only makes sense that full-time employee interests are of paramount importance to the unions. Third, a good deal of freelance union members own their own production equipment and the agreements regarding fees for use of that gear take place OUTSIDE the union contracts. In fact, the networks set the rates regarding what they will pay for equipment rentals. Finally, freelance union members work non-union jobs on a frequent basis. They "pay-to-play" regarding the national unions. You want to work for the networks? You join the union to do it. That kind of mindset doesn't really create very militant membership.

I don't know about local or national full-time broadcast union employees. If they are lazy I simply do not know. But I CAN tell you that freelance union workers are among the hardest working people you'll ever meet. They are as skilled -- if not MORE so -- than many of their full-time counterparts. If you are a freelancer, you are only as good as your last job. The only security you have is doing excellent work with a good attitude. Your reputation is your greatest asset and you cultivate an excellent reputation by doing excellent work. You do excellent work by working hard. Period.

In this current fiscal environment, the need for "quality" has diminished greatly. Keeping expenses low has surpassed quality as the key objective of broadcasters and production companies. Sure they all want to put the best content possible on the air. However, as long as the content is there, as long as it is tangible and obvious, and the viewer can "get the idea", then the production entity can employ any number of devices to craft the end product into something useable. This baseline was lowered by any number of factors including, but not limited to the internet, cheap non-linear editing systems, cheap image capture devices, the proliferation of cable television and a generation of younger people raised with access to low cost video production tools.

In the end, content will always be king. If you can make a product that enough people will watch, if you can find someone to buy that product from you, you will make money and maybe survive.

The network news model is that ANTITHESIS of this contemporary production dynamic. Instead of initiating the production process, freelance union crews wait to be called. When the phone rings, the crews jump into action responding to the needs of the network news programs that contact them. The same was true with equipment investment. When the network news programs wanted wide angle lenses -- freelancers INVESTED in $15,000 wide angle lenses. The network news programs wanted wireless mics, HMI lights, dollies and jibs -- freelancers purchased those expensive tools. Then they rented them back to the networks to 1.) make their money back and 2.) profit from those investments. Over time, the networks realized that equipment rates had skyrocketed because the average daily invoice had increased due to the amount of gear being used on a day-to-day basis. So the networks attempted to lower their costs by expanding the "basic equipment package" to include many of the items that freelancers were charging for on an a la carte basis. In the rearview mirror it may look like a no-brainer for freelancers to expand their equipment packages. However, at the time, most of them had to take out very steep loans to do it. The risk-reward model is one of the staples of business in the United States. In the network freelance schema, that longstanding principle was under fire.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The networks need to get their costs down well below what the average freelancer charges even with the ample package they bring to a shoot. To accomplish that the networks have greatly increased the amount of content acquired by low paid Associate Producers. And whether the unions allowed for that by not negotiating more aggressively is irrelevant. The networks, because they produce so much news programming, because their viewership is way down and because they need to make a profit to survive, have determined that union freelance costs are too high.

So the business has changed - and will continue to change. There is a surplus or trained and equipped freelancers out there waiting for the call from the networks. You can say that they need to find other clients. But many of these freelancers were trained in the news production mode. They really aren't versatile or flexible enough to make that shift. You can tell them they have to market themselves better. But a lot of the people doing freelance work got used to taking the call and jumping into action. They were never great self-promoters. They plugged into a system that existed at the time and they never imagined it would change beyond their ability to adapt. And what of the freelance sound people who have slowly been eliminated? How many of them will survive? Sure you can chide them for not seeing this coming. But seriously, many of these folks are over fifty years old. All they ever wanted to do was go out the door and work and take care of their families. The model worked from the mid-1980s when many of these people were just approaching thirty years old, until now, twenty-five years later. Many freelancers were too busy with life, too busy trying to make a living, pay a mortgage and save for their kids' college tuitions to worry about professional retooling.

 

[SoMissTV]

Today I have my own show on their network.

That sounds great. What's the name of the show and when / where can I watch it?