Photog / editor / ANCHOR salaries.

[<Wheatstone Bridge.>]

This is not sour grapes or jealousy my dear friends , but is it right that photogs, editors, and technicians who have been in the buisness for years are not even making a decent salary, but then here comes some college guy / gal with a surgically enhanced body and want to start commanding 50k - 60k to start with ?
I have been in the business for twenty years as a photog/editor/technician and I am not even making 60k a year.
Mind you..... and the young executive producer is said to be making 80k a year , he just got out of college about four years ago.
I am speaking about a top 20 market folks, please ...WHAT CAN WE DO TO CHANGE THIS VERY TERRIBLE SITUATION ????????????

 

[lost focus]

I've often pondered this as well. Edited video and audio are the most important elements in a television newscast but yet those that are responsible for the creation/excution of those images are among the lowest paid in the news room. Why? Is it because the "consultants" have convinced just about everyone that pretty faces and live shots are the reasons why people watch the news. I'd argue they are important porduction values but not more important than the actual news. We have spoon fed audiences for years, talked to them like they are in 8th grade, pandered to the lowest common-denominator hoping that the declining quality of news being reported will go unnoticed it there is a pretty face out in the field or at the desk.

How many anchors really do all that much any way?Most the anchors I've met come in late, take 2-3 hour lunches and are gone 5 min after the show. Why are they more valuable than the content of the show, and all other members of the staff?

Why, why why? Because it's easier to find an actor that can read lines and pay them to be personable than its is to find good photographers, writers and off screen talent and pay them well. Ratings may say that the anchor-bots make all the difference but at some point even "bay watch" became unwatchable.

My solution: Photogs and editors should form thier own consulting firms. Our subjective opinions are just as relavant as the other firms with agendas. Why not find the stats that show photography matters as much as or more than tv personalities. After all the most listened to consulting firms just recycle the same ideas that seem to have worked in a couple markets and then purport those ideas as if they were scripture. Maybe the NPPA could get into the consulting business?

Just a few ramblings on boring Memorial Day.
Have a good week.

 

[<Spicy McHaggis>]

The people at home don't care about good video.

They think their vacation videos look good, do you really think they appreciate the fact that you used a tripod and don't have any jumpcuts?

Joe and Jane Sixpack tune in because they like the anchors. They are very concerned with that they are wearing and if they got their haircut or not.

If you change anchors you will lose viewers. If you switch tape formats you will not.

It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. We don't get paid much because to the viewing public we don't matter. This is why people will always ask us if we want to be "on camera" when we tell them what we do and call us a "camera man" instead of a "photojournalist"

 

[Lensmith]

Ask youself this question.

What is the average career span for a photographer?

What is the average career span for an anchor or reporter?

Their jobs are more likely to be lost do to many factors apart from ability. Things they can't control like sex, race, age or "Q" ratings.

They generally have more expences fullfilling their duties as well. Clothes and makeup usually come out of their pocket. Sure there are a few who have a clothing allowance or tradeout deals but they are in the minority.

Most photogs don't have the wardrobe needs as those with the on-camera jobs.

Photogs don't face those risks or have those added expenses.

It's the same reasoning that pays Hollywood actors more money than crew members on the film.

On-camera jobs are harder to come by and are the real face/wrapper of your station product.

Don't take it personally. Be happier you have a little more control over your life and career than they do ;o)

 

[<Parker Vision>]

What can we do to rectify the situation? Nothing.

Once the FCC votes on June 2 to let the fat-cat corporate guys buy as many TV stations as they want, we'll all be working for the same 4 or 5 corporations. Don't believe me? How many radio station ownership groups were there 10 years ago versus now.

Hell, as for you guys who work in the studios, you better start dusting off your reels? Ever hear of Parker Vision? Basically, its a computer program that can do the job of a studio crew. Does it do the job better? No. Will it affect viewership? No. Will it save the corporate fat-cats a ton of money on salaries, benefits, and work hours? Yes. More and more stations are signing on, and more and more studio techs are unemployed.

The moral of the story kids is that it ain't gonna get better. Ever. If you want to make more money, find another pursuit.