There is no limit how far broadcasters will go to turn a profit -- broadcasting is a profit-driven business. Two stories in the news today show some of the limits that can crop up. According to Editor and Publisher, unionized Wall Street Journal, Barron's and other Dow Jones publication writers are refusing to do on-air appearances on CNBC because they are not paid for the extra work, even though the company is paid. This is plainly unfair, since the company redefined the role of the writer to include performance and did not change the compensation for the job.
At the same time, Nokia is buying placement in a European reality show, Fashion House, in which teams of designers compete to create the most fashionable home, talking all the while on Nokia cell phones, with Nokia messaging in the show's titles, credits and bumpers at commercial breaks. This is the predictable track for product placement, but the Dow Jones practice of demanding print reporters go on-air is simple abuse of the power to hire and fire.
If Dow Jones doesn't compensate these writers, they'll be leaving and Dow Jones will either have to train up replacements, risking the editorial integrity of its publications in the meantime, or hire broadcast-trained reporters at broadcast reporter salaries. Either way, it's going to cost more than paying writers for the extra work they do for CNBC.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at September 23, 2003 10:39 AM | TrackBackWhile I agree with the central theme that broadcasters may be outlandishly driven by profits, I also believe that by definition a business exists for profits. Those that are not are called charities, or are bankrupt soon.
In this economy, companies are driven to freeze headcount and get more out of existing staff. And it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
Posted by: Richard Gardner at September 24, 2003 09:16 AMRichard -- I'm not arguing that the profit motive isn't necessary, only that it needs to be distributed across all the parties involved. And, having run a few media businesses, I am quite certain that Dow Jones will end up less profitable if it doesn't come to terms with its writers about the extra work they do. These are people who could work for almost any news organization in the world, after all. So, were I an investor in Dow Jones, I'd be very anxious about the risk the Journal is taking, that the end result of not coming to terms with these writers will be a diminished editorial product or, because the writers leave, better competition.
Mitch
Posted by: Mitch Ratcliffe at September 24, 2003 09:37 AMMitch - this isn't new within TV stations either. As you may know, a local reporter can offer his/her piece to the network (national or regional) feed and for years expected to be paid a small stipend for that story. The network would pay the station... in theory the station would take a cut and pay the balance to the reporter. But rarely did the camera man share... or the editor... or even the assignment desk that probably came up with the idea in the first place. In short, the reporter was assigned to the story - went out - emoted - and got extra cash for his time. The rest of his team got zero.
Another example - a SF reporter who used to regularly sell his stories to the network, to a cable network, who used to repurpose his scripts into radio news pieces as well never shared a dime with those who were so instrumental in creating the original work.
Is it fair? Of course not. Is it new? Also - of course not.
The reporters are the WSJ etc. deserve to be compensated for sharing their expertise... but they are not alone.
This is all part of the growing trend to asking individuals to work harder, longer, for a multiple number of outlets while paying absolutely nothing more than the base salary.
It is also something that I have written about at www.correspondences.org under the category of "Devaluing the work force".
PLS
Posted by: Peter Shaplen Productions at September 25, 2003 11:34 PM