Anchor/MMJ/Etc. Contracts

[MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie 743]

Not sure if this is the place for this question or not, but please move it if it isn't...

 

Anyways, my question is: What's up with anchors/mmjs/etc constantly moving after 1-2 years?? Doesn't this make them less credible?? I'm just curious why stations are hiring people, only to have them leave after a year...  I've been doing some searches and haven't come across a somewhat clear answer...

[appleachian 128]

Job hopping for more money.  Just like anyone else. 
Historically they get 2 year contracts and keep moving up in market rank for career growth. 

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

Without revealing too much…

 

1. Because for reporters/MMJs, the contracts are usually 2-3 years

2. Because those contracts usually always pay them crap money, and stations are usually not willing to give them raises for a new contract that would even account for any inflation that happened during the expiring contract—because at the end of the day—they know they can just bring someone else in with less experience and pay them less than the experienced person wanting to renew their contract. 
 

“But wouldn’t a station want to pay what it takes to keep talent around if they’re willing to stay, so the product is stable and the journalism is actually good?”

 

No. Because despite what GMs and excs will tell you, they give approximately zero shits about newscast quality, as long as the viewership isn’t plummeting (and even if it is, they see that as an excuse to get rid of the current people).
 

It’s all a money game. That’s all it ever was and ever will be. It’s why sales people make the big bucks. Because execs and GMs don’t view news talent as “direct revenue producers” who deserve a fair, comfortable wage (actually words a GM has told me ).
 

They view reporters and MMJs as objects—as nuts and bolts in a car the sales department is trying sell and make commission off. You don’t pay the parts that make up the car. They’re lifeless objects. You pay the sales guy who sold it. Even though there would be no car to sell without the nuts and bolts. 
 

They wish they didn’t have to pay them at all, but those pesky labor laws force them to have to view reporters and MMJs as humans deserving of minimum wage and not much more. 

 

With this analogy in mind, even if a reporter or MMJ likes the smaller market they’re currently under contract in, the only way for a reporter or MMJ to get a sizable raise is to move to a bigger market when their contract is up, to a market where they’re viewed by management as the expendable, lifeless nuts and bolts in a GMC Yukon a sales hotshot is trying to profit off, instead of the expendable, lifeless nuts and bolts in Ford Fiesta a sales hotshot is trying to profit off. 
 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by MarkBRollins88_v2

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

Not sure it means anything for “credibility.” We all understand people move on, and of course some settle in for long stretches, too. 
 

As for the money aspect, for better, worse and everything in between, the bottom line is what it is. You aren’t going to get the same viewership and ad revenue in a world that has splintered into a million different viewing options. The slices of those pies get smaller. It undoubtedly sucks, and like many fields, sucks more as time goes on. But there are far bigger macroeconomic issues at play that aren’t unique to the industry and aren’t going to be solved in one industry alone. 

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

5 hours ago, Abraham J. Simpson said:

Not sure it means anything for “credibility.” We all understand people move on, and of course some settle in for long stretches, too. 
 

As for the money aspect, for better, worse and everything in between, the bottom line is what it is. You aren’t going to get the same viewership and ad revenue in a world that has splintered into a million different viewing options. The slices of those pies get smaller. It undoubtedly sucks, and like many fields, sucks more as time goes on. But there are far bigger macroeconomic issues at play that aren’t unique to the industry and aren’t going to be solved in one industry alone. 

While the fact that revenue is shrinking and money is drying up and the industry is basically dead is true, stations have been screwing over reporters and MMJs for money in favor of their sales buddies since the dawn of TV news, even when the cash was flowing deep

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

A commission based team gets rewarded for successful sales. Good, bad, anywhere in between, it’s not any one group of people or one industry where that doesn’t happen. And if you’re not a successful seller, you’re not bringing home that big payday. 
 

I could never, ever in a million years be good at a sales role. So I’m never, ever going to be getting commissions commensurate with what I bring in.  Oh well, that’s the world. 

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

2 hours ago, Abraham J. Simpson said:

A commission based team gets rewarded for successful sales. Good, bad, anywhere in between, it’s not any one group of people or one industry where that doesn’t happen. And if you’re not a successful seller, you’re not bringing home that big payday. 
 

I could never, ever in a million years be good at a sales role. So I’m never, ever going to be getting commissions commensurate with what I bring in.  Oh well, that’s the world. 

That doesn’t excuse the fact that, at every station I’ve worked, the base, pre-commission minimum salary range for even entry-level sales positions is still significantly higher than pretty much every news position except for main anchors and news director. 

and yes, I’ve seen the salary ranges with my own eyes. 

this is at several stations in small, medium and large markets. 
 

let’s also not forget, that ratings are directly tied to what sales can charge their customers. So if ratings go up, whatever commission sales people get would be higher than when ratings were down, simply by the fact that they can charge higher rates.

 

even though they did nothing to contribute to those higher ratings that allowed them to sell ads for more. 
 

in other words, the news department at every station plays *a* role in the sales team’s success, but they do not see the rewards. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by MarkBRollins88_v2

[MediaZone4K 1509]

On 12/6/2023 at 3:33 PM, MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie said:

Not sure if this is the place for this question or not, but please move it if it isn't...

 

Anyways, my question is: What's up with anchors/mmjs/etc constantly moving after 1-2 years?? Doesn't this make them less credible?? I'm just curious why stations are hiring people, only to have them leave after a year...  I've been doing some searches and haven't come across a somewhat clear answer...

Thank you for this question.  A lot of us are enthralled by tv news,  but learn the harsh reality upon working in the industry.

 

The short answer is money.

 

A reporter contract is 1-3 years and reporters typically ask for more money every time they extend their contract. It's cheaper for stations to have a revolving door of one contract term reporters than to keep paying them more every renegotiation.

 

Sales department, management, and the corporate bosses make significantly more than the news.

 

Trust me, the pay at alot of stations is a few dollars above minimum wage for reporters, even less for producers and photographers.

Edited December 14, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[MediaZone4K 1509]

39 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

Thank you for starting this, I think we need more insider advice threads for those in the industry.

 

I used to wonder this myself until I saw it firsthand....the short answer is money.

 

A reporter contract is 1-3 years. Reporters typically ask for more money every time they extend their contract. It's cheaper for stations to have a revolving door of one contract term reporters than to keep paying them more every renegotiation.

 

Sales department, management, and the corporate bosses make significantly more than reporters/MMJs and anchors. Trust me, the pay at alot of stations is a few dollars above minimum wage for reporters, even less for producers and photographers.

Adding to this, smaller market stations pay less money. If a reporter is in market 115 for example, they might keep climbing up markets until they can make it to a top 30 market station where the pay is better.

 

Larger markets require experience. If your hometown is a larger market like NYC, you're at a disadvantage trying to enter the industry. You'll most likely have to move to a small market (away from eveything you know) and rack up years of experience in order to make it back home.

 

I respect the fact that someone has to toil in the D leagues before reaching the NBA.

 

But to set up the industry in a way that talent has to move their life for a job that pays near minimum wage --despite being required to have a bachelor's degree -- and be locked into a near two-year contract at often toxic newsrooms is pretty nasty.

 

This is a huge reason why so many people leave the industry.

Edited December 14, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

1 hour ago, MarkBRollins88_v2 said:

That doesn’t excuse the fact that, at every station I’ve worked, the base, pre-commission minimum salary range for even entry-level sales positions is still significantly higher than pretty much every news position except for main anchors and news director. 

and yes, I’ve seen the salary ranges with my own eyes. 

this is at several stations in small, medium and large markets. 
 

let’s also not forget, that ratings are directly tied to what sales can charge their customers. So if ratings go up, whatever commission sales people get would be higher than when ratings were down, simply by the fact that they can charge higher rates.

 

even though they did nothing to contribute to those higher ratings that allowed them to sell ads for more. 
 

in other words, the news department at every station plays *a* role in the sales team’s success, but they do not see the rewards. 

Many things in life aren’t excused, they just are. Some careers pay more. Some fields pay more. Sometimes those overlap. Every place I’ve worked, sales got perks beyond what anyone else did. Life isn’t perfectly even.  

[MediaZone4K 1509]

49 minutes ago, Abraham J. Simpson said:

Many things in life aren’t excused, they just are. Some careers pay more. Some fields pay more. Sometimes those overlap. Every place I’ve worked, sales got perks beyond what anyone else did. Life isn’t perfectly even.  

What you're saying is not wrong but I'm gonna have to hold greedy executive's feet to the fire more on this one.

 

We proclaim that journalists are these "beacons" who hold truth to power. Yet, we don't pay journalists a livable wage, so they leave and work in PR for people like politicians who spin reality. That can't good for a democratic society.

 

Not to sound extremist, but journalists need to be the next group to strike. This especially as stations rely more on news departments for direct ad revenue with syndication options drying up. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[noggi 600]

Local television news isn’t journalism. It’s a business. 

[MediaZone4K 1509]

42 minutes ago, noggi said:

Local television news isn’t journalism. It’s a business. 

Amen. TV news started out as networks filling their government mandated public service quota. Once they realized news divisions could be profitable, the problems we have today began. 

 

It's the American way. The people running the business make all the money while the people at the ground level make small potatoes.

Edited December 14, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:33 PM, MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie said:

Not sure if this is the place for this question or not, but please move it if it isn't...

 

Anyways, my question is: What's up with anchors/mmjs/etc constantly moving after 1-2 years?? Doesn't this make them less credible?? I'm just curious why stations are hiring people, only to have them leave after a year...  I've been doing some searches and haven't come across a somewhat clear answer...

I also just want to say thank you for asking this question.

 

For people outside the industry, most have no idea the crap conditions and pay reporters/MMJs/photogs/mets, etc have to put up with.

 

its time to shine a light on this for the public.

10 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

Not to sound extremist, but journalists need to be the next group to strike. This especially as stations rely more on news departments for direct ad revenue with syndication options drying up. 

You will never see a mass TV journalist strike simply because very, very few are in unions.

 

And any attempts for a newsroom to unionize would likely be fruitless and would almost guarantee contract non-renewals for anyone who tried to unionize.  
 

that being said, I fantasize often about a day when I could join a union and show management how truly f*cked they’d be without their news people. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by MarkBRollins88_v2

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

13 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

What you're saying is not wrong but I'm gonna have to hold greedy executive's feet to the fire more on this one.

 

We proclaim that journalists are these "beacons" who hold truth to power. Yet, we don't pay journalists a livable wage, so they leave and work in PR for people like politicians who spin reality. That can't good for a democratic society.

 

Not to sound extremist, but journalists need to be the next group to strike. This especially as stations rely more on news departments for direct ad revenue with syndication options drying up. 

It is often popular and easy to blame some general group of people and paint them as some kind of Snidely Whiplash cartoon villain, but sometimes people with a specific skill set who excel in their field make what the market will support. Is it fair someone who can hit a baseball will collect whatever hundreds of millions the most recent contract was for? Makes me roll my eyes, but in reality, if they think that investment will fill the seats and move the merchandise to recoup the cost (and of course, I know it's part of a team, and the team being successful is part of the filling seats/selling merch equation), then whatever. Lots of other people in the organization undoubtedly work hard and do their best, and they aren't making that bank (I'm talking staff here, not players). 

 

Strikes are powerful tools, and if someone can organize one and make it successful, more power to them. It's not easy. Hell, it's often very risky to understate it. It's also not always an easy sell to garner public sympathy--sometimes yes, sometimes no. We're in a bit of a time in the nation where more attention is paid to the CEO/average worker gap, and there may be ways to leverage that, or it could end up backfiring, so to speak. I would suggest that the best target is the CEO type position, it's an easier concept to sell. Joe the sales guy who happened to make a nice living because he's darned good at selling doesn't make the same compelling comparison when you're trying to get sympathy on a large scale. Bob Iger? Ok, that's doable. Not going to win over everyone, but there's a difference there. (And not to pick him specifically, he was just the first example that popped to mind.) 

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

32 minutes ago, Abraham J. Simpson said:

It is often popular and easy to blame some general group of people and paint them as some kind of Snidely Whiplash cartoon villain, but sometimes people with a specific skill set who excel in their field make what the market will support. Is it fair someone who can hit a baseball will collect whatever hundreds of millions the most recent contract was for? Makes me roll my eyes, but in reality, if they think that investment will fill the seats and move the merchandise to recoup the cost (and of course, I know it's part of a team, and the team being successful is part of the filling seats/selling merch equation), then whatever. Lots of other people in the organization undoubtedly work hard and do their best, and they aren't making that bank (I'm talking staff here, not players). 

 

Strikes are powerful tools, and if someone can organize one and make it successful, more power to them. It's not easy. Hell, it's often very risky to understate it. It's also not always an easy sell to garner public sympathy--sometimes yes, sometimes no. We're in a bit of a time in the nation where more attention is paid to the CEO/average worker gap, and there may be ways to leverage that, or it could end up backfiring, so to speak. I would suggest that the best target is the CEO type position, it's an easier concept to sell. Joe the sales guy who happened to make a nice living because he's darned good at selling doesn't make the same compelling comparison when you're trying to get sympathy on a large scale. Bob Iger? Ok, that's doable. Not going to win over everyone, but there's a difference there. (And not to pick him specifically, he was just the first example that popped to mind.) 

You sound just like a couple GMs I’ve worked for  

[tyrannical bastard 3443]

In recent years, the talent pool has really dried up, and the broadcasting companies' only way to recruit employees is to hit up the college campuses to staff their newsrooms and sales departments.  

 

So basically, it's one giant revolving door of college grads..when their contracts are up, they recruit a new bunch to take over.  It's rarer and rarer to see new employees move on to a second or third station or renew their contract, unless they are highly specialized or well liked at their station.

 

On the sales end, broadcast airtime is a fraction of what it used to be.  With all of the extra selling for the other platforms (web, ott, etc), the companies also carve out their own slice of airtime to sell their own "national ads" as well.  And with all of the consolidation of things, local ad sales is much more fragmented, with a lot of "one offs" and clients you never thought you would see on TV....think "Ferryman Funeral Homes" and "Red Wigglers...the Cadillac of Worms!"

 

[MediaZone4K 1509]

5 hours ago, Abraham J. Simpson said:

It is often popular and easy to blame some general group of people and paint them as some kind of Snidely Whiplash cartoon villain, but sometimes people with a specific skill set who excel in their field make what the market will support. Is it fair someone who can hit a baseball will collect whatever hundreds of millions the most recent contract was for? Makes me roll my eyes, but in reality, if they think that investment will fill the seats and move the merchandise to recoup the cost (and of course, I know it's part of a team, and the team being successful is part of the filling seats/selling merch equation), then whatever. Lots of other people in the organization undoubtedly work hard and do their best, and they aren't making that bank (I'm talking staff here, not players). 

 

Strikes are powerful tools, and if someone can organize one and make it successful, more power to them. It's not easy. Hell, it's often very risky to understate it. It's also not always an easy sell to garner public sympathy--sometimes yes, sometimes no. We're in a bit of a time in the nation where more attention is paid to the CEO/average worker gap, and there may be ways to leverage that, or it could end up backfiring, so to speak. I would suggest that the best target is the CEO type position, it's an easier concept to sell. Joe the sales guy who happened to make a nice living because he's darned good at selling doesn't make the same compelling comparison when you're trying to get sympathy on a large scale. Bob Iger? Ok, that's doable. Not going to win over everyone, but there's a difference there. (And not to pick him specifically, he was just the first example that popped to mind.) 

I respect your 'life is unfair so buck up and keep going' attitude but these news heads don't dererve the magnanomousness you are affording them.

 

The journalists making the product (news) that's being sold, deserve to benefit in it's profits aswell. I'm not saying a reporter needs to be paid $300K, but there is no excuse for a television news job requiring a bachelor's degree to pay the salary a teenager can get at Dunkin Doughnuts.

 

At the end of the day, journalists don't have to go into the industry...but again, no journalism isn't exactly great for democracy. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

I would also say teachers don’t deserve to be begging for, or dipping into their own limited pay for, basic classroom supplies. They also shouldn’t be working in (in far too many cases) unhealthy and outright dangerous conditions. They shouldn’t be held to impossible standards and being told to do more with ever-fewer resources. And yet here we are. 

 

The intent isn’t about magnanimity, it’s putting things into the larger societal framework. There are a whole lot of people in a whole lot of jobs who could fairly be called massively underpaid.

 

And these groups will sometimes commiserate with each other, but also turn on each other. Take teachers - when a strike happens, particularly in working-class/blue-collar type areas, communities often split into factions of “they deserve more than they’re getting” and “they’re overpaid; they only work 9 months; they’re grooming kids” and related vitriol. “Let them try to do my job” (whatever that is) “and see how they like it.” It can get really ugly.

 

When newspaper journalists go on strike…wait, do those still exist? Anyway, there’s a lot of the public that respects what they do and understands they get paid crap wages. Lots of us get paid crap wages. But there’s also a huge part of the population that sees it as no loss that there’s less journalists at work. They’re all just liberal mouthpieces or some such thing. They’re hacks. They’re whatever. Empathy and sympathy are in short supply for industry upon industry. It’s sad, but it’s reality. 
 

I don’t know that a deeper societal change is possible, but I feel safe in predicting one-off skirmishes are generally not going to move the needle all that much. A little symbolic win here and there, sure. But not without trade-offs, and sometimes losses that counter the gains.
 

I’m old enough to say my generation isn’t going to be around to see a structural shift. I hope the upcoming generations make progress, and find ways to move from less successful battles that pit groups against each other to more productive changes that benefit everyone. 

 

 

[MediaZone4K 1509]

All I can say is, If a job insists on paying people near minimum wage, stop asking them for experience or a degree. We have a major issue in this country with employers demanding ready-made employees, ripe with experience or education, yet no salary to back it up. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[ColtFromGulfcoast 695]

If I may add to this discussion, I literally make more money as a college student, working a 17-an-hour job than some journalists and meteorologists THAT HAVE degrees too.  

 

One station was trying to hire a meteorologist for eight an hour.  A Bakersfield TV station was offering 15 an hour to a reporter who would also have to anchor and sometimes even PRODUCE. What does all this tell you? Oh and the grocery stores and fast food restaurants pay no less than $15 as well without a degree.

Edited December 16, 2023 by ColtFromGulfcoast

[MarkBRollins88_v2 317]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:54 AM, Abraham J. Simpson said:

 

 

 

I’m old enough to say my generation isn’t going to be around to see a structural shift. I hope the upcoming generations make progress, 

 

 

This is the exact mindset killing this industry.

 

Current Boomer-aged executives are they to have their cake and eat it too.

 

They’re trying to make money off TV in the short term, while setting it up to fail in the long term, but they’ll be retired by then, so it’ll be Gen Z’s problem. 
 

Prime examples of this are Nexstar’s ban on livestreaming news, or the industry’s move as a whole to grow more and more dependent on retrans agreements with dying cable companies as revenue sources.

 

yes, these will maximize profits right now.

 

but what about when everyone has cut the cord, so there are no retrans agreements to be had, and everyone who watches news watches it via live stream, but they won’t know nexstar stations exist. 

but we’ll let the future generation deal with that.

 
let’s squeeze this sponge for all it’s worth first and the take our golden parachutes.

Edited December 18, 2023 by MarkBRollins88_v2

[MediaZone4K 1509]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:39 AM, MarkBRollins88_v2 said:

This is the exact mindset killing this industry.

Current Boomer-aged executives are they to have their cake and eat it too.

Agreed. And let that mindset be a warning to anyone thinking about entering the industry. If you have to move away from home, don't do it unless you have enough savings to carry you through a few contracts of small market sweatshop pay. Being on tv is not worth being working poor.

 

This applies to almost every job, not just news: your job does not care about you. You are just a number. Ideally, companies would exist for the shared wealth of every one involved. Realistically they're set up to befit the owners, share/stakeholders, and to a lesser extent the customer. The employees be damned. People realizing this has feuled the "great resignation". On top of all this, employers will cry of a labor shortage while being highly selective despite paying low...back on topic. 

 

I used to be turned off by big-name anchors demanding huge salaries. Now I see you have to squeeze these companies for as much as you can get because they'll pay you as little as possible given the chance.

Edited December 19, 2023 by MediaZone4K

[Howard Beale 13]

I’d hate to be a TV news director these days.  Imagine how stressful it must be to try to recruit people!  I see recruiters from Gray and Scripps, among others, who post the same open jobs on LinkedIn almost every day.  I’m also aware of some jobs that have been open for months.

 

I’m no longer in the business, so does anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the recruiting crisis in TV news?