 
Welcome to this month's web "bp," courtesy of digitaljournalist.org.
Memories of the way we were....... I remember my first
walk in a TV station. Activity everywhere. Everybody was involved in making
TV. In some stations, that was all the time. I remember in my college days
and a bit beyond, WCVB, Boston, was producing something to the order of
50+ hours of local programming every week. Could you imagine doing 50 hours
of shows? Every week?
TV Profit Margins Versus Other Industries By Todd Morman
Quick: Take a guess at the profit margin of
the local TV news business. It's a timely question, since we've all just
survived another February sweeps ratings period, when stations pull out
all the bells, whistles and misleading promos to catch the eye of that
handful of local families with Nielsen diaries and "people meters" in their
homes.
So there's all of
this profit. Where did it go?
 One broadcast veteran characterized his managers as people "who sell soap for a living." Such people shouldn't have been left to dawdle in multi-million dollar technical budgets. I suppose they'll try and justify the fact that they felt a quality picture helped ratings. Yeah, tell it to Vin DiBona and the rest of the "America's Funniest Home Videos" people or anyone at Fox. See, they all spent the money before they did the experiment. Home video? Yeah, that hasn't boomed, right? Technical quality is important, in fact it's right behind content, another TV issue. How much is a broadcast camera or lens worth? Looking at worldwide price structures, it appears as if the prices for goods really depend on the market. Why not, eh? Companies such as B&H out of New York frequently have low prices for just about everything they offer. Why? Probably because they do their homework and eliminate middle men. Smaller companies who depend on the sales structures of major manufacturers, i.e territorial sales managers and other layers, have to charge higher prices. Mention "gray market" to the different companies and see what their reaction is. It's all about the layers, loyalty to them, and a structure in which the end user pays more to get the same thing they could have acquired for less. The fact is, broadcasters have been supporting layered markets for equipment from manufacturers who have been milking the market for profits as layoffs have occurred. If you think this is false, ask yourself questions such as: How many DV cameras can be purchased for the price of one camera such as a Beta SX or top end DVC Pro? Have manufacturers supported these formats and encouraged their use in the broadcast industry? Remember, Sony was kicked into creating the laptop edit system when Panasonic developed DVCPro's. Have broadcasters such as Dirck Halstead, Manager of this digitaljournalist.org page been supported by broadcast organizations or did they have to tap resources of the "professional" and "consumer-prosumer" parts of Sony, Panasonic, Apple, etc.? They fought Dirck. Now look at them all trying to do just what he said they should have started years ago. But they sunk millions into SX and DVCPro, and are laying off their industry. NOW manufacturers are coming around and getting on the "look at OUR DV" bandwagon as their market is diminishing. They tout the smaller and less expensive equipment as good enough to do the job whereas they pooh-poohed it as less-than broadcast grade a while back. But networks haven't really caught on yet, except for CNN, who blazed the trail of cheap TV news, and now is blazing the trail of gathering news via small format/expense/weight in the same fashion they started it....cheap, quick, just gettin' it done. And if there are a few major catastrophes, they may pull it off. Seems as if they have proven they can't survive on journalism when there are only little things happening and they need a war, natural disaster, school shooting or other calamity for their business model to work. (Or Andrea Thompson..another issue) Here's one point of view: “CNN and the digital revolution,” by Wolfgang Achtner Now that a major player like CNN has invested heavily in the new dv equipment, it is time to consider what consequences this move may have on the television news industry. - Copyright July 2001. Back in January, at the same time that 400
people were being laid off by CNN, in an internal memo to all CNN staff,
Chief News Executive Eason Jordan wrote:
 The new generation of cheap, quality, digital video equipment can certainly provide the means to produce cheaper, quality programs, when used by well trained people. It is easy to understand that, especially overseas, competent video journalists can provide quality stories at greatly reduced prices. A video journalist working on his own can produce the same kind of story that used to take four people (a correspondent and a producer and a two-person-crew), so the same story can now be produced at a fraction of the cost (it only takes one plane ticket and one hotel room instead of four, and it is possible to eliminate all the overweight charges since there is no longer any need to transport several cases of heavy editing equipment). The two most likely explanations for what I have seen are that CNN’s management was unaware of the need for proper training or they were unwilling to spend the extra money that would have been necessary to organize the training programs. From what I have been told in confidential conversations with several CNN people in Atlanta, both of these aspects seem to have played a role in the decision making process. It is not hard to understand how managers with insufficient experience or commitment to the news may have underestimated the need for appropriate training, since the public at large has a very approximate idea of the skills it takes to work as a cameraperson. I think that this is best demonstrated by the exchange between former President Bill Clinton and the author of the TV cameraman website. Clinton made his comments at a press conference (April 1 2001), in which he announced that he intended to step down from the world of politics (http://tvcameramen.com/lounge/clinton.htm). President Clinton explained that he intended to start a new career as a freelance documentary and hard news cameraman. "I believe that there are things I can do when I leave here to continue to work for the causes that I have championed, to solve the problems that I've tried to reduce in the country and in the world that won't get in the way of the next president. I've thought about it quite a lot, and the best way to do it is to be behind a camera." The author of TVcameramen.com managed to speak to the President. TVcameramen.com: “This is a big step for you!” President Clinton: “Well, it depends how you see it. I have been in the center of attention for too long now. At the same time I want to be involved in what shapes our world. Being behind a camera will offer me to still be part of the shaping of information but not be in the center of it.” TVcam: “But with all due respect Mr. President, TV camera work is very physical? Can you handle that?” Clinton: “Well, I am fit, it's not like I have one foot in the grave! Also camera equipment is so small now, all I need is a small DV and off I go. Everyone else is doing it, so why not I?” TVcam: “Are you going to be taking any courses?” Clinton: “ I do not think so. How difficult can it be? It's not like being a brain surgeon. You point and you shoot, that seems to be the fashion these days, it is not how you shoot it but what you shoot. And with my contacts around the world, well, I think you will be seeing a lot of exclusives coming from me.” With all due respect to President Clinton, he obviously needs some good advice. I would like to underline the words: "You point and you shoot, that seems to be the fashion these days, it is not how you shoot it but what you shoot.” Contrary to what President Clinton believes, and what the management of CNN seems to have also believed, this is a huge mistake. With the exception of those rare cases which a lone amateur happens to obtain exclusive video of a dramatic and newsworthy event, “how” the story is shot or, better yet, how the story is “told,” is of primary importance. As a matter of fact, it takes a lot more skills than just pointing and shooting a dv camera to produce a professional quality story. Those skills can only be acquired through appropriate training, as Dirck Halstead has pointed out, explaining the objective of his Platypus workshops: “The key premise of the our curriculum is that doing visual journalism for television is a craft unlike simply handing a still photographer a video camera and showing him or her where to push the button. There are key lessons to be learned in narrative and sequence to say nothing of the techniques needed to produce airable footage.” I think this is an extremely important fact to keep in mind, especially since consumer level video cameras are becoming better and cheaper all the time and it is reasonable to expect that, eventually, most people will have a videocamera and a computer with an edit system (Apple already distributes an simple edit program, I-movie, for free with its computers) and will be able to distribute broadband video on the Internet. This being the case, the only attributes that will allow us to distinguish a "professional" journalist from an amateur will be the journalist’s credibility and reporting and technical skills, along with the capacity to produce a well-shot and well-edited story, on every occasion. As things stand at present, my opinion is that -- with rare exceptions -- (unless the international personnel receive adequate training) CNN's new strategy will have no positive impact on news gathering at its international bureaus. This is certainly unfortunate since, at least according to statements by the top brass, CNN remains committed to covering international news. Personally, I'm convinced that an appropriate training program is the best way to keep the focus on quality journalism AND pay attention to the bottom line. That said, I am convinced that CNN’s plan will speed up the digital revolution, so it is worth dedicating some thought to what impact the plan may have on the rest of the industry. All of the networks are interested in saving money and they will be watching closely to see how well things work out for CNN. Friends at ABC News have told me that they are already taking a more detailed look at small cameras in the light of the CNN "way forward." Some photographers have expressed reservations regarding the loss of image quality that will be unavoidable working with the cheaper cameras instead of the Sony Beta SX. Of course, there are differences that justify -- at least in part -- the $21,000 price difference between the Betacam SX and the cheaper digital video cameras. These include the fact that the Beta SX can handle a greater dynamic range in high contrast situations when compared to the smaller and cheaper video cameras, a real iris on the broadcast lens versus an electronic iris, ruggedness, etc. In the end it comes down to the question: Can you justify and afford the extra cost? For a growing number of people, nowadays, the answer is: "No."  What matters most is that "the powers that be" that run CNN have decided that they are no longer willing to spend the extra 20 grand -- whether it's because they believe that the viewers will not notice any difference on their TV screens or just because they want to save money -- so, from now on, a growing number of stories will be shot with mini-DV or DVCAM video cameras. I think it's worth considering that for several years now, ABC News' Nightline has been broadcasting programs shot and edited on DV equipment. Also, last year, ABC's primetime program, Hopkins 24/7, was shot and edited this way. This fall, ABC News will be airing a new program on Boston that has been produced in the same manner. I'm not an engineer, but over the course of the past five years I've talked to them several times about this subject. Basically, it comes down to this: if your stories are "well shot" on mini DV, they are "broadcast quality." Several years ago, when a handful of video journalists had started using the SONY VX1000 videocamera in the field (it is worth keeping in mind that today's "prosumer" equipment is of much better quality than that of the first consumer digital videocamera), an engineer at ABC News helped me understand why many camerapersons had reservations -- if they weren’t against -- DV equipment. "You must understand two things," he said. "First of all, a lot of these people are worried that if they show up with gear that looks like amateur stuff they won't be taken seriously. But, much more importantly," he added, "many freelancers who've sunk $60,000 in camera gear are worried that they won't be able to recover their investment." Many photographers are worried by the fact that widespread use of the new dv equipment means that the new type of one man band will become commonplace and that they will need to learn new skills in order to cope with added responsibilities in the field. The reality is: if you don’t know how to do it all, someone else will, so if you don’t know how to write and report, you better start learning if you want to keep your job. In truth, even today, many news photographers are far more than button-pushing camera jockeys and they are used to working with or without a reporter in the field. These people know all there is to know about producing and some of them have been helping reporters write their stories and prepare their questions for an interview. I am convinced that most so-called “technical” people would have no problem learning some new skills - and could benefit greatly - from a training course that could teach them to report and write broadcast quality stories. I would like to reassure those photographers who worry that they won’t be able to learn on camera skills: it’s a lot easier for you to learn how to talk in front of a camera than it is for a reporter to learn to shoot and edit. As a matter of fact, it usually takes me just about ten minutes to teach the participants of my courses how to do a live two-way. Believe me, if you know what you're talking about, the on-camera presentation is the easy part. As a matter of fact, I laugh (only because I don't want to cry) when I read "good on-camera skills" as a job requirement for beginning reporters. Please! How about some ethical values, reporting and writing skills, a foreign language or two, experience, love for your fellow man and a good dose of common sense? Similarly, most editorial people will need to attend a proper training program -- like the ones that Dirck Halstead has been holding in the US and that I have been holding in Italy -- in order to learn how to shoot and edit. I am convinced that anyone today who would like to start working in the television news business HAS to know how to report and write, shoot and edit. For those who are already in the business, depending on how many more years you have to go and what you'd like to accomplish, the message is the same. Once again, the matter is not up for discussion. Pretty soon, any journalism school worthy of the name will be training all of its students to shoot and edit. So, for those of us who wish to remain in the news business, it's simply a case of sinking or learning to swim. Personally, I have never passed by a chance to learn new skills. As a matter of fact, on several occasions, I've spent my own hard-earned bucks to learn something new. I've always felt it was money well spent, since it allowed me to do a better job in communicating with the viewers -- since journalism aka "storytelling" is what I want to do for a living -- and gain more control with regards the overall story producing process. Clearly, a video journalist needs to possess all the skills. That's why it's a lot harder to work as a video journalist. For exactly that reason, I'd like to point out that I'm convinced that the one man band videojournalist-type crew works best on feature-type stories. I believe that, whenever possible, it's best to have a two-person team (even if both persons are video journalists) cover hard news, for the simple reason that, on many occasions, there is too much going on for one person to deal with alone. For example, while one person shoots, the other can look for someone to interview, make some phone calls to gather additional information, do a live two-way, in other words, all the other tasks that have to be dealt with in addition to shooting the story. When I use the words "TV news business" I'm not just thinking of the news shows on local stations or on the networks; I'm also thinking of long-format, magazine-type pieces and/or documentaries. I think it worth keeping in mind that with more and more cable channels starting up and, eventually, broadcast quality television transmissions on the Internet not so many years from now, the market will continue to divide into smaller pieces. Niche marketing will increase -- as it already has for some time -- the need for cheaper, high-quality content. Just to give you an idea, I've just recently finished a 46-minute documentary on the recent consistory of cardinals at the Vatican, that was shot with two Canon XL1 video cameras (I shot the story with a former student because I needed more than one angle in various locations) and edited on Final Cut Pro. I'm currently negotiating sales here in Italy and in the US. I never could have done my documentary on the consistory if I'd had to rely on -- and pay up front -- a couple of crews, production assistants, offline, online and post-production editing facilities, an editor, etc. I was able to do it because I was able to do (almost) all the work by myself and was willing to invest my own time in the project. My prospective clients would never have been able to commission a documentary that would have cost anywhere around $100,000; in fact, one possible client is a very small, pay-per-view program, just about to start broadcasting in the fall.  Many of us who will want to stay in the news business will have to re-invent ourselves and, in many cases, become our own producers and agents. We will, in other words, have to become entrepreneurs. A daunting task, to say the least, but I fear there is no way out except for a lucky few who will be able -- for a while at least -- to continue working as salaried employees. We may even have to devise new ways of selling our work; personally, I'm convinced that micro payments will eventually become a reality on the Internet once the bulk of viewers will be using it to watch TV on their teleputers, or whatever it'll be called. We may not like this new situation but we might as well accept the fact that these changes are inevitable, and realize that only those who will be willing -- and able -- to adapt, will survive. I must confess that back in 1995, when I finally graduated from a Tandy to a Toshiba with Windows 3.1, I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about having to learn how to use a computer -- I'm a pinball generation guy myself -- but, I had no choice and, at least along with the burden I got the Internet. For the kids of today, learning to use a computer is no more of a problem than learning how to use a telephone or program a VCR. In the same way, you can bet, the next generation of people to enter this business will find it perfectly normal to have to know how to shoot and edit, regardless of the job they'll actually be doing. Don't forget that, nowadays, every I-Mac comes with an editing program and that many kids are learning to use this stuff in school. I remember that four years ago I met the 13-year-old son of some American friends who was visiting Europe on vacation with his family, and one of his homework assignments was a video-story about his trip. In other words, it's sink or learn how to swim. The people with multiple skills and who really understand how to produce television (meaning staying within a budget while producing a quality product) will flourish. Too bad, if a lot of the “I wanna be on TV folks,” will have to look for new careers. Sooner than one might expect, the current generation of DV cameras using tape will be substituted by another using some kind of disk instead of tape to record images and sound, but the need to be able to report and write, shoot and edit will not go away. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty confident that, as it often has been the case for the last thirty odd years, it may soon be necessary to learn new skills so, if anything, it will become even harder than it is today to work as a television journalist. It’s my guess that unless a person really likes doing this job, they won't be around very long. ---------Wolfgang Achtner--------
Those who really understand how to "do" television will flourish. Well, that's one heck of a point of view from
a veteran industry professional. But a thought from the end of it all,
those who really understand how to produce television will flourish,
is true. Check out these quotes from today's media. One doesn't have
to be a business analyst to understand why a business with the ideal suggested
in the two items is not successful when times get a bit tough.
WMBB, Panama City, FL: (Market #157)Most people (and their physicians) are happy working a 40 hour week and having some sort of control of their lives. The above advertisement, especially from a #157 market, seems to describe a job from hell. Of course, they don't say anywhere that the candidate has to smile. Would you have 6 years experience in your job and work under those demands for less than a great salary? I bet the salary offered is small...maybe not even enough to live comfortably, buy a house, drive the car a person who makes public appearances on behalf of a station should drive, etc... The next item reveals something about the business, and was reported by the Christian Science Monitor and placed on the popular "Newsbluezette." "We understand the venerable BBC has decided to eliminate free cookies, coffee and tea for senior and middle managers at staff meetings in a bid to lower expenses. Accountants claim last year the news and entertainment network spent $810,000 on such goodies."First of all, do you believe the accountants? If you do, you got to think there is a huge abuse of money going on. And if one thinks there is not, I'd like to know a business, aside from a bakery, which can offer such items and not have some sort of financial stress. Yes, I know this month's section is about small cameras and less expensive equipment, but all of this is about practicality and business sense, too. For every laid off person, there are probably two or three who will never get into the business because of the general instability the laid off employee experienced. Maybe it has something to do with the fact the laid off employee was removed from employment from a company which only had 10-15% PROFITS in the past year instead of the 40% the previous year. One newsgroup item revealed that in all of the layoffs, few had been in touch with employment consultants to get similar jobs at other stations. These people are not only out the door of their station, but the human investment stands threatened....they may be out of the profession. The scale lowers. It no longer matters what size camera one has if nobody want to work, and certainly if nobody wants to watch. 10 years ago you may have been watching TV instead of reading. Now you are looking at this via the internet. The salient point here is that it's not because the internet is that good. One proposal from here, and there will always be one if I choose to bitch, is that stations should buy DV cameras for every employee and teach them some fundamentals of the art of taking pictures. TV is about pictures and working in a station should be about that as well. There ius a lot going on evrywhere. One doesn't need a crew to go down to see the General Manager give that check to Easter Seals. He can take his own damned camera down there and ask somebody to hold it steady for the 10 seconds of the "give" which will hit air. Other employees can take pictures of what is happening in their necks of the woods. Again, it's a TV station, it needs to make TV. The real journalists will know what to do with their gear, and will do it better by a longshot, and be able to tackle the issues which need the attention of seasoned professionals, instead of calling on them to do the professionally insulting fluff. It will cover more area, and eventually make for a better product all around, something which is needed desperately. What is not needed desperately are layers of administrative employees who can't "do" TV, $50,000 cameras, $20,000 lenses, $30,000 edit systems and other pieces of equipment which support manufacturers, who are really more administrative fluff. TV is a business which is far too used to paying more than it needs to for hardware and delivering less than it should in product. Now it's eating itself up by making it's workers bitter with layoffs and desperately trying to get to where it should have moved millions of dollars and hundreds of good people ago. It's worth savingand maybe more companies than Fox and CNN will understand you don't need to buy big gear to be successful. ------Mark Bell------ Provided To You Courtesy of: John Gates - Gates Service Group, Inc. 2001 Dates To Remember © r11/28/00 August
September
October
Important Organizations:
See Ya Next Time, one
way or another, and if it's from the inside out, few will complain about
the quality of the video.
comments? E-mail "bp" editor Mark Bell |
||
