| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: online vs. print |
Topic: online vs. print
| Author | Message |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/10/2006 11:49:37 PM | show profile Does anyone have any theories why online editors get paid so much better than print editors (on average -- see mediabistro's salary survey), particularly editors who work in book publishing, when online editorial work is so much easier and requires so little skill? I know this because I've worked as a book editor, a magazine editor, and an online editor. It's really a mockery that the hacks, the scholars of trivia, who work as online editors are paid better than the talented writers and editors who create the content that the online editors use to publish to their websites. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 7:20:56 AM | show profile | email poster technical consolidation Bleak - one idea could be that an online editor does more than sit in a chair and ready copy. With the downturn in the economy post-startup bust the market was flooded with webmaster/journalist types who could write/edit PLUS manage hardware, optimize for search, design pages etc. Corporate too has downsized and fork out a bit of training to get systems admins up to snuff on editing skills so that s/he could take over editing webpages (which elimintated homepage editor roles.) |
| noname1234 | Posted – 8/11/2006 10:03:26 AM | show profile "why is online editorial work so much easier when it requires so little skill?" From where I sit, online editors have the same standards as print when it comes to research, crafting copy, etc., plus they're asked to have technical skills and understanding far beyong what print editors have to have. Also, online editing isn't just about text and photos, but video, audio, community, etc. Maybe online editing was easier for YOU because of your outdated, hierarchical attitude about the "value" of different media. Next time you publish one of these ridiculous rants which seem to pop up on these boards from time to time, remember there are people here who work in all aspects of media who don't agree with your absurd assessments. PS--I don't get paid more than the print editors on my staff, but I promise you I'm asked to do far more. |
| mkelly | Posted – 8/11/2006 10:07:25 AM | show profile Yeah, I have to say, Bleak, that your premise doesn't seem to hold true to reality. Online editors must still meet all the editorial standards of print editors, plus have numerous technical skills print editors do not. Therefore, they get compensated more because they are higher-skill employees. I'm surprised you have trouble reaching that conclusion. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 8/11/2006 10:37:52 AM | show profile also, Bleak, a lot of online editors DO write content solely for online. And I'm talking really newsy stuff, not the "trivia" you reference. Once again, either you're completely out of the loop and have no common sense, or you're just trying to rile people up again. |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/11/2006 11:00:22 AM | show profile sorry, but ya'll don't know what you're talking about. there's a serious issue of online editors being overpaid for what they do, and print editors being underpaid. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 11:27:28 AM | show profile | email poster Do know Sorry Bleak, I do know what I'm talking about after having worked at ibm.com for 10 years... What I say holds true and can take these points with you off line. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/11/2006 11:29:46 AM | show profile You all need to keep in mind that this Bleak guy is a troll. He likes to pop up on this board and say outrageous/silly things just to get a reaction. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 8/11/2006 12:47:23 PM | show profile Bleak is a troll and it's mistake to feed him. However, the part of his/her statement that bothered me wasn't about pay--who doesn't feel they're underpaid, afterall--but about characterizing people who work in one medium as "hacks" and "scholars of trivia." That's just where he/she/it is being silly. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 12:58:45 PM | show profile | email poster troll? Is it really appropriate to post to someone's question and call them a troll? I don't know (nor do I care) what Bleak has done in the past... if there is a topic of interest to me I respond no matter who posted. I too sense a bit of a bait, but that is the risk one takes when responding to the post is it not? |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/11/2006 1:31:30 PM | show profile there is no bait. i'm not trying to upset anyone. i'm upset at what is a REAL problem. i'm talking about places like Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and others who pay outrageously high salaries for doing next to nothing, and meanwhile people who edit books, write for magazines and newspapers, for the most part get paid very little. this is a fact. anyone who has worked in both print and online jobs knows this. and something is wrong with it to me, because someone at MSN can get an 80k salary for writing headlines for their homepage, while someone editing books is like to be paid 40k a year. and anyone who has edited a book knows how difficult that is. and anyone who writes headlines for a stupid website knows how easy that is. |
| tj2240 | Posted – 8/11/2006 1:36:08 PM | show profile It's the $$$, Bleak Online is where the advertising dollars are flowing, as print publications steadily lose subscribers, readers and advertisers. This shouldn't be news to you, actually. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 1:49:26 PM | show profile | email poster "Bleak - ...someone at MSN can get an 80k salary..." All I'm saying Bleak is, get that job description from the 'editor' at MSN making $80k. I will bet you a dinner at the Atlantic Grill that indeed that editor has to manage technical details, metrics, SEO, UCD projects, and perhaps advertising banner rotations etc... No corporation today affords simply paying an editor or writer to create content and nothing more. ibm.com pays $110k start for that job across many of their specialty content websites. |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/11/2006 2:25:49 PM | show profile mailbag: Although I'm sure there are some online editors who have to do that, I know as a FACT that there are people working 80k-plus jobs doing nothing but writing headlines and blurbs for these big companies. And I also know that these people are not talented. In fact, they could not cut it as book editors or as writers for magazines or newspapers. Their job is very limited to one specific thing they do over and over. In fact, the only thing that is challanging about these jobs is to endure doing something that requires no skill or creativity year after year. And it's the money that keeps them doing it, even though they hate it. Meanwhile, people with real talent are stuggling in book publishing in NYC, stuggling just to pay rent. Yes, I know it's advertising, but that doesn't make it right. I also think that something can be done about it. For instance, Time Warner owns the magazine division and AOL. They can stop paying overblown salaries to the unskilled workers who work for AOL, and increase the salaries of editors at EW, Time, Sports Illustrated, etc. I know that the senior editors are paid well at these mags, I'm talking about the beginning and mid-level editors who have a tough time getting by in NYC, and yet they're very skilled and smart as hell. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 8/11/2006 2:30:21 PM | show profile Bleak, there isn't one big magic pool of money at Time Warner or any other particular media company. Or any company in general. Each unit's/property's budgets are done separately, you can be sure, so the powers that be can be sure that an under-performing (revenue-wise) property isn't being subsidized by another one and dragging overall average revenue down. While an overall communist approach to salaries would be nice for workers, it's not realistic in a business sense. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 8/11/2006 2:37:41 PM | show profile The heart of Bleak's complaint seems to be relative salaries based on his generalizations about people's skills, etc. Look, print editorial salaries, particularly entry-level, are notoriously low. It's not the fault of people who work online, or in TV, or in investment banking, that this is the case (and frankly, in many other industries, entry salaries are also nothing to write home about). This is the world we live in. Salaries aren't always "fair." But attacking people who work in a different medium isn't a solution to that problem. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/11/2006 2:41:00 PM | show profile I would guess that there are fewer online editors than print editors. And, yeah, online editors have to have some computer skills beyond Microsoft Office. >> It's really a mockery that the hacks, the scholars of trivia, who work as online editors are paid better than the talented writers and editors who create the content that the online editors use to publish to their websites. << The same could be said compraing print editors to other print editors. In fact, I can condense this futher: It's a mockery when hacks are paid better than people with superior skills. (Now you can apply this statement to any profession.) |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/11/2006 3:16:10 PM | show profile one of the reasons this trend continues is because people shrug their shoulders and say Oh well. Or they're deluded into believing online editors have some special skills (that take more than 1 day to learn). it started with the internet bubble--it was easy money, easy to break into, and so these huge salaries were thrown at online editors. and somehow, even after the bubble burst, the industry tries to keep paying these high salaries for jobs that require little skill. although some businesses have figured out what i'm saying and know they can hire young, just out of college grads to work on major sites for less than the usual amount. and i hope that trend continues. what you'll see is these old online editors in their mid-40s and older, whose jobs are so simple that they'll be replaced by 22 and 23 year old college grads, who aren't too bright, and pay them half the salary. whereas the skills you learn in book and magazine publishing take years to learn. a very good copy editor is hard to find and will be valued for all the years of hard work they put into it. same with a talented writer. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 8/11/2006 3:20:35 PM | show profile Bleak, I gotta say, even assuming you're not trolling, your rage toward this one group of workers seems disproportionate. If you envy what you percieve are the salaries and low demands of online editing, why don't you get into that line of work? You can do more "challenging" work on your own time as you revel in your bloated paycheck. There are great people and hacks in every line of work, and there are over- and under-paid people as well. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 3:29:32 PM | show profile | email poster no talent required I notice you are using book publishing / editing as an example -- to which I was not, just to be clear. I can't say I've met a book editor who jumped over to manage a content website for IBM or Sun or AOL. What Mag Girl said is very true too -- it is often dependent upon the organizational structure - where that person fits and thus paid. IBM only as recent as 2001 was able to convince top management that all comms type people belong under one organization and the head count would be leased out to departments. I was very much opposed to this. What was the next? Layoffs - a massive one which included me. Who does my old job today? A systems administrator in India. Marketing writes the content, sends to the guy and he manages it. I think it does benefit the corp writer to advanced his skills past editing in order to protect himself in an ever changing environment -- for which he would earn higher pay too. |
| mkelly | Posted – 8/11/2006 3:56:54 PM | show profile " i'm upset at what is a REAL problem." C'mon, Bleak-- Brittany Spears bad-mouthing her husband is a REAL problem. This is not. Let's worry about the important stuff, folks. |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 8/11/2006 4:14:01 PM | show profile noname: I am an online editor. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 8/11/2006 4:30:42 PM | show profile So Bleak, are you calling yourself talentless and lazy? At least the job affords you the luxury of saving 1K per month. |
| mailbag | Posted – 8/11/2006 5:16:24 PM | show profile | email poster $1,300 ? Ah. I neglected to say what I thought about MB's salary survey. As with the general PR salary surveys I've read - I don't buy the figures. All b.s. intended to show what value these industries offer to college grads. Bleak, you are very-very lucky to be saving $1,300 a month and earning this money while being an online editor. As I've stated in earlier posts, what you save alone is MORE than what one actress friend and one writer friend of mine earn in an entire year living in NYC. It is easy to assume you are pulling 3figs with the ability to save $15K a year. Can you earn as much being a print editor? If so, I'd like to know which publishing companies would pay more than $100K for an editor who is not already a household name? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 8/11/2006 5:18:00 PM | show profile then i'm really confused. Are you a "hack" and "scholar of trivia"? you've definitely lost me on this thread and the point you're trying to make. This thread touches on some interesting topics but I think would best be handled on a separate thread that doesn't start with name-calling. |
