Workaholics Anonymous: Who in Media Works the Hardest?

By Sasie Sealy and Alita Edgar

March 15, 2001

We all know that people in the media work crazy hours. It's part of the unspoken code that accompanies all the glamour, the perks, and the chance to do something you love. But how bad is it really? Are media professionals on par with investment bankers in their overtime insanity, or is all that complaining unjustified bravado? Are the hours the same for TV and print jobs, or do online editors wear the overworked crown? Those questions might be a lot harder to answer than you think simply because media people rarely work normal hours. Katie Couric is up bright and early taping the Today Show while most of us are in bed. When a film editor may be stuck in the editing room long past five o'clock; book editors take manuscripts home, and freelancers can never escape their work. Still, everyone in media secretly loves to complain that they have it the worst.

So, who ARE the biggest workaholics in media? The Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps us all together as "professional specialty workers," but the Princeton Review puts film directors in first place at 65 hours per week, followed closely by film editors and journalists. Graphic designers and writers constitute the leisure class at 40 hours per week. Yet even a casual inquiry quickly reveals that these numbers don't tell the whole story. As one assistant in an independent film studio puts it, "[My boss] probably works like 35-40 hours in the office, but he spends most of his life on his cell phone." Surprise, surprise--working in media isn't just a job. It's a way of life. Nifty tools like laptops and mobile phones simply enable that lifestyle, and for industries like film in which deals are made moment-to-moment, those tools become a necessity. Of course, working at home didn't start with the PowerBook. "Editors have always read manuscripts on weekends, so it's really hard to explain how much people in publishing work because a lot of them do their work at home," says one publishing insider. An editor at a publishing house will work longer hours than someone in sales; the development exec at a studio will put in more time than his assistant. People who regularly do work away from the office--script readers, book editors, deal-closers--are the ones who end up working more on average.

However, averages are not the only yardstick to go by because many in the media industry describe their work as cyclical. Jeff Weiser, the editor-in-chief at Sputnik7.com (an Internet broadcast network) admits to pulling a few all-nighters in the office. "Sure, there are times when I'll work around the clock for a week, but it definitely comes in ebbs and flows." Wilfredo Diazdis, a print graphic designer for the Odgis & Co. agency, concurs, "There are hot times when you might work 60-70 hours, but there are times when we have nothing to do." For journalists, their hours can fluctuate with what beat they're assigned and what's happening in the world. WABC Channel 7's Assignment Desk Editor, Mark Crudle, estimates his workweek at an average of 60 hours per week, but every journalist knows that breaking stories don't necessarily fit into an average work week. We can all relate to this kind of sporadic work schedule. Deadlines naturally create crunch times, and deadlines abound in the media industry.

What is surprising is the contrast between similar jobs in different industries. Diazdis, a print graphic designer, works an average of 50 hours a week, far beyond the Princeton Review's average, but acknowledges that his counterparts in web design probably work an extra 5-10 hours more from their computers at home. When asked if he ever takes work home, his response is, "I don't work at home--no way, Jose." The Industry Standard's "Internet Workforce Compensation Study 2000" found that the average net worker puts in 50.5 hours per week--definitely above the average 40.2 hours of the "professional specialty worker." Dana Goodyear, an editorial assistant at The New Yorker, also notes some differences between print and online, saying, "I think our hours are probably more regular than those of people at online magazines. But I think the editing process is not as thorough and obsessive online as in the magazine I work for; so online editors may work at later or odd hours, but it doesn't seem like as much fussing goes on for each piece that is posted on a site." One music producer who has worked in the music, film, and online industries (and who wished to remain anonymous) gives the workaholic crown hands down to those in the film industry. He describes his time at Artisan Entertainment as "in by 8:30, out by 10:30 - you felt guilty for not going in." So maybe the Princeton Review was right to name directors number one after all.

In a recent online discussion, mediabistro.com members didn't hesitate to nominate the people on the support side as being the hardest workers. A book publishing source says, "Hands down: the publicity department. They could be here all night long working their butts off and there would still be a rock left unturned, a missed opportunity. It seems like a painful existence." On our bulletin board, one member called media buyers "the unsung heroes" of the media world. "They have to put up with egotistical account executives, flaky clients, and a horde of ad space reps all wanting to be their new best friend…Give the media buyer more money and recognition. A good one will make you a hero. A bad one will cost you the client."

Tight deadlines are another stress factor independent of the actual number of hours you clock. One of our members testifies, "As someone who has written for print but who has spent the bulk of his career in broadcasting…I can tell you that the most difficult and challenging work is in radio. Don't even talk to me about deadlines for magazines and newspapers...let's talk about hourly deadlines. Or, 90 seconds before you're set to go on the air, bombs go off in Iraq and your entire first section has to be rewritten in less than a minute…. Also, the schedules are ungodly. No day or hour is sacred. Morning-drive radio requires you to be in anywhere from midnight to 3:00 A.M. You have to be quick, sharp...and be able to do it in the middle of the night, often with little sleep. There's no such thing as a deadline "extension." We are ruled by the clock. Also, as I'm sure you probably haven't guessed, there's no such thing as a "lunch hour" for those of us in the radio newsroom. I've often even had to cross my legs in the studio because I don't have 40 seconds to run to the men's room."

Members also bemoaned the backbreaking schedule of smaller dailies and weeklies. One editor of a small weekly paper said, "Sometimes 70-80 hours wasn't unusual. I had to drive 20 miles one-way to put out my paper and sometimes had to drive back, cover a school board meeting, drive back to where I laid out my paper, then write my story and paste it up. There was more than one night I got home at 7 a.m. or later. Small weeklies and small dailies can be killers if you are covering the news and not just filling up the paper with crap."

They also pointed out that the number of hours you "work" doesn't necessarily correlate with how hard you work. One member says that working astronomical hours in magazine editing is a sign of "poor planning, poor management, and massive egos. I always say putting out a magazine is hardly brain surgery. It's interesting and challenging and has its share of stresses, yes, but if you create a workable schedule and stick to it, it can work like a smooth Swiss timepiece." They also took issue with the idea of trying to compare different occupations and judge which is hardest. "Their energies are spent differently, but it would be unfair to say any single occupation has it worse than others. What's more, I know of no correlation between working harder/hardest and the money one makes. If there were such a connection, I'd be dangling my feet in Tahitian waters right now."

All in all, who the biggest workaholics are depends on who you ask. No one wants to seem as if they have to work all the time, but of course no one is really going to admit they eat bonbons at their desk or take two-hour lunches to peruse sample sales either. It's a delicate balancing act, keeping your finger on the pulse while maintaining a normal life, or cultivating an air of charming delinquency without prompting raised eyebrows for coming in at ten. Just remember--we're all working hard, but working too hard is never good for you. Maybe those three-martini lunches should make a comeback.

Michelle Rafter evaluates the costs of those long hours for Inside.com

Suck.com's Polly Esther takes a skewed look at the American Work Ethic