Susan Wood and her ego

[kerryg]

if the standard of general television was of a reasonable standard it might be bareable.....

100% agree. It's such shite at peak viewing times that I very rarely even turn it on these days. But then it's ratings driven. So reality shows and DIY do-up shows and makeover shows and American crime shows etc etc dominate, not necessarily because of merit but because they're POPULAR. Gotta give the people what they want, even if it's not good for them. That's the way it works unless you have a commercial-free State-funded broadcaster, like the National Program on radio. There's lots of intelligent stuff on the National Program (some deadly boring shite too it has to be said)...but who would watch it if its equivalent was on TV? So for it to work it has to disregard ratings and that can't work if it is run as a business that has to return a profit to its owners.

[ManDownUnder]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?

[kerryg]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?

Nicely and succinctly summarised

[Beemer]

I admit I'm a bit jealous of anyone earning that much money - I may be a journalist but never had the desire to go into tv so I'm happy with my life, but you could buy a lot of bikes for that money!

I think what Susan Wood is complaining about is the cut in her salary for what she can see as no good reason. She is currently on $450,000 which is a shitload of money, but she probably draws in quite a few viewers for TV1 and at least she appears to do more work for her money than Judy Bailey does for hers! If people had been switching off or there had been lots of complaints about the show, there would be justification for cutting her pay or firing her. I know I'd be pissed off if I were earning $450,000 and was told next year I'd be earning $100,000 less.

But I agree with people who say that tv presenters are people doing a job, they should not be treated as celebrities (nor should 'stars' from Shortland Street!) and their salaries should be a bit more in line with the actual work they do, rather than the medium in which they do it.

[madboy]

IMO if she can get $450k, good on her. Plenty of people get paid an awful lot of money for doing what is perceived as bugger all (look at some IT jobs historically). But if the market is now only paying $350k, then live with it. That's the risk you take working in a volatile area.

I have no sympathy for her in that if she loses $100k, then fine. But I can also understand where she is coming from in her legal argument too. I'd be spouting forth whatever crap I had to in order to justify my argument in an employment court too.

It just sucks to know she makes so much money more than me... sniff sniff...

[Blackbird]

There's a lot of common sense on this thread

Irrespective of the amounts and egos involved, if she believes (or more accurately, if her lawyer believes..) that she has been treated in an unlawful manner, then it has to be tested in a Court of Law. I presume that Mediation either failed or was considered inappropriate.

[wendigo]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?

Thing is, with the BEE GEEs, if you don't want to see them, you don't buy a ticket and hence you don't pay for them. Unlike Mz Woods case.

If Mz Woods truly thinks she is worth 450 k a year, why doesn't she do what the rest of us mere mortals do when we are unhappy with our jobs & feel undervalued and underpaid? Go of and get another job. The market pays your worth. Or percieved worth.

[Hitcher]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.

[miSTa]

but she has a point; if her services were worth $450K last year, then, well...

But she is the only one who thinks her services are worth $450K, thats the difference.

As for taking your employer to court, ridiculous, time to say "fuck you" and move on.

[ManDownUnder]

Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.

Both are paid according to the amont of viewership they attract.

If Susan Wood doesn't sttract/retain the viewership, the revenue going to the station by way of advertising drops, and her employer is quite entitled to pay her higher or lower depending on that revenue generating ability.

Whether the revenue streams are in the public or private sector is a secondary point surely?
MDU

[ManDownUnder]

Thing is, with the BEE GEEs, if you don't want to see them, you don't buy a ticket and hence you don't pay for them. Unlike Mz Woods case.

If Mz Woods truly thinks she is worth 450 k a year, why doesn't she do what the rest of us mere mortals do when we are unhappy with our jobs & feel undervalued and underpaid? Go of and get another job. The market pays your worth. Or percieved worth.

As per my post to Hitcher, maybe that's what we're seeing. The public isn't watching, the ratings are down, the money from ads ain't pouring in... and she's being given an offer to consider.

Seems like shes making some noise and or posturing to see if she can improve the offer, and I expect TVNZ are doing what they can to keep it as low as possible. It's negotiating a new contract.

No biggy - just people making noise while trying to determine an agreed rate of pay.

[kerryg]

Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.

At the risk of being PEDANTIC (heaven forefend) it can probably be argued that she is not being paid from taxpayer funds in that sense. She works for an SOE that operates like a private company. Its management have a responsibility to generate revenue so that it returns a dividend to its shareholders ,and so should make management decisions based on the same kind of criteria that private sector managers do. If they pay Susan Woods/whomever $$$ to retain her services because they consider that that amount is her value to the business measured by viewer numbers (and so advertising revenue) they are investing in an asset in order to produce profit. It is far too simple to think of her cost as simply an expense.

[kerryg]

She present the news! Not stars in it!

Actually that's open to argument. How many people would watch the news if you or I presented it, Paul ? The front-person is a performer, a personality. That's why a good one has a high value.

[rogson]

The fact is Paul Holmes leaving his "celebrity fronted" show and not being able to take his viewers with him has been quite an eye opener for media watchers.

They have realised the "celebrity" fronting the show doesn't have the influence they thought. Its only natural that would lead to an attempt to devalue the celebrity role.

And to the Board of TVNZ, please explain to me how appointing a celebrity to run a business that employs celebrities doesn't raise conflict of interest issues.

[Lou Girardin]

The fact is Paul Holmes leaving his "celebrity fronted" show and not being able to take his viewers with him has been quite an eye opener for media watchers.

But not a surprise to those with common sense. The ratings never dropped when Holmes had fill-ins taking his place.
The TV industry does appear to be a huge circle jerk at times, a bit like Parliament.