Susan Wood and her ego

[Hitcher]

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

I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.

[jrandom]

I don't like paying tax. You well may.

I don't mind.

I like the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that I am purchasing civilisation.

I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks

[grin]

reeeeeally?

support services for folks with high needs kids

your imagination's on fire with hypothetical stuff for the masses today, innit?

and fighters for the Air Force

granted. fighters are dead sexy, and make pretty noises when they fly overhead.

blonde bints... channel I prefer not to watch.

what TVNZ really needs is the *right* career civil servant to run it.

me, I want to see more programmes about agriculture.

[Blackbird]

I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.

So we prefer the blonde bints on TV3 or Prime??? Personally, I think Susan has tits that emote much better

[Lou Girardin]

If we're going to have fighters, I want piston engined '40s models. They sound REALLY good and would probably be as much use as a Skyhawk in reality.

BTW Susan Wood doesn't look all that hot in her gym gear, so $350K is about right.

[wendigo]

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.

Don't think shes strengthened her bargaining position. By going to court, she has now made herself unemployable wrt any other broadcaster employer. She's also burnt her bridges with her current one. If you want to strengthen your position, you rattle the sabre, not screw the pooch.

My guess is, as a number of other replies on this thread have pointed out, the fad of the celebrity presenter is pretty much spent, so she's going for the big score before disappearing into obscurity. Note the '"significant" compensation for hurt and humiliation'. If she wins she's going to get a shitload. If she loses? Well what happens then. Does she still get a job worth 350 k a year?

[jrandom]

Susan Wood doesn't look all that hot in her gym gear, so $350K is about right.

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.

[kerryg]

I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.

Here's the other bit of MDU's post which you seem to have overlooked

If Susan Wood doesn't attract/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

It is entirely possible that by getting the right person (I cannot say that Susan Woods is such a person, I don't have the information to make that judgement so let's keep this general) in the role viewership goes up, advertising revenue goes up and TVNZ makes more money and pays more by way of dividend to its shareholders...so you get more hip replacements. It MIGHT be justified to pay....I dunno, name a figure... $10 million dollars a year to someone if they draw big enough audiences. We really have to get over this difficulty about high salaries to media personalities IF (I accept that this is a big IF) their big salaries are determined by the big profits they generate for their employer. Obviously if they are being paid inflated salaries but are not performing , they should be toast.

[Indiana_Jones]

I wish I got 450,000 Hawksby's for doing bollocks

-Indy

[kerryg]

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.

Yes, yes, yes.

Pity of the ratings-driven system is that her "Face to Face" show (which actually gave us some informed and intelligent interviews with people worth interviewing) has been canned because of poor ratings. One of the few shows I make a point of watching.

[ManDownUnder]

Don't think shes strengthened her bargaining position. By going to court, she has now made herself unemployable wrt any other broadcaster employer. She's also burnt her bridges with her current one. If you want to strengthen your position, you rattle the sabre, not screw the pooch.

My guess is, as a number of other replies on this thread have pointed out, the fad of the celebrity presenter is pretty much spent, so she's going for the big score before disappearing into obscurity. Note the '"significant" compensation for hurt and humiliation'. If she wins she's going to get a shitload. If she loses? Well what happens then. Does she still get a job worth 350 k a year?

I hear ya - I can only guess the broadcasting industry in NZ is sufficiently small that they all either knew about the situation already or they would have PDQ. Going public might (might) be a move to garner sympathy or force the hand of the employer by making them do something now (rather than last minute when her contract expires) and giving her more time to negotiate "up"

Don't know what happens if she loses - maybe she's banking on a lack of anyone to replace her?

MDU

[kerryg]

I wish I got 450,000 Hawksby's for doing bollocks

-Indy

Would that be a John or a Kate?

[jrandom]

Would that be a John or a Kate?

in Indy's case, I strongly suspect that it would be a John.

[yungatart]

I say she should go for it. She was paid $450 K last year and is now expected to be happy with only $350 k for the same job- I wouldn't be happy taking a 20% (ish ) pay cut and I suspect not many of the rest of you would either.

[Lou Girardin]

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.

Kill Him?
The only thing scary about that overrated hag is the thought that she'd have your eye out with her Parkinsonian hand twitches.
Pilger demolished her.

[jrandom]

Kill Him... overrated hag... Pilger demolished her.

I didn't see that interview. give us a description, eh?

talking of interviewer demolitions, anyone else remember Holmes reduced to "b-b-b-buuuuh, uhhh..." by Maggie Thatcher?

*loved* it.