Similarities between aviation and television industries

[jrh]

Today in one of my communications classes a local TV news anchor came in and spoke. I was really suprised by the similarities between the television and aviation industries. Among the things he mentioned about the television industry:

--Starting pay is often in the $18k - $20k range
--You need to work 10, 12, even 14 hour days
--Everything is extremely competitive--he once saw a stack of single sheet resumes literally piled a foot high at a job fair
--You need to take whatever you can get for a first job, even if that means moving across the country
--Advancement comes from working hard and proving yourself, then when the person above you moves on, you take their place
--The burnout rate of journalists on the low end of the industry is very high--many people wash out
--The biggest motivating factor that keeps people going, even with low pay and long hours, is the chance to be at the top, broadcasting in a large market
--You have to really, really, really love the job in order to do it
--He loves his job

What's my point with saying this? Not much. I don't want to start a thread of complaining about how much the industry sucks. I just thought it was interesting that we're not alone.

[C150J]

In addition, there are "upgrade similarities." I have two friends who went into broadcasting after college:

- Person A chose to work out of CNN headquarter in ATL (was an intern in college). Fairly good QOL, nice place, etc. She is a "gopher" right now - the most she'll do is collect supporting documents for an anchor. Great experience, but long "upgrade" to her desired position.

- Person B, although she had an amazing ABC news internship in school, moved to Alaska to start immediately in the field. She is now the lead female anchor on the 10PM news. NOT where she wants to be geographically, but she has "made it to captain."


J.

[Champcar]

Gotta pay your dues somehow and weed out the weak links. Thats just they way it is, nothing you can do to change it.

[CoBuilder]

It's true older, more experienced professionals say there are more opportunities these days, but also more competition as progress in all sectors of life is made. It's like building wider and more highways to relieve congestion, but also results in even more cars, so more congestion than before. You have to slug it out these days.

[TonyC]

Reporters have to invest considerable energy, time, and money into obtaining qualifications to even begin as an apprentice.


Reporters have to take comprehensive tests every six months to determine if they are fit to continue in the industry. Failure of these tests spell the end of their television career.


Reporters must undergo semi-annual physical examinations to determine their fitness for employment. Failure of these tests spell the end of their television career.


Reporters begin at the bottom of the ladder whenever they change employers. One can work him/herself to the top of the morning show ladder, for example, and then change networks, where they begin again in the local news room... ooops, I guess Katie didn't do that.



.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by TonyC

Reporters have to invest considerable energy, time, and money into obtaining qualifications to even begin as an apprentice.

Yeah...pretty much. There's no way you'd even get an entry-level job without a degree.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Reporters have to take comprehensive tests every six months to determine if they are fit to continue in the industry. Failure of these tests spell the end of their television career.

I would say every story is a test. A good reputation is everything in journalism, and it's not hard to mess that up with a few big flubs/factual errors.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Reporters must undergo semi-annual physical examinations to determine their fitness for employment. Failure of these tests spell the end of their television career.

Oh...I'm getting the sarcasm now.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Reporters begin at the bottom of the ladder whenever they change employers. One can work him/herself to the top of the morning show ladder, for example, and then change networks, where they begin again in the local news room... ooops, I guess Katie didn't do that.

I never said it was a perfect parallel between the full spectrum of both industries.

But here's something interesting: I asked the reporter why the top anchors in large markets get paid so well when there are so many people underneath them who are willing to work for beans. He said it all comes down to the viewers. Viewers don't want to see their favorite TV personality coming and going every three months.

If a network were to pay their top anchor low wages, another station would be happy to treat them better, for longer, and the reporter would jump over to somewhere else. That would make the viewers upset and the station would get lower ratings. That is something that definitely sets the two industries apart.

Too bad "viewers" (passengers) don't have any reason to be interested in the individual pilots.

[whaleroast]

Another similarity: Most of the flight attendants look like Maude, Mama from Mama's Family, or Mr. Belvedere.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by jrh

If a network were to pay their top anchor low wages, another station would be happy to treat them better, for longer, and the reporter would jump over to somewhere else. That would make the viewers upset and the station would get lower ratings. That is something that definitely sets the two industries apart.

I must've missed something - the only thing I care about when I watch the news is if the person puts me to sleep or not. But kudos to these anchors for making mgmt believe that viewers actually care !

Pilots should start that too - although unfortunately I'm not very attractive, and am pretty boring, so I probably wouldn't fair too well.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I must've missed something - the only thing I care about when I watch the news is if the person puts me to sleep or not. But kudos to these anchors for making mgmt believe that viewers actually care !

It's not the anchors, it's the Nielsen Media Research numbers

Higher Nielsen ratings = proof of bigger audience = higher advertising fees = bigger profits

If ABC tried to put John Doe from the Springfield local news against somebody like Tom Brokaw at NBC, viewers would pick NBC. It might not seem like a big difference, but it is.