Salaries and Benefits for Public Radio Employees

[Mark_Giardina]

Even though this topic was briefly mentioned in another category I felt that it deserved a board of its own.

Yes it is true that many people who work in public radio should be paid more money. And it’s also true that those who are considered to be in top management make a great deal of money, and benefits, from what are supposed to be a non-profit agency. But then again a lot of not-for-profit CEO’s make a bundle.

So here are a few questions I will toss out and let’s see what response, if any I get.

1. What would you consider to be a fair salary for someone working as a newscaster, anchor, reporter or musical host in public radio?
2. What should the top salaries for those in management (CEO’s Vice-President’s etcetera) be?
3. Should the Board of Directors of these PBS and NPR affiliates be more aware of the daily activities and salary structure of the stations they represent, or just depend on the word of the CEO/President?

Please feel free to answer one or all of these questions, or pose questions of your own. I would be very interested to read what others have to say.

 

[raymond_shaw]

1. What would you consider to be a fair salary for someone working as a newscaster, anchor, reporter or musical host in public radio?

Depends on the market and cost of living. If you're talking about Buffalo/Rochester, I would say starting pay, for a less experienced talent, should be in the low 20s. Experienced people should be making in the low 30s and more, perhaps, with seniority. The host of the all night blues show on XXI-AM should be rehired and paid in the low 20s. I hear he was making considerably less when management dropped this popular show for overnight BBC News(I'm digressing a little, but just wanted to get in another dig at management).

2. What should the top salaries for those in management (CEO’s Vice-President’s etcetera) be?

The CEO - who should be referred to as the General Manager or Station Manager - CEO sounds rather pretentious to me(but not surprising) - should make no more than the mid 50s, tops. As I mentioned in the other post, public broadcasting outlets should not be building little palaces to operate out of with the faithful's money. They should be austere operations - then you couldn't even possibly try and justify these huge salaries. Listen to WXXI, WBER and WGMC - can you tell the difference in sound quality? I can't - that's cause there isn't any. I've been to WGMC's studios - they work just fine. WXXI and WNED could operate in such a facility with a second or third floor for tv. Nobody would know the difference. Personally, I always liked working in cozy little operations anyway.

3. Should the Board of Directors of these PBS and NPR affiliates be more aware of the daily activities and salary structure of the stations they represent, or just depend on the word of the CEO/President?

Yes they should. They should also have studio engineering people come to their meetings and inform them how nobody can tell the difference between an operation that runs in a palace and a small, cozy facility. Maybe it would finally get into their elitist heads that they're overseeing a multi million dollar scam.

Also, how do people like us, regular posters on this web board, get on their Board of Directors? I'm not a rich man, I'm not a well paid man, I'm not a man who will ever live in Pittsford, Bushnell's Basin, East Amherst or Clarence. I am part of what I think Mr. Potter(It's a Wonderful Life) referred to as the "working rabble." I also support labor unions. Can I still be on the Board of Directors?? Please, pretty please? I promise I'll make the meetings interesting. If you have your annual Board of Directors holiday party at Locust Hill Country Club I promise I won't show up and embarrass you with my low brow behavior.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

I agree with you about the low 20s for a newbie. However someone who has been in the business for a number of years, and has proven both their loyality and experience, should be making close to $40,000 a year.

No CEO would work for that kind of money at any public station. I say that $100,000 is fair, along with the benfits they get like paid health care, a new car, and other perks. But when I see some CEO's making $250,000 a year, plus benies, that way too much for a so-called not-for-profit operation.

Some CEO's purposely keep board members away from the "grunts" for fear that the working people might tells the shirts what's really going on, instead of the spoon-fed stuff the CEO is telling them.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Public broadcasting has traditionally been at the low end of the pay scale, and has become the training ground for young broadcasters since small-town stations are now largely automated. One of the requirements for any kind of training is that there needs to be someone who is genuinely talented and competent to "pass the torch". With that in mind, I think that every station needs a few "wise old sages" holding down the most important dayparts and programming, news, and production positons. This provides better service to the audience, and gives the up-and-comers critical guidance in their careers. This also keeps a core of recognizable local personalities who should also be key to fund-raising efforts and marketability.

How should those "wise old sages" be compensated? I think that their salaries should be on par with commercial broadcasters in the market who have similar talents, experience, and name recognition. Our "wise old sages" also need the security of knowing that they're valued, and will not be replaced by one of the up-and-comers as long as they continue to perform at a high level. A long-term, annually renewable "no-cut" contract (3 years) would give them that security, knowing that few young people have the patience to hang around waiting for the "old (wo)man" to bite the dust. If either side decides not to renew, both sides have sufficient warning to look for elsewhere to fill their needs. That security, along with the full plate of benefits, should allow public stations to pay a little less in salary in return for a lot more in security.

Up-and-comers will have a chance to learn from good people, and will earn entry-level money. They will be expected to move on within 2-4 years, and should be thankful for the opportunity. If the money elsewhere, either in or out of the market, isn't attractive, they'll have no incentive to move on and make way for new blood.

As far as upper management is concerned, I don't see any reason why the number of people in management shouldn't be lean and mean, with the same focus on fund-raising as commercial stations have on selling airtime. I don't see any reason why the compensation for upper management shouldn't be commensurate with the managers of a commercial station in the market that is delivering similar ratings and revenue. It may be hard to gauge that, since most stations are now part of a cluster, and most managers are responsible for several broadcast stations. Let's go with base salaries that are similar to the local group bringing in a similar audience.

Public broadcasters often have entree into clubs, groups, and societies that are atypical of commercial broadcasters. Rubbing elbows with the monied elite is part of the job. That doesn't mean that public broadcasters have to BE part of the monied elite. With that in mind, I have a hard time justifying base salaries that exceed $150,000 for ANYBODY in public broadcasting on a local level, and darn few of those big-tickets handed out.

Fund-raising performance also has to factor into the equation to provide some incentive, in much that same way that upper management at commercial stations often see percentages in their bonus structures. Bonuses for exceeding the fund-raising targets required to continue operating at the current level of service would add bonus money to the picture. A percentage of the additional revenue could be used for the bonuses - which would be widely distributed to everyone who exceeded their pre-negotiated targets. No more than 25% of the additional funds should go to this bonus structure. The rest should be split between the endowment fund and increasing program quality.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any circumstances where paid outside talent should be brought in to aid in fund-raising. If you have to resort to that, you apparently don't have enough talent available locally. Take the money used for outside fund-raisers and hire more and/or better local people. Keep the $$$ in the community.

Increasing program quality should focus on better serving the LOCAL audience, either with more and better local programming, or purchasing programs that focus on local history, interests, or educational opportunities. Ideally, locally-produced programming that serves both the local audience, and is good enough to attract the attention (and revenue) of a wider public-broadcasting audience ultimately helps both the ratings and the bottom line.

Thanks for reading this far. I'm sure you'll feel free to point out the flaws in my proposal...

 

[dampier]

I agree with you about the low 20s for a newbie. However someone who has been in the business for a number of years, and has proven both their loyality and experience, should be making close to $40,000 a year.

I can barely see $40k as adequate for anything even in Rochester. One of the reasons I won't make a career in radio is precisely because it is very difficult to feed a family and deal with the high cost and taxes of living in NY. It truly has to be a labor of love to stand the lousy salaries.

No CEO would work for that kind of money at any public station. I say that $100,000 is fair, along with the benfits they get like paid health care, a new car, and other perks. But when I see some CEO's making $250,000 a year, plus benies, that way too much for a so-called not-for-profit operation.

This is precisely why I am so irritated with so many public broadcasting operations, particularly when they show up with another one of their Darfur-like poverty pleas. I've been in some stations' headquarters. It's like the Catholic Church claiming they are heading for Chapter 7. I open my wallet when the folding tables they picked up at Sam's Club are losing their legs, or if the lights are about to be shut off, or if the management has declined pay raises. I certainly don't open my wallet for Lawrence Welk reruns. And if my pledge dollars are going to pay for some CEO's SUV with really crappy gas mileage, forget it.

The thinking seems to be that without the high priced CEO, their "expertise" in raising money won't be available to keep the station going. But the scam about a lot of non profits is that without the high salaries, the station wouldn't need to be constantly on the verge of an emergency pledge drive.

I have been involved in non-profit corporate work since 1995. We've worked with literally hundreds of different non profit organizations in Rochester. The majority of them run on shoestrings and dedicate all of their money and efforts into the services they provide. They identify a problem in the community, they decide to do something about it, and they work on the fundraising along the way. Then there are the other non-profits in town whose largest parts of their budgets go to pay salaries for the top few. They identify potential grant money from lists of available grants and tailor-make projects that they believe will win them that grant. If they get the grant, the project goes ahead. If they don't, well, there is no money available for that so forget it. They will plead poverty and cut back everything but their own salaries. Unfortunately, some of these latter non-profits are quite large and well-connected.

Guess which ones I'll work hard to support and which ones I won't.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

I can barely see $40k as adequate for anything even in Rochester. One of the reasons I won't make a career in radio is precisely because it is very difficult to feed a family and deal with the high cost and taxes of living in NY. It truly has to be a labor of love to stand the lousy salaries.

No CEO would work for that kind of money at any public station. I say that $100,000 is fair, along with the benfits they get like paid health care, a new car, and other perks. But when I see some CEO's making $250,000 a year, plus benies, that way too much for a so-called not-for-profit operation.

This is precisely why I am so irritated with so many public broadcasting operations, particularly when they show up with another one of their Darfur-like poverty pleas. I've been in some stations' headquarters. It's like the Catholic Church claiming they are heading for Chapter 7. I open my wallet when the folding tables they picked up at Sam's Club are losing their legs, or if the lights are about to be shut off, or if the management has declined pay raises. I certainly don't open my wallet for Lawrence Welk reruns. And if my pledge dollars are going to pay for some CEO's SUV with really crappy gas mileage, forget it.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, if the public ever found out just where their pledge dollars are going, many of them, like yourself, would stop giving. What is also ironic is that I noticed the GM of a public station in Buffalo makes far less than the GM of the Rochester public operation. Yet Buffalo is a bigger market. On the other hand you have the station in Albany that makes three-times the amount of money in pledge drives than either Rochester of Buffalo combined.
Strange world public broadcasting isn't it?