Saturday, January 10, 2009

Quick tip for one-man-bands

Okay, I'm seeing lots of work from those of you who are one-man-bands in which the person being interviewed is staring directly into the camera.

You can avoid this (and you should, as it always looks weird) by framing up the person, rolling tape, then standing next to the camera as if there were a photog next to you. Make sure the person talks to you and not the camera. Your interviews will look a lot better.

Of course, this only works if you use a tripod, and you always should do so anyway.

As an added bonus, NDs looking at your tape won't be able to tell if you're a one man band... so you won't get "typecast" in that role.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

In case you hadn't noticed, your station broadcasts in color

Back in the 60's when studios stopped producing prime time shows in black and white, the announcer would start a show with something like: "The FBI... In COLOR!" Disney's Sunday night show was called "The Wonderful World of Color."

So I'm baffled as to why I'm getting so many tapes from women who dress in nothing but black, white or both.

Black of course, is a New York thing, but it seems to have taken on a life of its own lately. I'm not sure what TV shows are setting the fashion standard these days, but women should know that the absolute worst colors to wear on television are black or white. Sure, you can wear a dark jacket, but make sure you have a brightly colored top. Colors do so much for your appearance... adding color to your face without makeup.

Black is just stark and white just reflects to badly that you should really avoid these colors on camera. Earth tones aren't much better.

If you want to stand out from the crowd, wear some primary colors. Because there's a reason no one broadcasts in black and white anymore.

Do you owe your soul to the company store?

Sometimes I wonder if corporate people have mirrors in their homes.

Considering some of the tricks they pull on young people, you have to wonder how they look at themselves in the morning. (Maybe they're vampires and have no reflection.)

I continue to shake my head in disgust every time I hear of a young news person signing a contract and then finding out there is some astronomical buyout clause buried in the fine print.

On one side of the coin, I can see the station's point. A company has to protect its investment, especially if the employee is an anchor. These "liquidated damages" a company will charge you to leave are supposed to compensate the company. Let's say you're an anchor and the station just bought five thousand dollars worth of billboards. If you break a contract shortly thereafter, the station would be within its right to recover those funds.

This would seem fair if the amounts were fair for rookie reporters, and no one is putting up billboards for anyone right out of school. Some companies I've worked for had buyout clauses in the contracts (usually a corporate decision,) but they were fair amounts. I didn't expect anyone leaving to have to fork over a pint of blood and their first born.

But in some cases entry level reporters have buyout clauses that amount to six months salary. I've known a few people who paid two or three thousand dollars to get out of contracts, but some of the amounts I'm hearing borders on the ridiculous. Take that back, it is ridiculous.

While you always want to honor a contract, and I will never advocate breaking one, there are some times when people feel that exercising the buyout clause makes sense. If you're making 18 thousand per year and someone offers you 35, then paying three thousand dollars to move on doesn't seem like a bad idea.

So, one more time, always have any contract reviewed by a lawyer before signing. Many of these buyout clauses are numbers pulled out of thin air, and are negotiable. The day you sign the contract you never think you're going to break it, but sometimes you get a great offer, or you just plain hate your job. I think that some NDs secretly make people miserable so they'll collect buyout clauses.

Lots of industries have non-compete clauses, but not too many charge people six months salary to quit.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

There are times you should be glad you didn't get the job

About a year ago one of my clients was taking a cross-country vacation and decided to visit some stations along the way. She was in a small entry level market, had a good tape, and was looking to move to a medium market. While she was well received at many stations, she got quite a rude treatment from one ND.

"This is a big market," he told her, drawing the word "big" out into a few syllables. "You need years of experience to work here."

The market was in the 60's. Big market? Oh, please, get over yourself.

I did a little checking. The station was a perennial number three in the ratings. Then I checked the station website and saw that they streamed their newscast, so I watched.

Lead story: car wreck.
Second story: car wreck
Third story: house fire

Yeah, that's a real big market product.

Obviously my client didn't get hired there and she was glad she didn't. Who wants to work for someone like that?

I hear stories like this from time to time, about rude treatment during interviews, and it's a red flag for you guys when you run into a huge ego that has no business being a huge ego. Funny, you see them more in small and medium markets than you do in large ones. I guess some NDs need to validate their existence by making young people feel inadequate.

In any event, don't get your heart set on a certain station or a certain job. You never know what to expect until you actually meet people face to face.

If someone is rude or condescending to you during an interview, can you imagine how you'd be treated as an employee? Beat your feet and leave skid marks.

If nothing else, you'll save a stamp by not sending a thank you note.

Monday, January 5, 2009

The dreaded meeting story

Perhaps the worst thing about being a reporter on the evening shift is the fact that you often get stuck with meeting stories. Public hearings, council gatherings, school boards, whatever. You get handed a press release at three in the afternoon for a meeting that starts at seven. So you kill time, go to dinner, and knock out a package that features video of people sitting in chairs and speaking at a podium.

Riveting.

You have just missed out on a great opportunity.

A great meeting story takes a little planning, and a good assignment editor knows these things are in the file several days in advance. If I know there's a meeting about a proposed steel mill on Tuesday night, I'm going to give that assignment to my evening reporter a day or two ahead of time.

But, you're thinking, if the meeting doesn't take place till tomorrow, what's the big deal?

The point is to avoid as much meeting b-roll as possible. So if I know I'm going to be talking about that steel mill tomorrow, I need to get my mill video today. If there's already one in town I go there. If not, I call the network for b-roll or an affiliate in a market that has steel mills. Then I go out to the neighborhood that will be affected and talk to the people while they're at that location. I want to know how they're going to deal with the pollution, the traffic, and whatever else a new business might bring. I'll hear about it at the meeting; I'll see it out in the field.

Let's say you have a school board meeting to cover about the system buying new computers for the classrooms. If you got that assignment the day of the meeting, well, school's already out for the day. If you got it the day before you can go to a school and show what the kids are currently using and what new computers might mean.

Sure, you can pull a bite or two from the meeting and use one set-up shot, but 90 percent of your story needs to take place away from the meeting site.

Remember, it's all show and tell. If you're going to tell what the meeting is about, you've got to show what any decisions might mean.