The nerve

As professionals what do you think of the below?

Description: Gosch Productions is currently looking to fill one open position for a full time editor.

We will bring in potential candidates on an unpaid basis while we train and then select one person to be hired and added to our full time paid staff...
Requirements: You MUST know the following in order to have an interview:
Final Cut Pro, Mac and PC's, Photoshop, and either After Effects or Combustion. Also, knowledge of how to properly operate video cameras and equipment.

The following is a plus:

DVD Studio Pro, Avid, Discreet Logic.

thats insane! unless the salary is like $200k once youre on board...

I saw this too and my jaw dropped!

Seems to me they are looking for people who haven't edited professionally before, but who might know those applications. A young buck who is willing to work for $1k a week...or less.

UNPAID until we choose you. HA! And know how to operate camera equip? Sounds like a very low rent company to me.

Anyone worth their weight in beans won't give this post a second thought.

Where did you all see this? I am not seeing it on Craigslist or Mandy for LA.

i looked them up online, whats odd is they seem (kinda) like a proper studio...???

Surely if they are gonna train people then it only matters whether the person is a suitable candidate personality and drive wise?

Sounds like most British Companies to me...

"Come show us you are serious and we'll think about giving you paid work..."

It's crap but they all get away with it because there are so many people wanting a foot in the door!





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

It's pretty ridiculous. These kind of job offers really tick me off. There isn't anyone on this planet, much less an entry level person, that is knowlegeable in all those apps as well as Mac and PC plus knowing "how to operate video cameras and equipment".

And then, with all that expertise, work for free? I think they desperately need a new personnel officer. Only applicants that know how to engage brain before putting mouth in gear will qualify for an interview.

lol Clay can I send you a list of companies in the UK to flame with derogatory comments about their hiring policies?





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

This is a low rent company, I know them. They've been around a long time and certainly are not hurting for money.

After seeing this, I'm spreading the word among the freelance community here to boycott them.

Unethical, immoral and arrogant--sounds like a great place to work! sigh

Yes, this kind of arrogance sucks . Even in the Middle Ages young apprentices were given room and board in exchange for their services.

mark

It seems this is becoming the norm no matter what country or city you live in.

It seems that people are willing to pay plumbers, mechanics or electricians $50-$75/hr (and rightfully so) but for some reasons editors and assistants are always being low-balled.

And I feel it's a post thing, it seems production people are shafted less. Particularly DPs and camera crews.



-CHL

> After seeing this, I'm spreading the word among the freelance community
> here to boycott them.

Good for you, Craig.

Goes to show that we as a community, no matter how strapped for cash or hungry for credits, must *stop* taking these jobs. If companies fail to fill these positions based on their slave wages, they will be forced to stop treating us like dogs. They do it because they can.

I just got a call from a producer I met two years ago claiming he wants an "assembly editor" on a project with 100 hours of footage, no assistant, at $500 a week, "with opportunity to move up to head editor". I turned him down flat.

You know what infuriates me even more? Cameramen don't get paid nearly so little. When I worked student films, DPs often got $1000, $1500 while an editor got either no money or $500 flat, which is on the high side for student films. And editors have to spend a hell of a lot more time working on the film, and often take on logging/capturing, graphics/titles, conforming, outputting, QC...

I once got the opportunity to ask a producer why the cameraman's 11th hour was more important than my 11th hour. (In my market, 10 hours days are the norm for day rate.)

It was a group discussion about production techniques, and crew overtime came up. They all were talking about "on the set" crew. They all were taken aback by my question. No one wanted to answer. I wasn't surprised.

Why is it that an edit can go into OT, and the editor is not compensated because it wasn't in the budget, but an entire crew can go into OT, and get paid, down to the PA? Especially when the reasons for the edit going into OT had much more to do with wishful thinking and/or poor planning on somebody else's part? How many times has someone come to you with a box of tapes and says, "I only have 2 days in the budget for this", and they hand you 12 hours of footage that's probably not even logged?

I mean, yeah, if I screw up and have to recapture because I didn't catch that the person who logged only had one audio channel selected, then that's my problem, and I certainly don't expect them to pay for that. But when it's obviously somebody else's issue or mistake...

I've been gently standing up for my rights and my time since I started my own business. I've done is diplomatically and honestly, and I actually have been getting clients to pay for my hours over 10. Not that I ever charge time and a half, mind you, but I get paid for all the hours I put in on most of my projects these days. I just had two projects that went over budget. I respectfully went to each producer, outlined my time, showed them how the client's changes are what put us over or how it was mis-budgeted from the beginning, and said something to the effect of, "Here's an invoice with all my time accounted for on it. I feel that this is the most forthright place to start. This is how long it really took to edit this piece. If we need to massage some of these numbers, I'm certainly willing to negotiate with you, but if the client can come up with some more money, that'd be good, too." I don't actually know what happened with the client, but neither one of them took me up on my offer to negotiate the invoice! They paid me in full. And both booked more time in January and February.

I feel that the topic can be discussed, as long as it's actually discussed. When one side is complaining and the other side is trying to listen but really doesn't want to, then that's where it tends to break down. I tell all my clients at some point that I will always be open to talking about money and budget. If we need to adjust our schedule or workflow to accommodate something, by all means, let's talk about it. I hate going over budget when I've never been told what the actual budget is. Sometimes they tell me that they think it should take 5 days, or two weeks, or whatever. Sometimes, I'm NEVER told. Makes it hard to figure out what you're supposed to be aiming for! So then, I ask!

Anyway. Like the old saying goes, they can only take advantage of you if you let them! Let's all stop letting them!

;-)

Great points, Deb. It's an uphill battle, sadly, and it shouldn't be. Clients so often underbudget for the days and try to get us to pay for it. But I think they usually know that it's unreasonable, and I often tell students and assistants to be fair but be firm. Some deadlines are unreasonable from the get-go and we should not even try to meet them, because if we do, then the client's gotten away with saving money...on our dime. A client changing his mind about an agreed structure is NOT a legitimate excuse for adding more hours without paying! However, most of them KNOW when their demands are unreasonable, and as long as the negotiations remain civil and businesslike, and the editing department's extra demands are reasonable, they realize that unless they don't want a finished piece, they have to play fair. We do have that going for us -- if they don't treat us right, and we don't give them too many freebies (bad business practice, anyway), they will miss their own deadline.

As a long time member of SAG, AFTRA, and AEA, these sorts of discussions never came up. No, they did come up, but only during negotiations with owners and producers on behalf of us. Why I'm a big time advocate of Unions, at least the ones I belong too.

Problem is the Editors Guild and other "Below the Line" Unions have been forced over the years to give much away including the sacred "you can't work a non union gig if you belong to the Guild" rule. There is no leverage when you give that away, yet the reality is, they had little choice.

None of what I'm saying solves the problem of course. Deb's solution comes closest but again reality says, someone somewhere will apply for this job and do so willingly and with a smile.

Then there is the Teamsters, but that is another story.

:-)

Michael,

Unions aren't really so big in my area, so I have very few experiences with them. Please take this with that grain of salt!

I don't feel I need a union to speak for me. I'm perfectly capable of discussing money with my clients and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement. If I don't like the terms, I don't have to take the job. Believe me, saying no or not budging on my rate has served me well over the years. I've had long-time clients come to me that way. One in particular nearly laughed me off the phone when I told him my rate. He said he could get some other woman to work at nearly half my rate, so unless I wanted to drop my rate, he'd have to go with the other editor. Turns out, the other editor was slow, unmotivated, and not very organized. He called me in to re-edit her work quite awhile later because she was "unavailable". After sitting with me for just one day, he said that working with that other editor was actually painful, and now he understands the disparity in our rates, and he THANKED me. So, by not caving in on my rate, I missed out on one couple-week gig. He's now been a regular client for four years.

But I'm an independent who works mainly with other independent producers or production companies. In a studio setting, where there's hundreds of folks working on many different projects, I certainly can see where having a general agreement for a jumping off point is beneficial.

If someone takes that job, the company will get what they pay for. Some young kid will take it, work himself silly while learning a whole bunch of stuff on their dime, and as soon as he has real & marketable skills, he'll be out of there so fast they'll not know what hit them. Then they'll have to start over, and realize their options are to hire someone with no skills for what they're willing to pay, or pay a fair wage and get someone with actual skills that will stay the course. Eventually, one has to hope that they realize chewing up young talent and spitting them out is bad business. How long they estimate their clients will put up with talent with a constant learning curve will also likely help make that decision. Creative companies stay in business by selling their talent. When they start selling the gear is usually when you start looking for the writing on the wall. They usually market the gear when the talent is "not ready for prime time". It's a vicious circle, really.

I know it happens everywhere, but I don't think unionizing is always the solution. Teaching kids negotiating skills in college would probably overall improve starting wages. Lots of kids come out of film and video programs not knowing that the "hourly rate" offered isn't necessarily non-negotiable. I negotiated my second job and got a dollar an hour more than they offered. (Which was HUGE back then!!) I didn't know I could've negotiated my first job. My mentor at that first job is the one who told me that little secret. The VP who hired me at the second job told me that I couldn't expect a raise after the 90 day "getting to know you" grace period because of they gave me that additional dollar an hour more upon hiring. After 90 days, I did get that raise, because he said that I was doing such a great job, he couldn't not do it. Every year until the year before I left, I got a larger raise than expected because I did outstanding work. I'm a better editor because of it. There was a significant management change that last year, and that was a big reason why I left. Pay raises were no longer on merit, but on favorite. Several of us spoke up on that by leaving to start our own companies after it became clear that the new management wasn't interested in hearing us.

We're all still in business. That guy got "laid off" not too long after over half his post production staff left, and last I heard couldn't get a job in the business. All of us are much happier, and much more financially secure now than we ever would have been had we stayed there. Just knowing we had choices made all the difference.

My 2¢

Sounds like the beginnings of a reality show, "Editors - How LOW will they go?"



Kevin Monahan
Social Support Lead, DV Products
Adobe
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro Community Blog
Follow Me on Twitter!

The good news is this. From a legal standpoint that ad constitutes an unpaid internship unless they agree to temporarily hire all the candidates and fire those they don't choose for the job (but then they'd have to pay at least a stipend).

In California there are new rules in the Labor Code regarding unpaid interships which were meant to protect against exploitation. Frankly these new rules make legitimate companies like mine want to shy away from offering internships, but in this case they apply rather justly.

In summary, an intern cannot perform work tasks that allow the company to profit. As an example, at a TV station an intern can practice with the studio cameras, but is not allowed to run them for a live or taped show. In fact, the work that the intern performs may even be allowed to be to the detriment of the company. It's such an ambiguous issue now, that our company is really picky about bringing in interns these days.

Bottom line: If the candidates are hirees who will be weeded out, then they have to pay them. If they won't pay them, then they are interns who cannot perform tasks that benefit the company. All it takes is one disgruntled candidate to contact the Labor Dept. and blow the whistle on these guys.

andy

Nice information, Andy. I'm saving that one for posterity. There's just one problem, and maybe you have the answer for it: The company then might hire the person on a freelance basis, and then all that binds them would be the contract terms, and those might include the slave "wages" (now positioned as fees). Do you know a way for starting editors to protect themselves from that?

Hey Guys I hate to be the one to tell you but it is not just the post end of the business that gets shafted. I was a production assistant for 4 years working on everything and anything under the sun. And most if not all the production companies paid us $6.75 an hour or below. This includes several big studio features as well. On one job I was told that if we wrote in our actual hours we would have our time cards ripped up and we wouldn't get paid We had to leave our hours blank so that accounting could fudge our hours. I worked on films where I was paid $100/day working a minimum of 19 hours. On 90% of my jobs we did not receive gas miliage or meal penalties while 80 other crew members received what was LEAGALY owed to them. Remember this INDUSTRY gets a way with murder as a whole. That is why you might have heard the term cinematic immunity. Our best bet is to continue to turn down these companies that expect everything for cost of nothing. Besides you get what you pay for, I wouldn't want to work for an employer that thought so little of me and my talents. There are pleanty of people who have it worse. We have all taken a low paying job at the early stages of our careers. When I first got into post I worked an entire year for free doing intership after internship. Don't get me wrong I think it is really screwed up. But again, it is not just the post side of the business that deals with this atroctiy.

I hear what you're saying, J, but the biggest difference here is that this company is looking for an editor with experience and specific skills.

What this company is intending to do is actually worse than the normal crappy way some companies see to treat their people.

To the best of my knowledge, a PA is generally an entry level position. No experience nor skills necessarily required. But that kind of treatment still stinks!

Maybe it IS a reality show!!

J, I hear ya. Companies see that we film people tend to be eager to get a foot in the door, and they take that opportunity to screw us. I've taken on many jobs promising "a relationship with a production company if you work for free", and once the job is wrapped with me putting in 14-hour days without even gas money, I never hear from those suckers again. They got their free labour, so why should they pretend to value you anymore?

Editing has especially taken a hit (and I don't think any of the editors in here are implying we're the only ones who get screwed) because of the proliferation of cheap editing software like Final Cut Pro. Now any upstart kid with zero experience can access video editing, and they drive our market prices down by virtue of availability. Like Deb, I've had directors come back to me saying their edit was botched by their previous editor. One friend of mine even said his previous editor had used a linear (!!!!!!!!) tape-to-tape system to cut his film! Now, we know equipment doesn't make the man/woman. But most grievously, this guy didn't *cut* my friend's film. The film had structural, expositional, rhythm problems, and the guy didn't do any structural exploration with my friend to make the film the best it could be. I sat with him and another director friend and we achieved more in two days than the other editor did in months of work. But my friend had to find out the hard way.

Then he ended up with a guy in San Francisco who took six hours at $45 an hour (!!!) to output a damned self-contained, full-quality, DV NTSC, 10-minute QuickTime movie back out to tape...a job I could have done in 20 minutes.

As to your question above Derek, the only answer there is to turn down the wages. Freelance work still has to be paid, if minimally, so at least the mark will get something for their work. In the case of this company, hiring candidates as freelancers will seriously dilute their candidate pool because if you have to let someone know how badly you'll be paying them, then quality editors with that kind of skill set will pass it by easily. These guys are trying to increase their candidate pool by dangling the imaginary carrot of "full time", hoping to get someone of quality to sacrifice for potentiall good pay down the road. That's a catch-22 though, because as you've mentioned, once you work for a company for free, you already know how much they value you.

Editing surely has taken a hit because of all the cheap software out there. However, a cottage industry is beginning to develop for experienced editors to fix the screw ups of these underpriced, underexperienced hobbiests that bite off more than they can chew. I've been called upon numerous times to fix pacing, and emotion in an edit, or even fix the technical issues brought about by poor planning or organization of the novice "primary editor". Typically it results in two things: The producer learns a lesson in undervaluing the editor position, and usually they end up as a new client of mine. It's like these guys are doing my networking for me. Good, I've always hated the networking part...

Andy

I agree, Andy. That's why even during down times, I've stopped taking "slave wages" for freelance. I'd rather work on screenwriting or music. Because I've learned that it's the exact opposite of what they promise -- if you show that you're willing to work for "carrots" for the promise of a higher position later, instead of giving you that, they'll just never fulfill their promise. They're getting good work for carrots, so why should they give you steak? And if you ask for more, they'll threaten to get somebody else willing to work for those carrots.

The only way to get those higher positions is to demand them (according to qualifications, of course) instead of compromising and driving down our own market value.

It's very short-sighted on their part. This kind of attitude will only mean that the good editors will stay away from them in droves, and their product will look a hell of a lot worse than their competition. And by the time they come to their senses, the talent will have gone somewhere else. We'll only be content to be f*&^ed for so long for empty promises, you know!?

"Young Editors" perhaps need educating on best business practice they need to be educated and informed on the reality of doing low paid work and the damage it can do.

The key for more experienced people is to work for decent honest producers only.

If you must work for low pay then work on your own projects and maybe advertise for an experienced producer to work on your projects for low/no pay !

The future for experienced editors who want to make a good living in the future maybe to be a part owner of a production company (not editing facility) if you can find a few good people to set it up with.

Try this one on for size. The problem is that FOR PROFIT businesses who are doing FOR PROFIT work are trying to get people to work FOR FREE.

At issue is there are actually lots of YOUNG TALENTED people who don't know their worth. The come out of school with little to no experience but 4 years working with After Effects, Combustion, Maya, FCP, Avid and work for nothing or next to it.

There are talented people who buy a 3 chip camera and are willing to work for $100 a day and include the $7000 worth of gear they just purchased on their credit cards with 18% interest.

If a potential client pays crap and gets crap they get what they paid for. The problem is too often that's not the case. They pay crap and get quality.

SHORT VIDEO WANTED

Reply to: skinmilkvideo@gmail.com
Date: 2006-01-03, 10:28AM EST

Small advertising firm seeks creative 60 second (aprox) digital video about national skincare product, available at mass, for viral internet dissemination.

NO compensation, but credit on product's national website will be given to winning video.

For more information about content parameters & submission deadlines email skinmilkvideo@gmail.com ASAP.

Perfect opportunity for students & young designers to add to resume!



Post Edited (01-06-06 18:01)

Craig Seeman
[thirdplanetvideo.com]

Why did you X out the email address? I'd like to send this guy an email letting him know what I think. I saw the posting on that other job and I emailed and told them they were wrong. Believe it or not - no reply.
Since most - if not all of us on this board are making a living editing, we need to let these places know that what they are doing is wrong.
Will it do anything? Maybe but probably not- but just pehaps they just need to be shown the light.
b-
back to my gig that is paying me a honest days wage for a honest days work.

You're right. It's an ad they posted and wanted people to reply to. I shouldn't protect the guilty. They WANT people to use that email address to respond.

BTW, I saw another ad a day or two later which I believe are the same people after they got a roasting. See below.

BTW, on another forum (would I break protocol by mentioning that forum). They set up a catagory "Ridiculous Job Offers" It seems this ad agency is actually placing this ad nationally.

---------------------------------------------

Video Needed for High-Exposure Web Project

Reply to: gigs-122460072@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-01-03, 11:10PM EST


Looking for a simple, but comedic 60-second "PSA" video/web-short based on a concept currently in development.

Unable to pay for your work at this time, but would be a great opportunity for someone who needs material for a portfolio. We expect high-exposure and you will be credited.

You should be professional yet fun, as well as friendly and a great sense of humor.

----------------------------------------------



Post Edited (01-06-06 18:07)

Craig Seeman
[thirdplanetvideo.com]