FCP Editors get paid less than AVID editors for the same work.....

I work mainly in television in Los Angeles, editing and onlining reality and documentary TV shows for a variety of small and medium sized production companies. I usually do not use my own equipment but edit on in-house systems that these production companies own. I am at a fairly early stage in my editing career, and have worked with both AVID and FCP. However recently as I have moved from assistant work to editing and online work I have been working mainly on FCP. From people I know in the industry and from my own experiences, it seems to me that companies using FCP are paying editors (including assistant editors) anywhere from 25% to 50% less than companies that use AVID, for exactly the same work (that is for the same type of show - such as a History Channel documentary).

I don't know what we can do about this, as on an individual level I don't have much bargaining power - but I do know it doesn't seem right. Does anyone else have similar experience regarding pay levels and any ideas for a solution? Maybe this could be a topic of discussion at a LAFCPUG meeting?

A

Been hearing sort of the same thing but have not gotten corroboration. Basically companies hire people and if they really want that particular person they pay that person's rate. However if the gig does not require the "best person for the job" some companies will either outsource to another country or make a "take it or leave it" proposition. None of this applies if it is a Union Gig as your rate is protected no matter what NLE you use, but for freelance editors it may be a real problem. Hard to prove it unless lots of folks come forward with their stories. And stories naming names.

Michael Horton
-------------------

One established company that is paying in the range $1100 to $1500 per week for online editors on FCP is World of Wonder (www.worldofwonder.net).

Perhaps others could post what specific companies are paying them for specific jobs (assistant editors, online editors, offline editors, post supervisors). Specify the system (FCP or AVID) and type of production.

World of Wonder does a lot of cable reality shows.

no question about, avid editors get paid alot more, ( i've been a producer far more often than an editor - i know salareis!) and the bump for avid is usually 35 - 50% more, it's insane and i'm not quite sure why it happens.

I've investigated this and the feedback I've gotten is along the lines of people prefer avid because it's more 'stable' and that the sharing of media (the unity, etc) is far better in an avid environment...

Not sure thats a good idea or even relevant to the question. Thinking out loud here. It's impossible to do followups on anything anyone says or writes on this forum so what gets written here is taken as truth by many.

The question here is, it seems, "Do some companies/indiviuals pay different rates depending on what NLE one uses for the gig? And if so, prove it."

Michael Horton
-------------------

Quote
no question about, avid editors get paid a lot more, ( i've been a producer far more often than an editor - i know salaries!) and the bump for avid is usually 35 - 50% more, it's insane and I'm not quite sure why it happens.

Is it possible that the Avid editor (in this instance) simply had more experience and thus got the 35-50% bump? Would that same "Avid Editor" get a 35-50% reduction if he/she was told he/she was working on a FCP workstation?

Michael Horton
-------------------

Mike Horton wrote:

"Hard to prove it unless lots of folks come forward with their stories. And stories naming names."

So I came forward with specifics and named names.....

Most companies in this sector of the industry have their own equipment - the production companies have their own post production setup that is usually either AVID or FCP. The company then hires in editors to operate the equipment they own. It would be interesting to know from someone doing similar work (online editing on cable reality shows) who is working with AVID, what they are being paid.

I'm not sure how we can 'prove' 'corroborate' etc without people giving specific figures.....

If you don't want companies named (despite your initial post suggesting this is necessary), then by all means delete specific company name from my previous post.

Not trying to start any flame war or such rubbish - just responding to specifics of your post.

A

I have encountered this as well. Companies that use Avid's typically pay between $1800-$2500 for cable show work...Discovery/History/NatGeo channel show level. I have encountered more than one company (such as one mentioned above) that typically pay the rate mentioned...$1100-$1500 for FCP work. Oddly enough, when I went to work for them (my first editing gig, actually) I was on an Avid and was paid more. $2000/week. There were two other companies that I applied to a couple years ago that really balked at my rate and stated that the rate they pay is $1500. So I passed. And they were producing History Channel shows.

Typically they just want editors familiar with the system....and they get the young guys just starting out who want to cut their chops. And they can find them too. So it is more money for The production companies pockets, because an hour long show on Discovery/History/NatGeo is typically the same price, no matter what you cut on.

But I am in a position that I am not only sought after, but can command a certain rate. Because of the skills and ability I bring to the table. Many places, as I said, bring in people hungry for work and who take the offered amount. And since there is NO shortage of people who cut with FCP in this town (throw a rock and you'll hit someone who knows it) they have a large pool.

The question here is, it seems, "Do some companies/indiviuals pay different rates depending on what NLE one uses for the gig? And if so, prove it."

I can...but do you want me to out a company and risk losing a possible source of income? Can you take my word for it? I know of 3 companies that used to use Avids then switched to FCP, or who have both...and yes, FCP editors getting less, unless it is an editor that they want and seek out.

Reality shows...at least on networks...pay MUCH MORE than union scale. $3000-$5000 a week. And they ask for six day weeks. Reality shows on cable...a little lower, depending on the company. I know of a few really good companies that pay competitive rates...and edit with FCP. But I also know of a couple that pay less...but I am not sure if they have smaller budgets. Not used to the reality TV scene. But when I see a low rate for an editor on a History Channel show, and I cut History shows...makes me wonder.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

The scenario you described is very unlikely to happen of course.....

But that does not mean there isn't a disparity......

The way it happens is this: a company decides to use FCP instead of AVID - usually because it is cheaper (which can be a good reason, if the system also does what they need it to do). When they decide to use FCP they also look for editors more experienced with FCP - and they feel they are able to pay these editors less than they would pay an AVID editor with similar experience.

I presume this is because it is believed that the technical skills to operate FCP are somehow easier to acquire, less specialist, more accessible etc than AVID and hence of less value.

Ewoo

Michael Horton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Is it possible that the Avid editor (in this
> instance) simply had more experience and thus got
> the 35-50% bump? Would that same "Avid Editor" get
> a 35-50% reduction if he/she was told he/she was
> working on a FCP workstation?

Yes, it is possible. And yes, I have been that same editor that was offered 50% of my rate, despite my experience.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Ewoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I presume this is because it is believed that the
> technical skills to operate FCP are somehow easier
> to acquire, less specialist, more accessible etc
> than AVID and hence of less value.

But it isn't the TECHNICAL skills that are really required for editing. All I have been asked before is "Do you know how to use an Avid?" or "Do you know how to use FCP?" That's all they need to know about knowledge of the tool. What they SHOULD be hiring you for is your storytelling ability. That is what sets editors apart, and how some can command more money. I guarantee that there are lots of assistant editors out there who know the edit systems far better than the editors, but they aren't hired as editors because they lack the equal or better ability to tell a story. I have been there. I knew the technical aspects of Avid far more than the two editors I managed...but they were brilliant storytellers. I was taught by them how to edit, and wasn't hired by the company as an editor until I proved my ability to tell a story.

The edit system you use should only come into play when the company is hiring you to edit on that system. What SHOULD count is the storytelling ability...which many companies, oddly, seem to put less emphasis on when hiring editors.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Ewoo

This is supposed to be a discussion not an argument. If one does not ask questions there can be no discussion, only rants and raves. My concern about simply naming companies and their salaries is that it does not address the question here. It is simply telling us who is paying what. And, some folks might post incorrect salaries or salaries based on "what they've heard" So when I say name names, its name the names of the companies/producers who have told you flat out, you get this wage for working on our Avid system and this wage for working on our FCP system.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I agree 100% Shane.....

Which is why it doesn't make sense to pay less for editors working on FCP that editors working on AVID.....

But at least in cable TV, that is what seems to be happening in many or most cases.....

Ewoo

Again Michael,

It would be rare that the example is clear cut like this - most companies would not be so openly unfair to their editors to treat them this way OVERTLY (although Shane says he has been treated to this). Rather, companies choose FCP instead of AVID and then expect to pay less than they would if they were using AVID.

Regardless, I guess if we can trust Shane Ross, a moderator here and prominant LA FCP user, he seems very clear that this happens, and has happened to him - although for professional reasons he does not want to 'name names'.

Ewoo

Also Ewoo...a lot of companies that charge less for editors and employ FCP do so because the budgets are indeed smaller. HGTV doesn't have the budget that Discovery has...Discovery Science and Discovery Health don't have the budgets that the main network has, so the budgets for the shows are less, so companies get less, so they buy the cheaper edit system, and have to offer less to editors to cut the show. They know they aren't getting really experienced people, but they might not need it for the level of show they are doing.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Disclaimer: My comments stem from within my experiences in my teenie Central Florida market (from Tampa to Orlando).

AAAHHHhhhhhh.....the age-old arguement

First - My opinion:

The tool should not matter...it's the chops (experience) that should matter. Avid = chops (experience) in the eyes of most shops 'round here. FCP is looked upon as a "discount editing" program because it's inexpensive, easy to use, easy to get, easy to maintain & easy to teach. Some Avid editors (especially PC Avid editors) don't even acknowledge FCP Editors as professionals (go visit Avid.com forum when you get a second & do a search on Final Cut Pro. There's some very nasty comments in there)...they think it's some kind of trendy fad that'll pass. The only way to command a good FCP rate that's close to Avid's is to GAIN EXPERIENCE and have some big name clients / projects on your reel...period. Once your experience gets up around 10 years in the biz, the rates commanded are pretty close.

Second - The facts:

I have been offered gigs ranging from $500 per day to $15 per hour (I really gave that $15 guy a huge piece of my mind, let me tell ya). Shane's right about the budgets...it's all about the budgets. Some places have more $$$ that others for editing & grafix. The thing that boosts my rate down here is the major bonus of my grafix design / technical troubleshooting experience. I am pretty much like 3 geeks rolled into one and the client knows they can leave me alone for a week & I won't burn down the building...which is why I get a lot of remote gigs I can do offsite & just bring in / ship a drive or disc to lay it off.

Sorry, Mike...can't mention any names as I need to keep my freelance bridges from burning. Let's just say that the $15 per hour dude was a freelance producer / director / shooter / dp with a $5,000 budget for a pilot (yikes).

Moral:

Learn BOTH programs & build a GREAT REEL. Hiring Managers / HR folks / Art Directors cannot argue with a GREAT REEL & that gives you leverage to deal for a better rate. Once you are at a level of being sought-after, the rates all blur together no matter what tool you choose.

...my 2¢

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Jumping in here from another perspective:

Around about the time that FCP really matured, AND there was hardware there to support it (Decklink, Aja, et al.), I had a conversation with a friend of mine who had recently started a post/DVD shop. He made two points, which I stilll think about today:

1. Now anybody can do this. We can undercut the big boys on price (in this case, monolithic NY dinosaur post houses) by an order of magnitude, and still turn out broadcast-quality work.

2. But people will say: Aren't you afraid that some jackass in his bedroom on a desktop system can now undercut YOU? The answer is, sure, the jackass can buy all the same gear, but he has to know how to use it.

Over time, this conversation still stands as part of a viable business model to me. We CAN deliver quaity at a good price. But the one thing we should never skimp on is the people to operate the (cheaper) gear. It's economically (not to mention intellectually and psychologically) worthwhile for me (as a producer, which is my main role) to put an artist / visionary / storyteller / or at least competent cutter in front of the keyboard, rather than some fresh-out-of-film-school kid who'll work for half the price.

(But hold on to those film school kids - train them, nurture them - they'll be good someday soon).

I think that this is what people have lost sight of: Just because the hardware and software is cheaper, that doesn't mean everything has to be cheaper. Sometimes I fear that the market bears this out -- people will watch anything, etc. -- but those are the times when I crawl off and read "In the Blink of an Eye" and have a glass of whiskey. Shane - in this regard, your experience makes me feel better.

As a side note, FCP has expanded my own world. Whereas, I used to sit behind an AVID editor making vague suggestions, and have to trust what the editor told me, I can now actually roll up my sleeves and do a rough cut myself, or a demo, or even just make suggestions based on my knowledge of the interface and capabilities of the software. I would never take the editor's job away -- I rely on their skill too much -- but now I know the difference of what can and can't be done. So I don't make unreasonable requests of my editors; but at the same time, I know where it's possible to try something. FCP has, in short, made me a better producer.

To sum up:
NLE on affordable systems = good for everyone

Paying qualified people less than they're worth, or hiring non-qualified people who are willing to work for less = bad for most people (at least in the big picture).

- Matt

...in addition to my post above (and no offense to the Producer / Editors in the group):

I just thought of something else that really ircks me (don't forget...we are still talking about my market here)...

Out of total work chaos & totally booked edit & grafix suites, there has sprung a new "position" from the birth of Final Cut Pro and it has hurt FCP Editors & their rates: The "Preditor". The "Producer" that thinks they are full blown "Editors" because they took a few FCP workshops. Some Producers, rather than sit with an Editor / Grafix Designer on a piece like they should, requisition a FCP station of their own & cut spots...even color correcting & doing "graphics"...all because of Final Cut Pro. I am NOT talking about rough cuts here...I am talking about totally "in the box" spots done by inexperienced people...and these pieces are AIRING folks and an EXPERIENCED Editor / Grafix Designer never touched it. They look terrible & they make a studio look incompetent. They are a product of our extremely busy business and the inability (there's that "budget" word again) to hire on more bodies. It's spots like that, when people find out they were done on FCP, makes FCP Editors look less than experienced - hence the projected "lower rate".

It is depressing...but it's happening

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Some of it is history/mystique: "I cut my first project on an Avid back in nineteen...."

Some of it is Cover Your Butt: If an Avid goes down in flames, that's the way it is. If Final Cut goes down....OMG!!! Who ordered this thing!!?!

Some of it is timing: "I can get a Final Cut system running by three o'clock--two fourty-five with Starbucks. I can start writing a contract for an Avid....."

Most of it is bux: "We're going to be a Final Cut shop. It can do 90% of the work and it's a lot cheaper. Go find an editor."

Koz

Joey -
That's exactly the thing I'd like to avoid (or, when I can't avoid it, that sends me googling for an interview with Walter Murch). I think we're on the same page, even if it's not the same *side* of the page.

Anyway.

This may speak to the relative size of markets. But then again, there's plenty of evidence in big ol' NYC to the contrary. A lot of the places I work in, or know about, are trying to compete by squeezing the editors' or designers' rates. Not cool. And not the best product.

On the other hand, someone in the big office will look at the P&L and say, "X" show worked. And you'll be like, "But 'X' show looked like complete donkey's ____". Who's going to win that argument?

FWIW, I don't think I can replicate or take the place of a really good editor or designer ( I know you weren't implying that, don't worry). However, here is one fact: I know far, far more about the underlying hardware and operating system than my favorite editor does. In other words, when something goes screwy, I'm often the one crawling under the desk, behind the rack; or digging into System Prefs, or deeper; or calculating what exactly the difference between DF video and NDF audio would be after 8 minutes; or (fill in the blank)... The point is: Why would I keep hiring this editor?

Because he's a good editor.

- Matt

Joe brings up a good point - and as a PREDITOR - I will give another perspective from here in the DC market.

1. Started as a film camera operator/reporter/editor in the 70's in Green Bay Wisconsin when news was still news -- We had to do it all back then (Preditors are nothing new here)

2. In came tape - out when my shooting - now just on-camera correspondent writing and editing

3. Then to "the big time" Network TV in Washington DC -- everyone had specialized jobs...I could edit circles around some of the folks who's only job it was - was to edit...and at the same time learned a film school's worth of education from those who were extraordinary.

FAST FORWARD 20 years - Technology changed...the business expanded - companies couldn't get the 1/3 of the pie fees they once received when there were only 3 networks (not 500 plus - and internet) Guess where we're back to -- (see number 1)

I saw the light 10 years ago and encouraged my "editor" only friends at the network to polish their producing and writing skills if they were to survive - the smart ones did - the stubborn ones are now running robotic studio cameras, prompters... or out of work. Most of those editors were really producers - and propped up folks with the producer title who had no idea how to tell a story.

Bottom line -- you MUST become some form of PREDITOR to survive today - the more story telling skills you bring to the table - the more compensation you can command.

I left full time network reporting to start my own production company doing documentaries and programs and corporate videos for large and small networks. I compete with the large production houses....and with my own set up can make far more than any of these programs offer editors per week -- AVID or Final Cut

And one final note on the disparity of Pay for AVID and Final Cut editors. - Despite differing show budgets -- it may be that Final Cut editors are seen as "less experienced" even though everyone on this forum knows that's not the case. It's the NLE of choice for students -- who are whizzes and making the program work - perhaps less experienced using it to tell compelling stories. Avid Editors tend to be older and more experienced -- and that alone may account for the disparity in mindset and salaries. It's up to each professional to change that perception with our reels, our story telling, our sales skills.

Andy Field - FieldVision Productions - North Bethesda, Maryland

I guess I'm a PREDITOR, too - but hopefully in the good (Andy Field) sense, rather than in the not-so-good sense that Joe describes.

Just as an example, for a recent project, I got a bunch of video from a class-A designer / editor. FCP/STP allowed me to create a soundtrack for these pieces that brought it all home. Was it as good as a fine and experienced Sound Designer using higher end hardware tools could have done? HELL NO! Did it keep my client on budget and allow me to deliver on schedule (and thereby get more work for me to give to quality, experienced people)?

Yes. Yes, it did.

Maybe FCP people should be paid MORE than the AVID guys.

Matt

I work on FCP and Avid. My rates are my rates. It doesn't matter what NLE I'm using.

I'm in another market, too. I'm not a Preditor, but I do have skills that are sought after that are "preditory" in nature. I am oftentimes handed a box of tapes and if I'm lucky, a script or an outline. The producer then comes back at the end of the day to see what I've come up with. The producers are in charge of the shoot and the client. I'm in charge of the rest. Most of the time, the producers don't sit with me making decisions like back in the old days.

I've been laughed at by a couple people who have called looking for an editor when I told them my rates. One was a FCP shop, the other was running Avid Xpress.

Long story short, the FCP place never did call me back. They were only willing to pay what I was making back when I was an assistant for FCP operators. When I gave them my "editor vs. operator" speech, it fell on deaf ears. That's fine. I don't need to do every job that's out there. If operators are all they can afford, then then that's good for the operator. I'm really not threatened by it.

The Avid Xpress place did call me back, to fix the problems created by the person who was willing to work for the rate he was originally offering. I continued working with that producer for a number of years until he moved to another state. After watching the inexperienced operator butcher his product and then watching an experienced editor fix it, he just got it. Yeah, his software didn't cost him an arm and a leg, but that didn't mean his editor should be cheap, too.

I've dropped my day rate a few times, and had the potential of getting stuck there with those clients. I knew that was a risk I was taking. I try to start out making sure they understand that this is an "introductory deal", and way to get to know each other and to figure out if we like working together. They take a chance by hiring me based on my reel (which we all know is usually full of projects with the largest budgets, best writers, shooters, creative directors, and audio mixers) and/or word of mouth (which is people who have worked with us on our successful projects. We've all done a stinker or two, admit it.). I take a chance by not taking as much money at the start so they can work within the budget they were given before they knew how much an good editor costs. Once I've proven myself, I tell them I need to start working at my regular rate or not at all. Two things generally happen: They get it, and they start budgeting for my real rate, or they find someone else.

The one's who go off and find someone else...well let's just say that after a few weeks away, I generally start to notice that I don't miss it. With low-paying clients often come extra chaos created by their other "cost-saving" measures.

That's my story.

deb

Quote

The producer then comes back at the end of the day to see what I've come up with. The producers are in charge of the shoot and the client. I'm in charge of the rest.

That's my sitch, deb. Sometimes I will accompany my Producers out on shoots for Art Direction support (eliminating the "fix it in post" mentality on the spot). My main Producer drops off a request & script with network paths to the music / VO aiffs & whatever tapes are associated and the rest is up to me. You are NOT a Preditor. To be a bit more clear...the "Preditor" I speak of in my last post has no editing or design experience...just FCP operator workshops.

Don'tcha love when you get a call to fix a project that a cut rate editor butchered? You would think shops would learn from their mistakes that you get what you pay for (and they end up paying more in the end to get it done right

"Editor vs. Operator" is the perfect analogy, deb...perfect. The "operator" pushes buttons. The "Editor" creates images & tells a story. HUGE difference in pay scale, IMHO.

Peace

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Quote

Don'tcha love when you get a call to fix a project that a cut rate editor butchered?

Totally Joey, the amount of work I used to get - the ones I refer to as "repair jobs" used to account for nearly 50% of my work.

Now through careful "hint dropping" and instruction of the unenlightened, I've managed to get most of my client base to not only think more carefully in production, maybe consulting myself or someone "in-the-know" for those possible "fix-it-in-post" situation, but also to budget in a good editor at a reasonable rate (hopefully me), rather than trying to cut costs, which often as we know is really cutting quality or worst case - increasing overspend.

On the subject of Avid vs FCP my rate is the same, however as someone said earlier; those still using AVID are usually productions with larger budgets.

This is not entirely true, but certainly the ones with lower budgets are using FCP and generally its lower pay all round not just the editor(s).

The BBC for daytime TV will pay between £180 (US$359) to £220 (US$439) per 10 hour day for a freelance offline editor (almost entirely FCP now) - sometimes higher if you are experienced or hired at short notice, but most likely they'll start low and begrudgingly work upwards.

This is due to budgets being slashed across the board for most BBC programmes. They are desperately trying to create an army of Preditors but only for digitising and rough assemblies, this is to minimise spend on edit + producer time at the initial stages. Honestly I don't think for new programmes this is wise, but for established formats isn't as bad for the programme, as it's usually monkey's work and not "organ-grinder's" anyway.

Independents such as RDF and Endemol will pay £200 (US$399) to £250 (US$499) per 10 hour day for a freelance offline editor (FCP & Avid and depending on experience), again they will pay more for certain people/circumstances. Usually they don't try to beat down your rate.

Corporate production companies in my experience will just pay your rate and [to date] I have never been in a haggling situation.

I have never seen a specific incidence where an identical job for AVID and for FCP carries a different rate.

In fact, switching to FCP has cut costs so much on some productions that they can often then afford to pay for good editors and not skimp on the talent.


Ben



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

Quick question given all the talk of money etc, i'm very interested to know what peoples experience of rates are when it comes to Edit Assistants and Technical support as as opposed to editors - i know its impossible given peoples different levels of experience etc , but some ball park figures (or alternatively experienced edit assistants & tech support) would be very interesting, and useful!

Hey Josh

Often in the UK they'll offer entry level or trainee editors slightly over the minimum wage which sucks.

For an edit assistant I'm not sure and it depends if you actually mean "Assistant Editor" which can be two very different things.

The former can incorporate anything around the edit without ever touching the edit and the latter is very definately someone who would digitise and possible do a rough assembly or (the more experienced) may cut some scenes or parts of the final edit.

But as an experienced freelance Technical Assistant something around £35 per hour.


Ben



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

Assistant editors in Hollyweird get paid between $500 and $1680...$1680 being Union scale. Assistants capture the footage, organize it, perhaps do outputs...maybe to quick Radio edits and possibly adding music and SFX...depends on the level of experience. Then there are the Post PAs and Apprentice editors that do all the busy office type work and drive around town on post errands.

Typically a good assistant get and avg of $25/hour and an editor gets an avg $50/hour. More or less depending on show budget and skill level.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Damn I should of moved to LA when starting out! I think my first assistant job was about £10,000 per annum which back then was about $14,000 or $60 per day (working 223 days a year)...

Quote

Assistant editors in Hollyweird get paid between $500 and $1680...$1680 being Union scale

Hey Shane I guess that's per week?

What are senior Editors being paid in LA?

Ben



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

per week?! haha i hope so!

In my somewhat limited experience the lines between Edit assistant/Assistant Editor/Junior Editor and Technical support/ Techy guy seem to get a little blurred sometimes - so I'm not quite sure which i mean Ben. I guess i mean someone who can/does carry out the following:

Logging/digitising & media management.
Suite installation & Maintenance
Play-outs
Support & training
Encoding & DVD Authoring etc.
Small off-line jobs & some online work

I guess what i'm getting at is i have been led to believe that someone who carried out the above duties, including being the first port of call for technical support (and a lot of training) for a post facility, standing in for editors when needed - still comes under the job title of 'edit assistant' and should be paid accordingly in the region of £300 per week.

Would you guys say that is a bit off the mark or maybe not?