When you are a 'creative' who has a regular source of income - a job, a longterm contracted freelance position, a partner with a stable career - and possibly with a house with a low mortgage (or no mortgage??!), I think it's distasteful to make disparaging remarks about how other people, often without those stable sources of income, choose to 'run their creative business'. Commenting negatively on how they charge 'too much' for their services is ignorant.
I spent 20 years working in television, mainly as a presenter. In the UK TV industry, 'working for peanuts in your first job' turned into 'working for free to get a foot in the door' which turned into 'companies advertising jobs requiring previous experience which paid nothing other than a credit on the show and a chance to work on another project in the future'. When I saw a presenting job advertised for £10 per hour, I lost it. Several other tv professionals and I started a campaign to highlight this detrimental change to the industry. We pointed out that only middle class, London-based people were able to do this and that the TV industry as a whole suffered because of the loss of diverse voices. We got companies - big proper companies - to admit that they were 'hiring' people to work for free and they committed to change that. We had a lot of success with it.
But...
There existed and still exists a 'negative feeling' about what is known as 'talent' in the industry. In short, 'production' hates 'presenters' (OK 'hate' is too strong a word, but I'm sticking with it). One of the many issues 'production' has with presenters is that 'they earn too much'. And yes, presenters' daily rate is huge compared to others on production, but that is because their job is entirely different.
Whereas an Associate Producer might be working for months on a programme in pre-production, earning money the whole time, the presenter of that series only gets paid for the days they actually work on camera (if it's a decent production they will get paid a lower rate for travel days or meetings etc). I did jobs where pre-production was several months long and during production, I'd do one day of filming per week. So production would have a total of 6 months' employment and I'd have 8 days. Let's say someone on production was earning £1000 per week, £200 per day. They would earn about £25,000 on that series. If I was on the same daily rate as them, I'd earn £1600. But it was my face on camera. In 99% of jobs, I had to provide my own clothing. After the early 90s, if it wasn't based in a studio, I had to provide and do my own hair and make-up. I had to turn up and do my job - ideally without mistakes - no matter what. No such things as a 'sick day' as a presenter. No holiday pay. My daily rate was much higher than people on production's... and people would bitch about it without taking one moment to think about the differences in our jobs.
Also, unless you are a well-established, jobbing presenter, presenters are often unemployed. If you are a specialised presenter (as I was), you will only really be considered for the kinds of shows about your specialist subject. If 'interior design' is your specialty and tv is going through a big 'interior design' phase and there are loads of series throughout the year, great! But if it then starts to go out of fashion, work becomes harder to find. If you become 'known' for something, then every other option becomes pretty much impossible for you- Kirstie Allsopp is never going to be considered for a series about technology. Your other options for earning money are tricky, if you still want to be available for the (endless) meetings and auditions you need to do to get presenting jobs. You can't just get a 'normal' job because you will be having to go to meetings with people all the time. You might get booked for a one day job only a couple days before. You may have to go off for days at a time to do long, extended audition processes... for no pay... and then not get the job.
It's not a great career choice if you have any unresolved issues around 'rejection'!
If you have never worked as 'talent' (eg a presenter, actor or someone otherwise on camera, on microphone, on stage...), then I get that it can seem like a cushy job. I know it's not, but you only see the end result or the 'success stories'. Being a jobbing presenter/actor/comedian/etc is not the same as being a famous presenter/actor/comedian/etc. And, believe it or not, there isn't anything 'glamourous' about it whether you're famous or not.
There is also the fact that not everyone is going to get to the top of their chosen career. It's the same in EVERY career. Not everyone who runs a business is going to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, not everyone who runs a restaurant is going to get a Michelin star, not every scientist is going to get a Nobel Prize… and not every comedian is going to become a Hollywood star and sell out arenas.
The hard fact to accept when you do a creative job is that you just might not be good enough to reach the top. Yes, there is a lot of luck involved - you need to be seen for the 'right' jobs, by the 'right' people on the 'right' day and KILL in your audition or keep writing amazing articles or just 'get along' with the right producers- but even so, there is also this undefinable 'thing' that you just mightn't have. You can be a technically brilliant journalistic writer - you file your copy very quickly, your grammar is perfect, you never make a spelling mistake, you explain everything clearly, everything is impeccably researched - and still never break through to the top. And that can feel really shitty... especially if you see others benefitting from 'luck' in a way you've missed out on.
You have two positive choices you can make: 1) be content with whatever jobs you do get and find a way to make that work for you 2) move on and do something else.
The wrong thing to do: get angry and bitter about everyone else's success and constantly RAGE about 'the industry' on social media.
Not only is the latter option bad for your mental health (remember, the only thing we can control is our response to things), but it's bad for your career. Make no mistake: if you are a journalist who hasn't reached the level of success you were hoping for and you spend a lot of time publicly saying that 'everyone in the media is an immoral money-grubbing bastard', fellow journalists and editors are seeing that and talking about you in private; if you are a presenter who hasn't reached the level of success you were hoping for and you spend a lot of time publicly saying that 'everyone in tv is an immoral money-grubbing bastard', producers and directors are seeing that and talking about you in private; if you are a comedian who hasn't reached the level of success you were hoping for and you spend a lot of time publicly saying that 'famous comedians are all immoral money-grubbing bastards', fellow comedians and producers are seeing that and talking about you in private...
... you may well find your commissions/auditions/bookings slowing down, which will make those who refuse to engage in any self-examination rage even more and annoy or anger even more people.
I don't even work in the media anymore and even I get angry at people when I see them disparaging 'everyone who works in the media'.
Your moralistic choices about what jobs you will accept, which companies you will work for, what you will charge to do the job, which people you will work with are choices for you and you alone. No one else should have an opinion on what choices you make for yourself... and neither should you opine on the decisions others make for themselves. You might be in a much more comfortable position than others and will still be able to pay your bills if you 'refuse to work for [X]'. Not everyone is in that position. Don't make decent people feel shitty because they need to accept the only job they've been offered in 5 months because YOU don't like the company. Just let people live their own lives.
If someone who has an unexpected 'viral' hit with an Instagram account has a brief chance to earn some money by, I don't know, doing some live events around the country and you bitch about how their ticket prices are 'too high', YOU are the dick, not them.
Yea. It would be great if everything was free. Lalala. Imagine. Blah blah LateCapitalism blah. Let's put flowers in our fucking hair...
Whatever, dude... It isn't the world we live in. Let the person enjoy what might be their one chance to earn a wad of cash that allows them- maybe for the first time in their life - to not panic at the end of the month wondering whether or not they will be able to cover their bills.
"Oh, but I save my ire for the really wealthy and successful people."
Do you...? Do you really?
It's long been recognised that "Sex" is to Rightwing People what "Money" is to Leftwing People. It's seen as a necessary evil, but absolutely repulsive if you have 'too much' of it... and the moraliser's idea of 'too much' is actually 'not that much' by any normal standard...
*Yawn*
Making moralising statements about certain creatives earning ‘too much money’ is actually making moral judgements about EVERY creative’s income in the same way that American preachers making moral judgements about people having ‘too much sex’ is actually making judgements about EVERYONE'S sex life. ‘Too much’ is relative. It means nothing. It's dull.
"But actually my main issue is that I really care about people breaking into the industry."
Do you? Do you really?
When my fellow tv professionals and I started our campaign to try and change the industry so they actually paid people doing entry level jobs, we didn't shout at the people at the top in TV- the people who owned production companies or the people at the top at the BBC - screaming that they made 'too much money'. We gathered the evidence, we learned about employment law, we spoke to LOADS of industry leaders, and THEN we started our campaign TO INCREASE THE PAY OF ENTRY LEVEL JOBS. The powers that be tried to deny it was happening or that there was a problem, but we had the receipts. At no point did we say to anyone 'YOU ARE A MONEY-GRUBBING BASTARD'.
It would have been really stupid and pointless if we'd ONLY looked at the people at the top and what they were earning and ASSUMED that people in entry level jobs weren't earning anything. Just because there are people earning a lot of money in an industry doesn't mean that no one else is. Not only did we look for the data, we ACTUALLY DID THE WORK… we didn’t just complain.
If you care, do the work, don’t complain.
"But it's hard to break into [a creative industry]!!"
Yep. And the sky is blue.
When I was 18, the Shakespearian actor Robert Stephens was my neighbour. I remember asking him once if he would recommend acting as a career - I was considering studying acting at the time... He spent a half an hour telling me every terrible thing about acting as a career choice ("You will be poor" "You will be insecure both psychologically and financially" "You can never relax. You always have to chase your next job" "Your life will be full of rejection") and he finished with 'If you can listen to all of that and STILL want to do it, then it is for you.' (It wasn't for me) It is the same for every other 'creative career'. It isn't easy to break into and it isn't easy once you've broken in.
BUT...
Hollywood actors getting paid tens of millions of dollars per film is not why an actor doing community theatre in a market town isn't earning a lot of money. If the Hollywood actor says they'll only accept $10,000 for the big blockbuster they've been hired for, the theatre in Devizes isn't going to suddenly come into extra cash and create jobs for every unemployed actor in the community... If Ricky Gervais decides to work a 'non-profit' year for no money, that doesn't mean that suddenly open mic nights upstairs in pubs are going to be paying people to try out their material... If a best-selling author decides they're going to only accept a low 4-figure advance rather than a 6-figure advance for their next book, that doesn't mean that bloggers are going to be sent some cash. It's just stupid and facile to think the two are connected...
Unless 'concern for people trying to break into the industry' is cover for hating on people who are doing better than you are...
In reality, that is *exactly* what's going on.
It's no way to live. Again, there are two positive choices you can make: 1) be content with whatever jobs you do get and find a way to make that work for you 2) move on and do something else.
For most creative types, 2 is NOT an option. When I decided to quit tv (I was a single mother and needed a more stable income and certainly one that didn't involve going away to film for weeks at a time), I got a 'normal' job. It was working for an international media company as the editor of the film section of their website. It was pretty cool. I was excited! Within about 2 weeks, I was SOBBING on the Tube on the way home at the end of the day. It... wasn't for me... I was super lucky and was headhunted within a couple months back into the tv industry as a 'new media' expert. That suited me. And soon after that I moved into the film industry...
There is a language you speak when you work in a creative industry that exists only there. You don't realise how embedded you are in it, until you decide to do something else entirely... and then you find yourself lost, unable to recognise the world you're in or yourself... and sobbing on the Tube at the end of each day.
Ignore option 2. You need to find a better solution that fits... The only realistic option is 1: be content with- in fact, I'm just going to stop with 'be content'. Be content with your choices. Be content with your successes. Be content with yourself.
If you have chosen to live by particular 'artistic principles' or 'moral choices', why rage against people who haven't done that and are more commercially successful than you? If you choose to paint graphic nudes with mud and algae because it's ART, don't rage at landscape artists who paint with oils and sell more work than you. You can't control what the painting-buyers like. If you have chosen to only create music using handmade instruments and atonal chanting, why lose your shit about Harry Styles? You look dumb. If you have decided to be a clog dancer, don't bitch about those cunty skinny ballerinas and ‘why doesn’t the Royal Ballet do more clog dancing???’ Why would you even do that? If you have decided that you will never work for a person who has ever worked for or even met someone who has worked for Rupert Murdoch, why spend any energy raging about people who work for a Murdoch-owned company when you are SO MUCH BETTER THAN THEM IN EVERY WAY? It's amazing, I know, but you cannot control other people.
You're just in control of yourself, your responses, your thoughts and your words. Think about that and what that means. Then put it into action.
If that doesn’t make sense, I'd recommend reading Derren Brown's book 'Happy'. It will hopefully change your views and help make you realise that you can be, well, happy.
Here's a video I just found of him talking about it. At one point he says this:
"There are things in the world that you're in control of, there are things that you're not in control of, and if you try and control things that you are not in control of, that's when you're going to cause stress, and anxiety, and frustration, because you can't control them. But the things you are in control of are your thoughts and your actions. So that's it."
This is very interesting, Gia. I’ve no times for the Willoughbys etc and don’t watch. Very interesting that your neighbour was Robert Stephenson. I loved him in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
Well said. I've been struggling a bit lately with the 'be content' bit, though I try. I feel like I've worked my arse off for not very much and it's difficult not to feel a bit of professional jealousy sometimes. Externally I might look successful, but I really don't feel successful at all. But that's all on me. I made my bed and I've got to lie in it, even when it feels lumpy.
(Also, I think I have a good idea what prompted this. ;) )