Another good one to Yahoo

[Bob Cook]

A contract is an interesting concept for a sports writer. It probably comes standard with a buyout or a company termination clause, in case the Web site dies. Many newspaper folks nowadays would love such an assurance.

But I don't understand the absence of a benefits package. Is this a practice common among online positions? I suppose I don't get why, if they throw gobs of money at candidates, that something as simple as benefits would not be part of the deal.

It's because the writers are working on a contract basis, not as company employees. So essentially the writers you see online are working as freelancers, either paid a calendar-based or a per-story-based (in my case) rate. The no-benefits thing stinks, but if you're getting paid more than you were at your paper, you can afford to buy insurance on your own. Actually, you'd better be getting paid a lot more (and you'd better not have any pre-existing conditions), given the cost of individual health insurance. Also, in most cases the benefits (mostly health) have a locally based network, meaning that if Yahoo's writers were under the company's employ, they'd probably have to move to Silicon Valley because Yahoo's insurers wouldn't have a network set up for the company elsewhere, at least not where it's just one freelancer.

 

[SF_Express]

Couple of things:

1. At least at the places that I know, the contract/no benefits thing is rare. No writers I know have that deal; that's not saying it's not the case here, I just don't know.

2. We have writers and employees everywhere, and covering them with insurance is absolutely zero trouble. There are plenty of health care providers that are national, including ours.

 

[blondebomber]

I really enjoy reading Woj, but I'll never forget the hack job he, Katz and Boogaard did on the Fresno State hoops program. There was a lot of bad stuff going on but what they reported on was almost all wrong.

And that's a shame because Woj is one of the top five most entertaining writers in the country. Anybody else remember that pawn shop deal? Which of the above was behind that incredibly bad scoop?

 

[daemon]

And why don't we layoff advertising lazy-asses who sit on the phone and do nothing but maintain a news hole to ad balance, and in doing so, limit the entire product?

That's rather ignorant. My dad was a newspaper ad man. I grew up with his ad colleagues coming over to play cards. I heard them talk shop, I heard how they love newspapers, I heard them argue over the paper's content, I heard them express admiration for the nearby newspapers that were better than theirs and disdain for the nearby newspapers that were worse. They fully understood our role. We'd go on vacation and my dad would buy every paper available. It's how I developed my love for newspapers in the first place. Seriously, man, we are in this together. It is necessary to understand that sometimes our interests will conflict, but you do yourself no good by stereotyping people that way.

Frank, I have no doubt that's the way it was. But coming from someone who counts quite a few people on the ad side of things in his circle of friends, I can assure you that's certainly not the case at any of the papers I've worked at.

I've been constantly amazed at how little people outside of editorial know about the inner workings of the product they are supposed to advertise and market.

I've played cards with plenty of ad people, and not once has a meaningful conversation about the newspaper industry ever transpired. In fact, I can hardly talk about my job with them, because of how little they really know about the business.

I'm not saying its their fault, like the poster to whom you were responding, but the non-editorial people where I have worked are nothing like what you've described.

I agree with the spirit of what you said -- we are all literally in this together. But a salesman is a salesman, whatever he happens to be selling. Newspapers sink? The opportunities out there for an ad salesman are plenty. Not so for journalists.

 

[Editude]

The no-benefits aspect is interesting. One of the major reasons some old-school companies (GM, airlines) are struggling is paying legacy health care. Maybe this model, with higher pay and nothing else, will be viable for parts of our industry.

 

[BYH]

The no-benefits aspect is interesting. One of the major reasons some old-school companies (GM, airlines) are struggling is paying legacy health care. Maybe this model, with higher pay and nothing else, will be viable for parts of our industry.

Or maybe they'll just subtract the higher pay part.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The no-benefits aspect is interesting. One of the major reasons some old-school companies (GM, airlines) are struggling is paying legacy health care. Maybe this model, with higher pay and nothing else, will be viable for parts of our industry.

I wonder if the writers are considered Yahoo employees or "independent contractors"

A four-year contract in this business is phenomenal...

 

[cranberry]

The no-benefits aspect is interesting. One of the major reasons some old-school companies (GM, airlines) are struggling is paying legacy health care. Maybe this model, with higher pay and nothing else, will be viable for parts of our industry.

Oh yeah. That would be just GREAT! Only problem is that most companies are abandoning benefits as rapidly as possible and lowering salaries by not even giving COLA raises.

 

[Jersey_Shore]

Wojnarowski begins at Yahoo! Sports.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AvhmwKrQFNOqTn2MtzAM_si8vLYF?slug=aw-stern103006&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[henryhenry]

i read it and wasn't impressed - it's a puff piece about stern - way too soft

stern tells us not to "generalize" about NBA thugs

and then he generalizes about exploitation of underage bkb players

c'mon woj - call these stuffed shirts on their bullshit

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I would give him some time, Henry. To my knowledge, he hasn't worked an NBA beat before. Realistically, everyone deserves a half-season or so to adapt.

 

[Twoback]

i read it and wasn't impressed - it's a puff piece about stern - way too soft

stern tells us not to "generalize" about NBA thugs

and then he generalizes about exploitation of underage bkb players

c'mon woj - call these stuffed shirts on their

I don't see the generalization about the underage players. You're reading something into Stern's comment that isn't there.