Abstract
This article examines the position of the “runner” as an entry-level route into film and television production. Through the analysis of publicly available industry guidance materials, desirable characteristics and dispositions associated with working as a runner are identified. A recurring understanding emerges in these materials that the “rite of passage” of working as a runner is a necessary step for those seeking to break into film and TV production. In turn, tensions are revealed with perspectives from higher education students who question the value of mundane entry-level work and stress their degree experiences as a means to negotiate and challenge seemingly established career pathways.
This article examines working as a runner as an entry-level route into film and TV production in the United Kingdom. The National Careers Service (2012) identifies working as a runner as a common starting point in film and TV production, and the following overview by Channel 4 (n.d.) lists a range of tasks that are often undertaken: A runner’s usual tasks will be things like answering the office phones, delivering post, making tea and coffee, preparing meeting rooms, collecting equipment, buying lunch for other team members, photocopying documents, collecting VISAs and getting props or costume items. Sometimes runners can be expected to help put footage onto the edit machines and maintain equipment.
This U.K.-specific account of the runner as an entry-level position has common ground with international film and TV production, and the practice of working up from the bottom is a well-established industry norm (Randle and Culkin 2009). Creative Skillset (2008a), the U.K. Creative Industries Sector Skills Council, identifies working as a runner as the “way in” to a career in film production and in doing so echoes a range of other industry guidance materials that set out career pathways for aspiring media workers. To examine understandings and practices of “breaking in” and “making it” as media workers, this article contrasts industry guidance materials with the perspectives of higher education students embarking on careers in film and TV production.
Part one situates the investigation of film and TV production runners with reference to existing studies on media industries production cultures and addresses the labor market conditions within which runners operate. Part two addresses methodology and outlines the two-part analysis comprising of industry guidance materials and interviews with higher education students. The analysis of publicly available industry guidance materials in part three identifies desirable characteristics and dispositions associated with working as a runner and “rites of passage” accounts that locate the runner as a necessary step for those seeking to establish careers in film and TV production. In turn, interviews with higher education students discussed in Part four reveal competing perspectives on established career pathways, as students question the value of mundane entry-level work and stress the experiences gained during their university degree course.
Part One: Production Runners and the Film and TV Labor Market
The runner has a wide currency as an industry entry-level position and the 2006 Creative Skillset Employment Census records show there were 650 full-time and 1,450 freelance “runners.” This article uses the term “position” in recognition of the discontinuation of this occupational category in subsequent Creative Skillset workforce surveys (Dan Wilks, Creative Skillset, 2011, personal communication) and its absence from Creative Skillset’s (2013) National Occupational Standards for Production (Film and TV). The term “position” also signifies the amorphous nature of working as a runner as seen through differences in paid/unpaid status and the variety of related tasks and activities. In his discussion of work histories in TV, Paterson (2000, 499) suggests that “the organizational element within which careers are hatched is an important point of comparison between individuals.” While there is a lack of occupational status and clarity regarding working as a runner, it is a common way through which careers are hatched. More specifically, it is a widespread experience for those on internships and work placements and those seeking to make their way into a range of media industries sectors. In the analysis of film and TV production industry roles and career pathways, the work of the runner is worthy of dedicated and sustained analysis.
There is a significant body of academic research into cultural and media work (see Banks 2007; Banks et al. 2013; Deuze 2007) and media industries production cultures (see Caldwell 2008; Mayer 2011; Mayer et al. 2009). To examine the work of a runner and how it fits within established media industries production hierarchies, this article draws links with questions of practices and power (Havens and Lotz 2012). Practices form a layer of Havens and Lotz’s (2012, 128) “Industrialization of Culture” framework and specifically refer to “the particular roles of individual workers in media industries and the day-to-day routines in which they participate.” Havens and Lotz’s framework is helpful for locating the position of runner in relation to the wider operations and hierarchies within film and TV industries and the associated issues of power. In examining working as a runner, this article pays close attention to the experiences of individual workers within an occupational grouping and the capabilities, skills, and dispositions associated with that position within a wider industry context.
The runner is a position that, along with those on work placement and internships, is held up as a way of gaining experience and insights for breaking into industry; it is also intricately interconnected with industry operating practices and strategic planning. In her discussion of causalisation and deteriorating working conditions in U.K. TV, Ursell (2000) addresses issues of workforce status and hierarchy. Referring to the use of free labor as a coping strategy for diminishing budgets characterizing commissions in TV, Ursell illustrates how individuals’ attempts to break into and make it in TV are intricately intertwined with wider organizational structures. On similar ground, Holt and Lapenta (2010, 225) address the reliance on certain roles and working conditions within the media industries when they emphasize how “the relation between dependence and independence for the individual creative worker is increasingly defined in relation to the market and to industrial employment conditions.” This point resonates with wider policy analysis that critiques employability as a matter of individual attributes with little reference to employment structures and labor markets (see Keep 2012; Moreau and Leathwood 2006). Along these lines, Banks and Hesmondhalgh (2009, 426) identify the “systematic impossibility for everyone to succeed in a market system” and Comunian et al. (2011) in their analysis of creative graduates’ career opportunities across creative disciplines reveal poor job prospects (on labor oversupply, see also Oakley 2009, 2013). Alongside poor job prospects and challenges in finding employment, the oversupply of industry entrants can underpin an employer’s position of strength and lead to extended “entry tournaments” (Stoyanova and Grugulis 2012) and prolonged internship work (Carrot Workers Collective 2011; Lee 2013). Drawing connections between the position of the runner and wider industry operating structures and conventions helps in highlighting the wider issues at stake in this discussion of how career pathways can be understood and constructed.
Mathieu (2012, 30) considers the issue of careers in creative industries by suggesting that “the sweet and sour of careers can only be individually experienced, but the objective structural conditions pervasive in specific industries seem to mass produce particular subjective experiences.” As an established body of literature has identified, there are a number of structural conditions and workforce challenges common to working in the cultural and creative industries. These include irregular work and short-term contracts; little job security, unequal earnings; uncertain prospects; and a growing workforce with limited opportunities (see Banks et al. 2013). These conditions and challenges, while characterizing “cultural work” more generally, are readily identifiable with working as a runner within film and TV production. Even though uncertain working conditions are apparent and the activities and responsibilities involved vary, there remains a steady (over)supply of new entrants.
Drawing on British Film Industry (BFI) Tracking Data, Paterson points to a “constant push from newer entrants for available work” (Paterson 2000, 499) and suggests that “the glamour and attractiveness to new entrants mask the attrition of those for whom the conditions of employment become unacceptable” (Paterson 2000, 501). Similarly, Hesmondhalgh and Baker’s (2011, 124–27) research conducted over ten years after the BFI survey points to a steady supply of aspiring entrants into TV. The dynamics of keen, aspiring new entrants “pushing in” and jaded, burned out established workers “pulling out” is a key aspect of how openings emerge for film and TV production runners. While this labor market push and pull process is well established, it is also characterized by different understandings of when and how entry should take place.
Entry and initiation into industry are significant issues in the relationships between established and emerging industry workers. For established industry workers, those entering industry should have gained experience through an often-challenging initiation process in which motivation and drive are crucial to success. In their analysis of skills acquisition in film and TV, Grugulis and Stoyanova (2009, 140) highlight a “community model” in which “newcomers are not just taught how to do a job, they are socialised into a way of life with its own particular values, priorities and forms of behaviour.” Their findings connect with this study in terms of the values and priorities that industry guidance materials set out in describing careers in film and TV production. Grugulis and Stoyanova (2009, 139) go on to highlight how “people are expected to learn through employment by taking part in various projects, watching others perform tasks, appreciating what production involves and working their way up through simple jobs to high skilled work.” These comments on career progression resonate with Hesmondhalgh’s (2010, 246) analysis on the division of labor within the cultural industries, where some people take “more of the creative, demanding, challenging, but also rewarding work, especially that around symbol-making and craft skills” and others are “involved in ‘humdrum’ (Caves 2000) routine tasks.” These critical perspectives on creative labor help in drawing out how forms of career learning and progression are situated within established hierarchies of creative labor. For instance, the extant cultural understandings held by established workers on what is involved in breaking in and making it.
In a later discussion exploring their ethnographic research in a TV production company, Grugulis and Stoyanova (2011) are able to highlight how undertaking routine tasks is part of a legitimation process. They go on to reveal the frustrations that “novices,” such as runners, feel and the “mis-match between the mundane administrative tasks they were assigned and the development jobs (‘stretchwork’) that would facilitate careers in the industry” (Grugulis and Stoyanova 2011, 344). In short, the enthusiasm and keenness to put effort towards any area required is of paramount importance, and this is exchanged for the possibility of greater rewards and career advancement. As this article now examines, industry guidance materials prominently emphasize attitudes and dispositions such as determination and motivation, and the advice is repeated that working as a runner is the requisite starting point for future career advancement.
Part Two: Methodology
This study brings together analysis of industry materials and interviews with higher education students who have experience of working as a runner, to examine how media professionals give meaning to the work they do (Deuze 2007; Deuze and Lewis 2013). Analysis takes place in two parts: first, the expectations and assumed career pathways into working in film and TV production set out in industry guidance materials are examined, and second, higher education students are interviewed to examine their understandings and perspectives on these potential career pathways.
“Runner” is understood in this study as an umbrella term. As Judge (2009) outlines, there are a number of different positions and scenarios, and detailed job descriptions and accounts of being a runner are available for in-house, location and studio, rushes, and post-production. For example, the Office runner/Assistant “Inside View” interviewee notes that as far as running goes, I found working in features a completely different ball game because you’ve got a hell of a lot more responsibility. Working on a commercial you are just a runner—a dogsbody, but working on a film there is much more to your job. (Judge 2009, 161)
Recognizing differences across office, studio, location, production, and post-production contexts is important for noting the different career possibilities and value judgments across industry sectors. Moreover, “runner” is a discursively constructed term with specific meanings and associations that can be critically examined in the way it is variously used.
The analysis of industry guidance materials was informed by Caldwell’s (2011) examination of “ground-up worker paratexts,” such as trade columns and mentoring rituals, and Deuze and Lewis’ (2013) engagement with visible expressions of professional identities in trade magazines (see also Conor 2014 on “how to” manuals). The first grouping of industry guidance materials examined consists of media careers guides (Creative Skillset, 2008a, 2008b; Start in TV, n.d.) and the seven “Inside Views” interviews gathered by Judge (2009) in Runner—an account of “how to break into film, TV and commercials industry as a runner and survive long enough to get your dream job.” The second grouping of industry guidance materials comes from production organizations in the United Kingdom. There is a range of differently sized film and TV production organizations in the United Kingdom (National Careers Service 2012), and careers guidance was found mostly readily available on the websites for the main TV broadcast companies (BBC; Channel 4; ITV). Overall, the material here extends from general advice to insights into the specifics of working as a runner within that specific organization.
Analyzing advice and guidance is a way to explore how “industry” talks about itself (Caldwell 2008, 2009) in terms of recruitment and career pathways. Indeed, one of Judge’s “Inside View” TV runner interviewees refers to the forms of widely available guidance and how these can be used, to varying value, as a resource to find out what is expected from a runner: I didn’t really know where to start with, but I looked it up on the Internet. There were lots of different sites that explained a runner’s job, which gave me a good idea, but most of them also said that you can be expected to do anything, which didn’t really help. (Judge 2009, 150)
Commentaries on recruitment and career pathways are understood here as specific forms of production talk that shape understandings of “how industry works,” the pathways that should be followed, and the dispositions identified as necessary for breaking in and making it in film and TV production. In making this argument, it is useful to note the differences in the organization of film and TV production across different national contexts (see Born 2005; Caldwell 2008; Curtin and Shattuc 2009; Donders et al. 2013; Szczepanik and Vonderau 2013) and how the runner is understood across industry sectors (Creative Skillset 2008b). As Caldwell (2008, 36) cautions, “production cultures are far too messy, vast and contested to provide a unified code—to either job aspirants or scholars—for breaching its walls.”
These industry guidance voices are contrasted with perspectives emerging from empirical research with higher education students who hold experience of working as a runner. As the changing workforce profile of the media industries indicates, research exploring the transition of students into working in media industries is particularly important. Data compiled by Creative Skillset (2009) shows that graduates now make up 73 percent of the workforce, compared with 66 percent in 2003. This changing workforce profile can be linked to “an increase of 150 per cent between 1999/2000 and 2008/09” in students enrolling on Media Studies degrees, with creative arts and design degrees also showing a significant increase (64% overall; Universities UK 2010, 27). These career pathways from higher education into the media industries are, however, not without tensions and complications.
In their analysis of data collected by the Higher Education Statistical Agency on the employment trends and patterns of “bohemian” graduates (including film and TV), Comunian et al. (2011, 305) suggest that “ . . . the creative skills of graduates in these disciplines are not fully valued and appreciated in the job market (both in creative and non-creative occupations).” Moreover, Comunian et al. highlight that creative disciplines are taught mainly in non-Russell group universities and this in turn might influence the kind of prospects and opportunities open to them (see Ashton and Noonan 2013 on perceived distinctions of higher education institutions and degree subjects). These findings on transitions from higher education into industry signify a tension that can be revealed in more detail with reference to the runner.
Fieldwork was designed as a form of “intensive” research aiming to “investigate how processes work in a small number of cases, seeking explanation of the production of certain objects, events and experiences” (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011, 15). This data set consists of focus group (FG) or interview (I) exchanges with fifty-four final year students on a “media production” degree at a “new” university (see Marr and Forsyth 2011 for overview of distinctions). Data were collected between 2009 and 2013 and consisted of five cohorts of students: C1 (2008–2009; n = 7), C2 (2009–2010; n = 9), C3 (2010–2011; n = 11), C4 (2011–2012; n = 15), and C5 (2012–2013; n = 12). A constructionist approach was taken in which statements were seen as a form of identity work (Taylor and Littleton 2008, 2012). Data were recorded, transcribed, and coded drawing on Taylor and Littleton’s (2008, 280) approach to “speaker’s use of discursive resources” and the analysis of “features which were common to the talk of different speakers, including images, expectations, and connections of sequence and consequence.” Taylor and Littleton (2008, 279) outline how this constructionist approach can be used to “focus on the meanings that prevail in the wider context’s of the speaker’s life, for example, around possible life courses and available choices.” They go on to clarify how “speakers are understood to be already positioned within larger social formations but also active in their identity work and are able, within constraints, to position themselves and negotiate new positionings” (Taylor and Littleton 2008, 279). This perspective can be usefully connected to Havens and Lotz’s (2012) Industrialization of Culture framework and the issues of power and agency they raise in terms of attempts to establish different positions, for example, industry roles that take place in interaction with larger social formations, such as production workforce hierarchies. Taylor and Littleton’s methodological suggestions are instructive for exploring tensions between how established industry workers view entry-level roles and responsibilities and the different positions that higher education graduates attempt to negotiate.
Part Three: Industry Guidance Materials and Established Pathways
The consistent message provided in the industry guidance materials examined is that the runner is a necessary starting point for progression upward within film and TV production and that it is a well-trodden path for many who have established their careers. A further dominant theme concerns time as a runner being invaluable for learning and training, and how vital such initiation and exploration is for successfully moving to other roles and responsibilities. An indication of the insights gained through working as a runner is provided in the following: “it has given me a good understanding of the different positions available. I came in thinking I wanted to do one thing and then very quickly realised that it wasn’t for me” (Floor runner “Inside View”; interview, Judge 2009, 169). In this respect, established and emerging industry workers alike often regard working as a runner as hugely beneficial—both in terms of professional development and as an established and relied upon position within film and TV production. In analyzing the different perspectives on working as a runner articulated by established media workers in guidance materials, three main themes emerge concerning the importance of time spent as a runner.
A Stepping-Stone from the Bottom
The position of runner is held to be one of the lower status and prestige positions in film and TV production and regarded almost entirely as being temporary and a step on the ladder to further employment opportunities. Public-service TV broadcaster Channel 4 (n.d.) provides a reassuring and conciliatory recognition that undertaking such work is an established route up from the bottom: “some of the biggest names in TV started their career as a runner, so don’t worry about starting at the bottom!” As the Channel 4 (n.d.) commentary concludes, “often starting as a runner leads to other jobs in the media if you can prove you are hard working and determined.” Guidance from Creative Skillset (2008b) outlines that working as a runner for around two to three years is a stepping-stone and a means to access higher pay and greater responsibility. The following “Runner’s World” guide by Creative Skillset recognizes the low status aspects of the role but goes on to highlight valuable insights and contacts: Working as a runner is one of the best ways to learn about many of the creative media industries. It provides excellent entry-level experience, a range of skills, knowledge of how the industry works, contacts, and perhaps an offer of more permanent employment. It should also give you a clearer idea about your possible career choices. The runner is often the most junior job in creative media which involves lots of fetching and carrying—and filling in when and where you are needed. (Creative Skillset 2008b)
It is this sense of endurance and putting in the time and effort to secure future opportunities that typifies perspectives on the runner as an entry-level production position.
The Head of Resources “Inside View” interview conducted by Judge (2009, 101) highlights the transitory nature by elaborating on the information they require from a CV and outlining how working as a runner is part of a career trajectory leading on to other positions: It [the CV] basically has to be, “I have just left full-time education” or wherever they have been, “and I eventually would hope to become a producer-director or whatever, and I am looking for a job as a runner at entry-level to gain valuable experience.”
Likewise, the Office Manager at Commercial Production Company ‘Inside View’ (Judge 2009, 114) makes clear that this is a transition role: “running is a junior position and I think any runner must remember that it is a step to somewhere else—it is not a lifelong career.” An understanding emerges in which those seeking work as a runner should be clear about their future career aims and goals but should not have an elevated opinion of what their first job should be.
Rites of Passage
There is a clear view among some TV company bosses (TV Wrap, n.d.) that experience of working as a runner is a necessary initiation into the “tough media world” that waits. The following job advertisement provides an insight into how the entry-level standing equates to working conditions and practices: Once again I am searching for an enthusiastic runner/driver who is over 23 to work on our programme. Ideally they should have a lot of energy, know a bit about TV and running, be good with floats and receipts, be happy to drive around the country and be away some weekends. We’re looking for someone who is incredibly keen to do this for a small weekly sum of money (+ expenses). (Start in TV, n.d.)
The connection between challenging working conditions and practices and potential opportunities is captured in the “words of advice” from the Managing Director of a Diary Service interviewed by Judge (2009, 54): “running is a lot of hours for not much money, so be tolerant, patient, driven and motivated.” Further illustration on this point of apparent common knowledge and shared industry practice comes from the “Inside View” interview with an Office Manager from a Commercials Production Company: knowing that it is junior position and being prepared for that and not being shy to do all those low-rung jobs which are annoying and horrible is important, and having the personality to accept that and just get on with it is good. (Judge 2009, 110)
There is an awareness of the runner as a trying stage to be completed and undertaking these mundane and repetitive tasks is regarded as a necessary stage of gaining understanding of how things work. The emphasis on putting the time in is also evident in the “Inside View” office runner/assistant interview when they are asked about any lessons to be learned: don’t get above your station—if you are a runner don’t think you’re someone else until you are . . . so if you’re going to do it, then do it to the best of your ability and look at it as a way of getting forward in the industry, not for what you can get in the immediate five minutes of working there. (Judge 2009, 162)
The advice to not “get above your station” has a sound basis in what might be reasonably expected by new industry entrants, and this connects with views on industry initiation.
Established industry workers regard working as a runner and undertaking mundane and repetitive tasks as a form of industry initiation and learning process. The social learning process outlined earlier is evident from the “advice” side in the following comments: . . . what you should know, regardless of a degree, is that the industry is its own institution—an independent school of learning if you like . . . it will train and help you towards whatever area you express an interest in, provided that you are hungry for it and you don’t annoy the hell out of people. (Judge 2009, 60)
The support and guidance that is available to runners is expressed in these comments from Judge, but it is equally clear that it takes place under specific circumstances and possibilities. A sound rationale can be made for this gradual process of induction, and employers and project collaborators must make assessments on an individual-by-individual basis and link advancement to suitable opportunities. Furthermore, students participating in this study articulated awareness of how starting from the bottom provides a less pressured way to assess ways of working and required levels of ability. That said, questions remain over the levels of responsibility afforded to runners and the availability and quality of meaningful experiences that would support such advancement and development.
Making Tea and the (Cultural) Work of Runners
In the following introductory passage to Runner, Judge (2009, 2) describes his understanding of what is involved: “I was familiar with the term ‘runner’—I think it had been briefly discussed on my course, and I was also vaguely aware that part of it involved making tea and delivering tapes.” The job of making tea holds a place in accepted knowledge as a core activity for this “dogsbody” position, in which experience and contacts are trade-offs for undertaking mundane and low-responsibility work. The following section highlights some of the routine and “humdrum” activities, echoing Caves’ (2000) terminology noted earlier, that industry guidance identifies for working as a runner.
The tasks outlined below are included in a brief for a higher education work experience placement passed to the author by a student (C4; I1; Adrian) working as a runner at a film production company based in the South West of England: Make tea or coffee first thing in the morning and ask staff if they would like a drink around 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. Please tell [XXX] when the stock of tea/coffee milk/sugar spread/bread/jam is running low. Clear cups/dishes from the desks and boardroom and wash up, don’t just leave them in the kitchen. Before lunch (around 12), make sure the kitchen surfaces are clean and ready for use. After lunch (around 2 p.m.) clean all surfaces again Sweep the terrace and doorstep when necessary. Also get rid of any weeds you see. Whenever [dog] is in the office walk him when you’re asked to do so.
Clearly, there is no expectation that work experience students taking the position of runner would be filming and editing on their first day, and more demanding tasks with greater responsibility are included, such as answering phone calls and handling mail. That said, the references to wiping surfaces, weeding, and walking the dog point to the abdication of certain undesirable positions. While “an idea of how an independent production company works” is on offer for work experience students acting as runners, these are the kinds of activities within this company that are readily available and that would constitute day-to-day activity.
Adherence to the established career pathways and hierarchical divisions that Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2011) and Holt and Lapenta (2010) outline is evident here in the way in that the runner should complete anything and all that is asked of them to get ahead. The following further illustrates how this understanding of initiation manifests itself in attitudes to early career entrants and that working through the conditions and experiences that those at later career stages may have endured is vital: “people treat interns and runners like shit, because they were treated like shit when they did the job” (Paul Baran, Letters Special in The Guardian April 18, 2005, cited in TV Wrap, n.d.). The experience of “being treated like shit” was described by another contributor to the same letters page as “good preparation,” and in this account, the necessity of enduring the “varied and engaging process of running” is situated as part of the growth and development process: If I had not worked through the challenges that low/more often than not no paid televisual work poses, I would not have been braced to deal with the strong demands of commissioners and fellow production professionals. (Douglas Blyde, Director, Tall Cat Films, Letters Special in The Guardian, April 18, 2005, cited in TV Wrap, n.d.)
The issues of questionable treatment and necessary experience as part of industry initiation are captured in the following “Inside View” exchange between Judge and an In-house/location runner: Judge: There is some concern over the treatment of runners on shoots, in terms of working hours worked, and what is expected of them. Do you think that working conditions for runners should be reassessed? Inside View: No, I don’t think they should, to be honest, I think that it has always been this way, and if you really want it this badly, then you have to do what you have to do . . . If you look at the managing director of the production company I work for, she started off where I am, so why the hell should it be different for us? So really I don’t think anything should be changed. (Judge 2009, 125)
When it comes to entry into working in film and TV production, for this respondent the role and responsibilities of the runner are fixed and timeless.
It is revealing to see that wider economic, social, and technological changes in production cultures do not seem to disrupt where and how working as a runner is located within production hierarchies. The kinds of broader developments and threats that Caldwell (2008) identifies, including digital technologies, runaway production, and globalization (see also Bennett and Strange 2011 on user-generated content), do not nuance a change in this account of career pathways and industry initiation. While attentive to some of these wider changes, this article specifically addresses higher education provision and the profile of those seeking work as a runner.
The Unit List (n.d.), a job listing website for TV freelancers, addresses issues of equivalent experience in considering the question, “Why do I have to be a runner in my first job? I have a degree and was a producer at university.” The response provided suggests this is to avoid loading responsibility onto someone ill equipped “to think on their feet and find last minute solutions or lead a team.” While this response does not specifically address whether any of these experiences can be gained through higher education study, the point remains that the “same pressures or requirements of skill, experience or responsibility” cannot be evidenced. The “Inside View” from a Managing Director of a Diary Service interviewed by Judge (2009, 54) highlights that differing expectations is a key tension in how production companies encounter and appreciate graduates seeking their first position: . . . the main criticism we have from production companies is about attitude. When they ask for a runner, they want a runner—they do not want tomorrow’s director, producer or cameraman—they want a runner and that is what they are paying for. So when we take runners on I instill in them the right attitude.
Issues of practices and power are firmly enmeshed here so that specific roles and routines are made available and the appropriate attitude is then “instilled.” As the following now turns to, higher education students can present perspectives that challenge this power relation and seek to disrupt the established narrative of starting at the bottom, following in footsteps, and making tea.
Part Four: Higher Education Students and Entitlement
As explored in the analysis of industry guidance materials, established industry workers can regard working as a runner as a necessary “rite of passage”; however, the conditions of work and the opportunities available differ across generations (see Saundry 2001). More specifically, the study drawn on for this article reveals how a number of final year higher education students expressed reservations about working as a runner at an entry-level in terms of the forms of entitlement their degree might convey or afford (see Krahn and Galambos 2014 for a wider discussion of job entitlement beliefs associated with, for example, gender, education, and adult status). For those with a degree, specifically media production within this research, their higher education experience could be seen to demonstrate aptitude for taking on greater responsibilities and an entitlement to progress up the hierarchy more swiftly or to enter it at a different point. The following examines these perspectives voiced by higher education students and analyzes them in dialogue with extant debates on the relationship between higher education and working in media industries.
Higher Education and Graduate Destinations
The most prominent theme voiced by students was a concern for undertaking a degree, regarded as a significant investment of time and money, and then still having to enter industry as a low or unpaid runner—something described as an available option before higher education study. While career advancement was not the sole reason described for pursuing higher education study, there was nevertheless a confusion on whether the same “rites of passage” must be adhered to and frustration around how the degree was understood as providing, or not, relevant experience.
Reflecting on the first two years of university, Jacob identifies the importance of being a runner. In reflecting on his current third-year position, he stresses the distinctive nature of his university experiences and how these could lead to different entry points and trajectories in reaching his goal of being a camera operator in film: first and second year—the only way you’re going to get into the industry is by being the runner, and then this year: “We worked with it. We don’t have to do it that way.” And it’s like it’s not the only way on how things work. Like if you’re good, you can go out your own way. (C5; FG; Jacob)
On describing their plans for after graduation, Vincent offers the following similar account of how undertaking time as a runner is common knowledge: I was hoping to do these three years, that would be a way to avoid doing the whole runner thing. I’m not really interested in it at all, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. (C2; FG1; Vincent)
In these reflections, experience as a runner is seen as a ritual or stage that must be passed through. Moreover, when asked whether they should be able to bypass work as a runner, this student responds, “Yes, I think so. I mean otherwise I could just work at a restaurant for three years and start making cups of tea for them” (C2; FG1; Vincent). These comments help to open up a lively tension between the “rites of passage” accounts examined above and the understandings expressed by students on their career pathways.
For Judge (2009, 60), this is the kind of attitude that has led to resentment: “industry professionals find that graduates coming from studies in film, TV or media are increasingly arrogant in their attitudes towards starting at the bottom and more often than not have ideas way above their station.” Adrian, from a different cohort, could also be seen as holding “ideas way above their station”: . . . there was another guy, much older, and he was also doing a free bit of running as well with me for two weeks and he wanted to work in a media industry and now he’s working his way up. It’s kind of like, I’ve spent the last five years being at college and getting a degree. I hope I could go somewhere a little bit higher rather than what a guy got off the street by sending e-mails. (C4; I1; Adrian)
For Adrian, having a degree should be a factor in differentiating himself from the “guy off the street.” Experiences gained on a degree alongside holding a formal qualification are understood here by Adrian to be the basis for distinguishing the higher education student from others seeking to establish themselves within film and TV production.
In turn for Judge, a degree is not an exemption from the “crappy dogsbody jobs” discussed earlier: If you think that by having a degree in either film, TV or media results in a guaranteed job after graduation then think again. And if you think it exempts you also from doing the crappy dogsbody jobs that a runner has to do, then think even harder, because unless you have a very influential contact to call upon after graduation, finding work armed only with a degree will be very difficult. (Judge 2009, 58)
Moreover, holding a degree is lower than holding influential contacts in the pecking order of ways to secure entry into working in film and TV production. On this point, Lee (2011, 555) draws on his research in independent TV production to illustrate how family ties can operate as a way to underpin a sense of entitlement and describes experiences of “utilizing family-related contacts who know people in the industry” to bypass the “laborious and largely fruitless process of sending endless CVs to production companies in the hope of gaining that all important work experience” (see also Christopherson 2009; Lee 2012). In one respect, Adrian’s comments could be seen to place the degree alongside the use of contacts to bypass the laborious stages of gaining recognized experience and working as a runner. Alternatively, they could be seen as an important intervention by Adrian in articulating the extent to which the experiences he has gained in higher education should be considered in determining suitability for a range of posts in film and TV production.
The Value of Work (and) Experience
Issues of access and participation are of importance in addressing how higher education intersects with entry pathways into working in the creative industries (Ashton and Noonan 2013). While tensions of access are raised by Adrian’s comments, for example, around access to higher education (see Hesmondhalgh 2010), his main point is that experiences gained during higher education should not be discounted in assessing the suitability of recent graduates for a range of roles.
This tension in how higher education can be regarded by students and established industry workers is starkly set out in the following comments from an “Inside View” interview with a Floor runner: “you could start at 16 if you want to. I don’t think you need to go to university and you don’t need A-levels—you just need to be keen, willing and able to communicate” (Judge 2009, 171). The “Inside View” interview with a TV runner goes further in explicitly comparing the time that might be spent on a degree with the possible industry experience and contacts that may have been gained (Judge 2009). The experiences described by final year higher education students however reveal a challenge to this assumption that experience of working in industry is something far removed or distant from a university degree.
Work experience placements are regarded as an increasingly important part of higher education (Department for Business Innovation and Skills 2011), and in this respect, a significant number of final year student participants were able to evidence working as a runner as part of their degree course. In making such links, these students could describe their work experience with reference to the low levels of responsibility and performance of routine tasks that typify working as a runner. The following comments from final year students reflecting on their second-year work experience placements indicate how the kinds of “rites of passage” experiences vaunted in industry guidance are not the exclusive reserve of being a runner and can, however undesirable or unproductive, be accessed while undertaking a degree: I got given the crap jobs really . . . I felt like I could have been given a more challenging job really. (C4; I1; Mark) It was basic runner jobs and I did to get to go like on a couple of filming things. I got see some editing suites and just get a little feel what it’s like to be a runner really. (C4; I1; Jeremy) They were trying to find work for me that wasn’t necessarily needed doing . . . I find of felt like a spare part, kind of. I did enjoy it. Parts of it. Aspects of it . . . I think I would have felt more comfortable if like I was given more projects to work on. (C4; I1; Kevin)
Students were able to demonstrate how work as a runner in film and TV production as part of placement could provide a measure of understanding from observation and some experiences of generic and routine work. Clearly, this is not close to the two to three years that Creative Skillset (2008b) identifies as normal and needed to redress employers’ complaints of runners wanting to “run before they can walk.” These experiences could, however, be seen to underpin the view that progression should be swifter or entry at a higher level: . . . it seems so like competitive . . . I did running and internships in the summer, I don’t know if hopefully that has kind of already built me up. But hopefully, I can go in there. I think when I get out [of university], I might be able to get paid rather than do free work. Hopefully now, I can get paid. (C4; I1; Carol)
These comments resonate with findings from Grugulis and Stoyanova’s (2011) study on early career entrants and “stretchwork.” What could also be stressed is that this position of “entitlement” does not necessarily come from a “bad attitude.” Instead, it could emerge from an appreciation of industry structures and practices that forms part of their degree and associated work experience. Indeed, insights that are gained during a degree should not be discounted given that, as Stoyanova and Grugulis (2012, 192) argue, “random career moves or moves based on accumulation of experience and credentials” mean that skills and skills development in TV production can be highly varied. The following closing section picks up on Carol’s point on working for free and considers how the insights gained during a degree may extend beyond learning to become a better worker to a critical investigation of the nature of that work.
Reflecting on Working Conditions
The final theme for this discussion that emerged from the study with students concerns how their higher education context could shape a critical appreciation of working in industry. The ability to critically reflect on industry working conditions did not feature prominently in industry guidance materials compared to the focus on individual attributes. The reflection aspect raised by students, however, signals a further way in which higher education presents a qualitatively different, and not necessarily impoverished, form of understanding and engaging with industry.
There are a number of commentators who have signaled how hierarchy and experience are factors in being able to negotiate pay. For example, Saundry et al. (2007) note how inexperienced workers (in the TV industry) are unlikely to insist on union rates in efforts to build their reputation (see also Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011). This is an issue that extends more widely to debates around working for free and unpaid internships. In the following comments by Carol on “being taken for a ride,” the issue of pay is explicitly raised in relation to entry positions and how students can use their degree experience as the basis for developing their sense of self and labor market worth: I think when I graduate and I have a degree to my name, I’ll be maybe a bit more sure of myself and kind of like, “Well, I do deserve to get paid now.” Not like before, I didn’t really have anything to offer them like that. But now, I will. Yeah, I think I’ll be annoyed if I don’t get paid. I’ll be a bit like, “You’re taking me for a ride.” (C4; I1; Carol)
Set against the argument that time as a runner is temporary and that a period of unpaid work as a runner is the norm, Carol expresses how she has enough experience upon graduation to deserve payment. Moreover, the oversupply of graduates leading to extended entry tournaments discussed earlier suggests that this temporary period of unpaid work can be stretched over several months before/as part of a further two- to three-year period of low paid work identified by Creative Skillset.
The ability of Carol, and others, to negotiate rates and not be positioned as “weak players” chasing jobs on “unviable terms” (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011, 120, with reference to Dex et al. 2000, 285) may drastically change when attempting to make a livelihood from working in film and TV production. Nevertheless, there is recognition of issues of pay that has been the focus of much critical attention. Alongside explicit interventions being explored within higher education (see Ashton and Noonan 2013), there are critical perspectives from industry and activist organizations, including the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematography and Theatre Trade Unions’ (BECTU 2013) “Say No to Exploitation in TV” campaign; the Trade Union Council’s (2009) “Rights for Interns” campaign; the Carrot Workers Collective’s (2011) “Surviving Internships” guide; and the Arts Council England (ACE 2011) “Internships in the Arts” publication. With these interventions and explorations, there are possibilities for exploring the politics of cultural work across a range of circumstances and contexts. Higher education is not a deficient form of industry training or something that should be orientated toward strictly replicating industry practices. It may act as a space to critically investigate and evaluate working in industry as, for example, a runner. In this respect, preparation for industry may be extended beyond being able to make tea, clean tables, weed and walk dogs, to consider one’s position with the labor market and articulate a sense of self-worth.
Conclusion
In their account of power and agency, Havens and Lotz (2012) emphasize the structures of industrial operation and the day-to-day decisions made by individuals. This article has identified the contestation of power dynamics where established industry hierarchies meet emerging entry pathways and the perspectives of early career media workers. Tensions are revealed in different understandings held by students and established industry professionals on the necessity of established “rites of passage” and how higher education fits with film and TV industry career pathways. Industry guidance materials focus on established and familiar career pathways and emphasize that industry initiation involving basic and routine work should be maintained. In turn, the investment in higher education and the associated experiences and responsibilities available mean that students question the assumed value and necessity of these pathways. Student participants in this study expressed how they could use their degree to evidence relevant experiences and skills that should be the basis for questioning the runner “rite of passage.” This was not to discount the value and experiences that could be gained as a runner but rather to stress that a fuller appreciation of their degree experience is possible and that unpaid work as a runner should not be an inevitability.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.