Related Posts
More Posts
35 F🐟, Boston, 🙋
Chief
Soft layoffs at ProServe today ?
Post A/S/L here
Additional Posts in Salaries in Advertising & Marketing
138k as an ACD in San Francisco - too low?
Starting salary for a creative in Dallas?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That’s great and totally agreed conceptually but effectively impossible to force into effect as a standardized rulebook. Most companies (from what I’ve seen Spotify’s the only one that’s come out publicly declaring the opposite) are planning to take advantage of “geo arbitrage” in hiring. COL and market rates have always been an integral part of defining salary bands - they have no reason to ignore that now and all the reasons to take advantage of it. You can always negotiate, but if from the get-go they defined a position’s salary with a specific geography (and level) in mind, then there’s going to be a limit on how high you can go.
And you can always simply reject offers that don’t make sense to you, obviously. You always have that free will. But there’s unfortunate realities to how far out companies are willing to negotiate, and that’s usually set by pre-defined salary bands.
I don’t think they see it as getting a discount, I think NY/SF/LA understand they need to pay a certain amount extra so their staff can live (and so they can afford the kind of talent that chooses to live in those cities).
I would count people willing to relocate to NY/LA/SF as the kind of talent that chooses to live in those cities. Obviously there’s talent everywhere. But there’s also a filtering effect where people who live in or move to the big hubs (and stay there) are choosing to prioritize career opportunities and other things about the city lifestyle over the perks of other places (which often means family/work life balance, for better or worse). Many agencies have concluded it’s worth it to pay a premium for people who generally have those priorities. Also, many people who make these decisions simply prefer to live in these cities and so pay a premium to have an in-person staff that can afford to stay there at least medium term. It’s not about inherent worth of people who live different places, but no, outside of COVID times, zooming in from wherever is just not the same.
Salary should absolutely be based on cost of living.
We’ve all only been doing it a year already...
tbh ny/sf/la aren’t paying most of their employees enough to compensate for col either.
*coughs in 1.5% “COL increase”*
Hold the line!
Did I hear someone starting a union?
No
I think a better argument might be the salary bands should be established for the level and then cost of living should be on top of that. The thing happening now, that is a fair part of your argument, there should be the same value of the idea and work. And that should be the salary band. The issue is the band is not even when you take out cost of living. Often because they are establishing bands by market and not universally.
Great in theory, but how do you make it actually happen?
I’m a freelancer and live in Minneapolis. Not the cheapest city by a long shot, but not anywhere near SF, NY or LA levels of COL. But trust me, when I work for an agency in LA, I want some LA money, or at least as close to it as I can negotiate. I definitely don’t charge the same rate as I would to some agency in the Midwest. It would be leaving money on the table. I have never been lowballed in any major market.
Wish I was paid the same as my NY coworkers doing the same work but I doubt that’ll ever happen across the industry. Fully support it thou.
If I'm forced to pay major city prices I'm going to go for someone in the city that I live who I can get in a room with and hash out a problem. I'm going with you living Manhattan Kansas, but don't think that you're somehow worth more than the next person in a far off locale.
The end result of this is everyone the world over competing for work and a race to the bottom
If you work for an agency owned by a holding company, cost of living is always going to be a factor in your salary. I get that it doesn’t make sense and wouldn’t be right to lower someone’s salary because they moved out of a big city. But let’s say hypothetically you’re hiring someone in NYC and someone in Asheville, NC — same roles, same responsibilities. Should both of these new employee really make the same salary? I don’t think so.
SSD1: Work experience is what matters. Clients and campaigns, not just in “...a bigger market...” If you were great in NYC, then yes, you’re worth more. But just the fact that you lived and worked there doesn’t warrant a higher salary. Sorry.
Who hurt you? 🤕