Subsidies from TV companies could create pricing imbalance and put lives at risk.
The highly competitive nature of the demolition industry largely ensures that contractors large and small are competing on a level playing field. For while a larger company may have larger overheads, the universal cost of the manpower, training, equipment, fuel and insurance required to complete a contract are more or less the same, a fact that is usually confirmed in the narrow bid spread encountered in non-recession times.
But what if one company had a $50,000 ace in the hole; an unwritten (and undisclosed) subsidy that it could fall back upon if negotiations became a little tight?
Well, according to one unnamed US demolition professional, that is precisely what can happen when TV and film companies show an interest in a specific project. According to this unnamed insider, exclusive rights for a one-off documentary could be worth between $40,000 and $50,000, rising to considerably more for a documentary series.
On a day when the Lexington Herald Leader reported that a TV company was involved in deciding the demolition method to be used to fell Owensboro’s Big E Executive Inn, such suggestions seems plausible, and more than a little worrying.
Of course, those that are receiving money from TV or film companies will claim that this is merely good business and that it helps show the demolition industry in a good, positive, and revealing light. And, as a regular viewer of programs such as The Detonators, I partially share this view.
But what concerns me is the thought that demolition processes and procedures are being twisted and bent to accommodate the media spotlight.
If the Big E is imploded or “tripped”, will it be because that was the most appropriate method for that specific project; or will it have been selected purely to satisfy the demands of the TV directors and producers?
And where does this end?
In the days of citizen journalism and YouTube when each implosion or high profile demolition project attracts the interest of hundreds of individuals armed with video cameras, could a TV network secure exclusive footage by filming within a prescribed exclusion zone? And, if so, who is responsible if someone is hurt or worse, killed?
In many ways, demolition is a unique industry: it is part art, part science, and works best when accompanied by a healthy dose of experience.
I don’t blame demolition contractors from climbing into bed with TV and film companies, particularly when work is so hard to come by and when margins are as thin as a supermodel’s waistline.
But if there is even the smallest chance that such a union could result in the use of improper or dangerous methods, the industry needs to come up with an anti-TV contraceptive….and quick.
