The culprit was pay…except that it wasn’t

Posted by Marc Hodak on December 16, 2009 under Reporting on pay | Read the First Comment

The Wall Street Journal, desperate to remain relevant as a pseudo-business paper, has continued to cover the BofA’s succession drama.  As any good writer knows, a drama is better if you can include greed in the narrative.  The WSJ’s headline yesterday was “Talks Collapse with Robert Kelly Over Pay.” This headline was based on this part of the interview with a BONY spokesman, where Kelly is currently chief:

A Bank of New York Mellon spokesman said pay was “at the bottom of the list” for Mr. Kelly. “Mr Kelly was very flexible on compensation,” he said. “The more important drivers of his decision were the strategic opportunities for growth at BNY Mellon.”

OK.

So, here is what the process for writing the story must have looked like.

Editor:  The headline is going to read that Kelly is refusing to move to BofA because they aren’t paying him enough.

Writers to Editor:  OK

Writers interviewing BONY spokesman:  So, is Kelly not going because BofA is not offering enough?

BONY Spokesman:  I wouldn’t say that.  There are many issues being discussed in the negotiation.  Pay is just one of them.

Writers:  So pay is a significant issue?

BONY Spokesman:  It’s an issue, one among many.  I wouldn’t call it significant.

Writers:  So pay is an issue, a reason he wouldn’t go to BofA.

BONY Spokesman:  Look, pay is at the bottom of the list.  Mr Kelly was very flexible on compensation.  The more important drivers of his decision were the strategic opportunities for growth at BNY Mellon.

Writers to Editor:  OK, we got your headline!