Back to web version
Money at the root of spelling bee mix-up
Organizers of the Scripps National Spelling Bee have reversed themselves — after a public relations pounding — and the seventh-grader gets to take her rightful place at the big spell-off in Washington, D.C.
But a lot of good spellers never even got a chance to participate in local bees this year because of complications related to the $99 fee that has been imposed, apart from the new paperwork that was at the center of Morgan’s paperwork mix-up.
Yes, in the end this story is not just about forms filled out incorrectly. It’s about money.
After 80 years, the Scripps National Spelling Bee suddenly found it necessary in 2008 to start charging schools to participate in spelling’s Big Dance. Some paid up. Others fouled up.
Yet, more important, still others chose not to participate at all because of the expense.
I read where one district in West Virginia balked at paying $99 for each of its 25 eligible schools, calling it excessive at a time of tight budgets. Similar stories are being told in Kansas and Missouri.
How many schools opted out, there’s no way of knowing. It’s not like anyone took a survey.
The bee’s executive director, Paige Kimble, has claimed publicly on several occasions that participation remains high. And while the bee regretted having to charge the fee this year, it was needed to help cover the up to $2.5 million it takes to put on the event.
Well, maybe so. Things are tight all over.
For decades, contest costs were borne almost entirely by newspapers. Weeklies and dailies still sponsor most local, state and regional bees. (The Kansas City Star is not a sponsor, but our sister paper, The Olathe News, is one.)
But with the newspaper business under financial pressure, spelling bee costs are not immune from budget tightening. Newspaper support now only makes up 35 percent of the cost, Kimble has said.
However, all that ignores one pertinent fact: The national spelling bee just happens to be more popular than ever.
Even before the successes of the 2006 movie “Akeelah and the Bee” and the 2003 documentary “Spellbound,” millions of Americans were showing great interest in the spelling abilities of kids between the ages of 9 and 15.
Since 1994, ESPN has televised some or all of the national competition. The show proved so popular that ESPN’s parent network, ABC, began broadcasting the final rounds.
For two whole hours. In prime time. In high def.
It’s a ratings hit. Advertisers buy spots to hawk their products. For the past two years, the logo for a national toymaker has been affixed to the sleeves of the official spelling bee golf shirts that the kid contestants wear.
Yet suddenly, in 2008, some kids aren’t getting a chance to compete because bee officials insist on a new fee to compete. What’s with that? Can’t Scripps squeeze more money from the networks? What would it hurt to sew a couple more paid ads to their shirts the way they do in NASCAR?
I put those questions to Tim Stautberg, vice president for communications and investor relations at E.W. Scripps, which owns the bee.
He told me the fees that ABC and ESPN pay to televise the event don’t offset all the costs that go into producing the show. However, he declined to discuss any aspects of that multiyear contract or whether bee officials might be wise to ask for more at the next negotiations.
Short answer: Yes!!
Likewise, Stautberg wouldn’t discuss sponsorship fees or say specifically how Scripps makes out financially on the bee, other than “it’s our intention to operate it as a not-for-profit.”
I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, what choice is there because the National Spelling Bee is part of a for-profit company that does not have to open its tax returns the way a real nonprofit charity would. Likewise, the justification for the fee.
“It is our intention to minimize the burden on schools and others,” Stautberg said.
Speaking of burdens, Scripps is shouldering its own from all the bad publicity the new fee has brought it.
Tuesday’s reversal on Morgan Brown’s participation offset some of that. But I can’t imagine all the bad press elsewhere has been worth the ninety-nine bucks.