Who Gets The Credit? A Study Of How Producers And Presenters Are Valued In Ghana's Media Industry

Abstract

This study examines how media producers and presenters are valued and credited within Ghanaian media organisations across economic, symbolic, and organisational dimensions, with particular attention to how visibility shapes perceived professional value. The study is guided by three research questions on (i) comparative valuation (remuneration, recognition, organisational authority), (ii) crediting practices and role differences, and (iii) how visibility relates to professional value, alongside three hypotheses anticipating higher symbolic recognition for presenters (H1), influence-without-credit for producers (H2), and a positive association between professional value and visibility (H3).Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design within a single-case study of Media General Ghana Limited. It follows an interpretivist approach and uses a sequential strategy in which questionnaire data establish descriptive patterns and open-ended questions deepen the interpretation of valuation and crediting experiences. A total of 20 completed questionnaires were analysed, comprising an even split between presenters and producers (n = 10 each). Findings indicate that valuation is multi-dimensional and role-differentiated. Economic valuation was moderate overall, with presenters tending to score higher than producers on the Economic Value Index, while symbolic recognition was generally high for both groups, with only modest role separation. Organisational valuation/power tended to favour producers, reflecting their coordination and decision-making roles within production workflows. The most pronounced divide emerged in crediting: presenters were credited more frequently across publicity channels and scored higher on the Crediting Index, whereas producers reported comparatively lower routine attribution. Visibility was consequential for perceived worth; within the dataset, visibility was moderately and significantly associated with feeling professionally valued (ρ = .536, p = .015), supporting the central mechanism proposed in H3.Institutional mechanisms help explain these patterns. Programme influence was most often attributed to station management, and promotion was perceived to depend chiefly on management discretion and networks alongside performance metrics, indicating that advancement is shaped by both discretionary gatekeeping and measurable performance signals. The study concludes that strengthening transparent crediting standards and clarifying promotion criteria are key organisational reforms to reduce recognition gaps between frontstage and backstage roles.