When it comes to disputes between labor and management I am torn. As with all disputes, “the truth” usually lies somewhere in the middle. But all my experience in working in the telecommunications industry in the 80s and 90s was that the unions that represented telecom workers did a very, very lousy job at supporting their constituents.
A long time ago, I worked with a guy who had an employee come into his office and say, “These are my demands.” His response? “Do you have any hostages? Because if you don’t have any hostages, you can’t make any demands.”
If I make my mark, the biggest failure of the WGA was in misjudging how important their hostages are to the networks.
In premise, I support the writers. I believe they should make a bigger chunk on re-use of their work than studios and networks want to pay them or have paid them in the past for DVDs. But while I support the writers and their premise, I am thinking less and less of the WGA and how it supports its constituents, especially in consideration of the realities of the business.
While we are sometimes prone to making fun of the likes of Les Moonves and Jeff Zucker (and heck, we’re pretty sure behind closed doors, even Moonves makes fun of Zucker!) I think the network honchos are smarter than anyone wants to give them credit for. They may talk in public about how DVRs don’t matter, but they know the truth of it – people generally fast-forward through commercials on DVR.
They also know this: people are more prone to watching reality shows, sports and other unscripted programming (Idol, Dancing with the Stars) live. So whether it’s happened yet or not, in the future there was going to be higher premium for advertising on those shows – shows people are prone to watch live. Ratings could go down for the NFL over the next 5 years, but the advertising revenue may wind up doubling because those live viewers who will see the commercials are so coveted.
My guess is despite whatever positive spin they put on DVR usage, the network wonks are much more fully aware of this than I am!
What does any of this have to do with the WGA? I think it has everything to do with the way the networks are prepared to dig in here. Scripted shows matter, and they still matter. It’s not like even a one-third of the viewers for most shows are watching on DVR right now. But scripted shows matter less than they used to matter. The world is moving that way, the networks know it and know that unscripted programming is often better suited for people actually watching the commercials.
The networks may well think, “You know what, #%! these clowns, we need them less and less and less – this is a way, way bigger deal for movies and the box office than it is for TV, we were moving to more unscripted programming anyway – if this accelerates that a little…so what?”
Will more people be watching scripted programming on the Internet in five years than they do now? Of course, though I vehemently doubt that even then it will represent more than 10%-15% of the overall audience. Should the writers be paid for that percentage, whatever it is? Well, in a world where the Internet was GROWING overall viewership, sure. But I try to examine probabilities. All the trends seem to indicate that in 5 years shows like CSI and Grey’s Anatomy will have less total viewers, not more.
But even if overall viewers stay the same and it becomes a situation where 15 million watch via television (live or on DVR) and five million people are watching on the Internet instead of all twenty million watching via television, should the writer’s be paid more for that net twenty million viewers because five million watched via the Internet? My response is NO.
It doesn’t seem like the WGA has mulled the real numbers very much in terms of how it’s handled the strike so far. I definitely think writers should get a higher residual than $.08 on a $20 DVD. But online streaming? Online, I think the writers should only make more money if in the aggregate the networks are making more money on the shows because of the Internet. It seems more likely that for now, and for the foreseeable future (at least five years) that the networks aren’t going to make more money because of the Internet.
It seems like all this strike is doing is accelerating a path to more unscripted programming that was bound to occur anyway. With the longer view, I don’t really see how this acceleration was in the best interest of the WGA’s members. From the outside looking in the WGA comes off looking like another poorly managed union that has no chance against “management”.
We’d love to hear from any writers, either in the comments or via e-mail, on or off the record. Do you think the union is serving your best interests? Let us know.
I'm not a writer, but I am totally in support of them. I can see where you are coming from with the reality shows drawing bigger live audiences, because people want to see the acts and vote, then see the results as they happen. But if the number of scripted shows falls, so will DVD sales. I can't imagine that Idol will generate the same post transmission revenue in terms of DVD sales that something like Lost or CSI does. My shelves are straining under the complete sets of pretty much anything ever written by Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon and more Star Trek episodes than you can shake a stick at. As reality shows take over, these are what I will watch instead.
As for the internet. Hammer films are about to release their first film for 30 years direct to the web then straight to DVD after that. No cinematic release at all . So how do the writers get remunerated for this? Other studios will follow this model soon enough.
The web is going to become the future of shows, with anything up to 50% of viewers watching online. If the networks can't rearrange their advertising revenue to reflect this, that's their problem, but telling the writers that they won't get anything for shows that are going to appear online is just plain wrong.
Fenny, I think you frame the extremes of it nicely. In the event that something airs ONLY online and draws 20 million viewers, I think it's reasonable to expect the writer would be paid accordingly. The notion that they'd get nothing for this is not acceptable.
But to say “if the networks can't rearrange their advertising to support this, that's their problem” is not reality. Money is money, and if the networks can't get as much of it, that's everyone's problem, including the writers.
While DVD sales of TV series are a very high margin business that is gravy for the studios, it's not the major revenue source (or even close). I believe the writers should get more than they're getting on DVDs. I believe writers should get paid if their content ONLY airs online (provided it has audience).
I do not believe that if you take the existing ~20 million who watch Grey's and 10 million of them move to the Internet that the writer's should get paid more than they are already making. Here, the network does take the risk.
if the networks can't figure out how to rearrange their advertising they won't make as much money — that's not true for the writers.
To sum it up:
1. people do need to get paid
2. if the networks figure out how to make MORE money because if the Internet, the writers (actors and directors) should share in those increases.
3. if the networks can't figure out how to make MORE money because of the Internet, the writers (actors and directors) should not get MORE money. If this occurs, the networks take all the risk and the writers aren't penalized.
I’m not a writer, but I am totally in support of them. I can see where you are coming from with the reality shows drawing bigger live audiences, because people want to see the acts and vote, then see the results as they happen. But if the number of scripted shows falls, so will DVD sales. I can’t imagine that Idol will generate the same post transmission revenue in terms of DVD sales that something like Lost or CSI does. My shelves are straining under the complete sets of pretty much anything ever written by Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon and more Star Trek episodes than you can shake a stick at. As reality shows take over, these are what I will watch instead.
As for the internet. Hammer films are about to release their first film for 30 years direct to the web then straight to DVD after that. No cinematic release at all . So how do the writers get remunerated for this? Other studios will follow this model soon enough.
The web is going to become the future of shows, with anything up to 50% of viewers watching online. If the networks can’t rearrange their advertising revenue to reflect this, that’s their problem, but telling the writers that they won’t get anything for shows that are going to appear online is just plain wrong.
Fenny, I think you frame the extremes of it nicely. In the event that something airs ONLY online and draws 20 million viewers, I think it’s reasonable to expect the writer would be paid accordingly. The notion that they’d get nothing for this is not acceptable.
But to say “if the networks can’t rearrange their advertising to support this, that’s their problem” is not reality. Money is money, and if the networks can’t get as much of it, that’s everyone’s problem, including the writers.
While DVD sales of TV series are a very high margin business that is gravy for the studios, it’s not the major revenue source (or even close). I believe the writers should get more than they’re getting on DVDs. I believe writers should get paid if their content ONLY airs online (provided it has audience).
I do not believe that if you take the existing ~20 million who watch Grey’s and 10 million of them move to the Internet that the writer’s should get paid more than they are already making. Here, the network does take the risk.
if the networks can’t figure out how to rearrange their advertising they won’t make as much money — that’s not true for the writers.
To sum it up:
1. people do need to get paid
2. if the networks figure out how to make MORE money because if the Internet, the writers (actors and directors) should share in those increases.
3. if the networks can’t figure out how to make MORE money because of the Internet, the writers (actors and directors) should not get MORE money. If this occurs, the networks take all the risk and the writers aren’t penalized.
no one is gonna pay to see or have a desire to see reruns of idol, dancing, survivor 2-3-4- 10 20 years from now. when you look at the 60's… do the studios make money off of old game and news shows or do they money from sitcoms and dramas?
imagine 10 years from now. “oh wow… look… the third season of American Idol is on sale… i gotta have that!” not gonna happen.
no one is gonna pay to see or have a desire to see reruns of idol, dancing, survivor 2-3-4- 10 20 years from now. when you look at the 60’s… do the studios make money off of old game and news shows or do they money from sitcoms and dramas?
imagine 10 years from now. “oh wow… look… the third season of American Idol is on sale… i gotta have that!” not gonna happen.
Unfortunately, the WGA does appear to be just another lousy union that can't get the job done. They've been negotiating since July. No matter how ogre-like the AMPTP, surely an agreement could have been inked by now. As it is, outside forces (DGA talks, financial pressure, public indifference) will probably compel WGA to accept whatever agreement it can get. Hopefully not, but…
My fear is that WGA management is actively seeking other industries to unionize in a quest to become a large, influential trade union. No overt evidence to support this fear, but enough showing between the lines.
Also, not to sound like the AMPTP, but spoofing web sites and sending pencils is pretty lame PR tactics. Getting a case of pencils is sure to impress even the most jaded multi-millionaire, right?
In any case, this strike, stupidly called before the holidays, is a train wreck and no one seems the least bit interested in calling an ambulance. I keep wondering what WGA management is doing to end the strike. What are they doing on a daily basis? Late today WGA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board of unfair labor practice against the AMPTP who, in turn, shot right back with a statement denying everything. Tit for tat, name calling and finger pointing, and for what?
We're still not working and they're still not talking.
Unfortunately, the WGA does appear to be just another lousy union that can’t get the job done. They’ve been negotiating since July. No matter how ogre-like the AMPTP, surely an agreement could have been inked by now. As it is, outside forces (DGA talks, financial pressure, public indifference) will probably compel WGA to accept whatever agreement it can get. Hopefully not, but…
My fear is that WGA management is actively seeking other industries to unionize in a quest to become a large, influential trade union. No overt evidence to support this fear, but enough showing between the lines.
Also, not to sound like the AMPTP, but spoofing web sites and sending pencils is pretty lame PR tactics. Getting a case of pencils is sure to impress even the most jaded multi-millionaire, right?
In any case, this strike, stupidly called before the holidays, is a train wreck and no one seems the least bit interested in calling an ambulance. I keep wondering what WGA management is doing to end the strike. What are they doing on a daily basis? Late today WGA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board of unfair labor practice against the AMPTP who, in turn, shot right back with a statement denying everything. Tit for tat, name calling and finger pointing, and for what?
We’re still not working and they’re still not talking.
I think you touched up on an interesting point in your article.
Hopefully you won't mind if I try to dig deeper.
You said that advertisers may end up paying more for people watching live in the future. Maybe double.
It made me think of how the networks have supposedly gotten more and more money for the same viewers, even though there is no reason for advertisers to pay more.
Now, I realize that the relationship between Madison Avenue ad buyers and the networks is symbiotic and that ad buyers may not be trying really hard to save money for their clients, but two thoughts come to mind:
1) Is this even true? After all, the only source we have for ad rates are the networks, and we all know how unreliable networks and studios are about how well they are really doing. This is actually one of the problems making the strike worse. The WGA has chosen to believe all the rosy PR releases of the studios and wants its “fair share” based on that, not on reality.
2) If this is true, is it a bubble? How long will ad buyers overpay for ad time. Already the networks have been forced to hand out cash because they ran out of make goods (and who knows in reality how many ads we see are make goods anyway?)
In a world where network ratings have declined, where the networks have de-programmed Saturdays and are talking openly of de-programming 8-9 (sorry programming with reality shows!) how can the WGA think that ever increasing salaries can work?
The trend is clearly towards lower-cost programming.
It would behoove everyone involved to realize lower-cost programming was all programming until recently. Dramatic TV shows have seen huge increases in their budgets. Recently I have read pilots cost up to $10 million now (for one hour!!) when you can easily produce a good TV movie for $2 million.
But nobody wants to talk about that.
The WGA is locked into ever increasing demands and the studios are too chicken to lay their real cards on the table.
Even if the strike were to end, the underlying problems of the film and TV industry will remain unaddressed.
That's the situation Detroit Auto Manufacturers were in until they went bankrupt and everyone lost big.
There is no sign anyone at the bargaining table is willing to even bring this up.
One more point.
People DO need to get paid, but writers are already getting paid extremely well. For every working writer, there are dozens who'd take their place for 1990 wages.
They want more and they have every right to do so. They've also been misled by the studios about DVD residuals. Were they striking for that, I'd understand a lot more.
But the long and short of it is they are well-off people who want more, not “little guys” and they should stop the pretense.
Fenny:
Remember that writers do get a fee for their scripts. It's not like they work for free and have to wait for royalty checks to make money.
Now I really like the idea that creators should participate in the success of their creation. I think it's a good thing and a fair thing.
But they shouldn't act like it's a common practice.
It's very uncommon for people to be paid past their salary. Just like it's uncommon for people to be fed on the job the way movie production people are.
Is this a thought provoking article or what?
One more point: the networks are always trying to pin their declining fortunes on changing tastes of the public and competition.
While competition does matter, one thing the networks (and the WGA for that matter) never talk about is quality.
This year's declining ratings for the networks can be pinned 100% on bad quality. They hired bad producers to make bad shows. They got bad ratings. Simple as that.
I'll give you two examples:
When you hire a David Eick and let him do to Bionic woman what he did to Battlestar Galactica, a low-rated show even for cable that audiences have sampled and soundly rejected, the low ratings were a given.
Criminal Minds has lost 4-6 million viewers this year. It was caused by Mandy Patinkin leaving and the quality of the show collapsing at the same time. It wasn't caused by the internet or by competition from cable. It was caused by shoddy writing and directing (ie. producing) and by the bad luck of losing a great actor to still unknown reasons.
In other words, declines are not inevitable, and if they were, the scale of those declines are a function of the quality of the networks' offerings.
When you don't program Saturday Night, you're not giving yourself the chance to find that diamond in the rough.
I think you touched up on an interesting point in your article.
Hopefully you won’t mind if I try to dig deeper.
You said that advertisers may end up paying more for people watching live in the future. Maybe double.
It made me think of how the networks have supposedly gotten more and more money for the same viewers, even though there is no reason for advertisers to pay more.
Now, I realize that the relationship between Madison Avenue ad buyers and the networks is symbiotic and that ad buyers may not be trying really hard to save money for their clients, but two thoughts come to mind:
1) Is this even true? After all, the only source we have for ad rates are the networks, and we all know how unreliable networks and studios are about how well they are really doing. This is actually one of the problems making the strike worse. The WGA has chosen to believe all the rosy PR releases of the studios and wants its “fair share” based on that, not on reality.
2) If this is true, is it a bubble? How long will ad buyers overpay for ad time. Already the networks have been forced to hand out cash because they ran out of make goods (and who knows in reality how many ads we see are make goods anyway?)
In a world where network ratings have declined, where the networks have de-programmed Saturdays and are talking openly of de-programming 8-9 (sorry programming with reality shows!) how can the WGA think that ever increasing salaries can work?
The trend is clearly towards lower-cost programming.
It would behoove everyone involved to realize lower-cost programming was all programming until recently. Dramatic TV shows have seen huge increases in their budgets. Recently I have read pilots cost up to $10 million now (for one hour!!) when you can easily produce a good TV movie for $2 million.
But nobody wants to talk about that.
The WGA is locked into ever increasing demands and the studios are too chicken to lay their real cards on the table.
Even if the strike were to end, the underlying problems of the film and TV industry will remain unaddressed.
That’s the situation Detroit Auto Manufacturers were in until they went bankrupt and everyone lost big.
There is no sign anyone at the bargaining table is willing to even bring this up.
One more point.
People DO need to get paid, but writers are already getting paid extremely well. For every working writer, there are dozens who’d take their place for 1990 wages.
They want more and they have every right to do so. They’ve also been misled by the studios about DVD residuals. Were they striking for that, I’d understand a lot more.
But the long and short of it is they are well-off people who want more, not “little guys” and they should stop the pretense.
Fenny:
Remember that writers do get a fee for their scripts. It’s not like they work for free and have to wait for royalty checks to make money.
Now I really like the idea that creators should participate in the success of their creation. I think it’s a good thing and a fair thing.
But they shouldn’t act like it’s a common practice.
It’s very uncommon for people to be paid past their salary. Just like it’s uncommon for people to be fed on the job the way movie production people are.
Is this a thought provoking article or what?
One more point: the networks are always trying to pin their declining fortunes on changing tastes of the public and competition.
While competition does matter, one thing the networks (and the WGA for that matter) never talk about is quality.
This year’s declining ratings for the networks can be pinned 100% on bad quality. They hired bad producers to make bad shows. They got bad ratings. Simple as that.
I’ll give you two examples:
When you hire a David Eick and let him do to Bionic woman what he did to Battlestar Galactica, a low-rated show even for cable that audiences have sampled and soundly rejected, the low ratings were a given.
Criminal Minds has lost 4-6 million viewers this year. It was caused by Mandy Patinkin leaving and the quality of the show collapsing at the same time. It wasn’t caused by the internet or by competition from cable. It was caused by shoddy writing and directing (ie. producing) and by the bad luck of losing a great actor to still unknown reasons.
In other words, declines are not inevitable, and if they were, the scale of those declines are a function of the quality of the networks’ offerings.
When you don’t program Saturday Night, you’re not giving yourself the chance to find that diamond in the rough.
Rena, where are you getting your data? Your math isn't working for me. Criminal Minds is down, but when I do comprable year over year comparisons (new episodes vs new episodes) the decreases seem to be less than 2 million viewers.
I can find weeks where CSI is down more than 4 million, and I can find stuff like that for just about any show, from any network. While I wouldn't attribute it (at least not completely) to the causes you suggest, it appears to be a trend and not a good one.
Rena, where are you getting your data? Your math isn’t working for me. Criminal Minds is down, but when I do comprable year over year comparisons (new episodes vs new episodes) the decreases seem to be less than 2 million viewers.
I can find weeks where CSI is down more than 4 million, and I can find stuff like that for just about any show, from any network. While I wouldn’t attribute it (at least not completely) to the causes you suggest, it appears to be a trend and not a good one.
Robert, I compared the ratings of Criminal Minds before the American Idol premiere, which is more telling than comparing the early season to the average.
It's possible Criminal Minds is going to keep all its viewers once Idol returns, but I doubt it.
NCIS also gets its best ratings before Idol returns.
I'm doing this from memory, but I think I'm right on that.
Shows age, and usually they don't age well (NCIS is a good, but rare, counter-example of that).
To give another example, the fact that ER is attracting fewer than half the audience it did at its height, has a lot to do with the fact most of their beloved performers have left and that there are only so many compelling medical stories to tell in that context.
CSI suffered from the “brain drain” of CSI Miami and CSI:NY.
I guess the point I am making is that quality counts for a lot and that the networks do their best to spin every rating drop to some societal trend they have no control over.
They do have control over quality, but this year have failed to launch any real hit (I'm still holding out hope for Life and WMC if they are nurtured properly).
If you don't mind an aside, let me thank you guys for this great site.
Kudos!!
Robert, I compared the ratings of Criminal Minds before the American Idol premiere, which is more telling than comparing the early season to the average.
It’s possible Criminal Minds is going to keep all its viewers once Idol returns, but I doubt it.
NCIS also gets its best ratings before Idol returns.
I’m doing this from memory, but I think I’m right on that.
Shows age, and usually they don’t age well (NCIS is a good, but rare, counter-example of that).
To give another example, the fact that ER is attracting fewer than half the audience it did at its height, has a lot to do with the fact most of their beloved performers have left and that there are only so many compelling medical stories to tell in that context.
CSI suffered from the “brain drain” of CSI Miami and CSI:NY.
I guess the point I am making is that quality counts for a lot and that the networks do their best to spin every rating drop to some societal trend they have no control over.
They do have control over quality, but this year have failed to launch any real hit (I’m still holding out hope for Life and WMC if they are nurtured properly).
As a writer who works outside the movie/TV industry, I have to say the on-going strike seems extremely foolish for the WGA. Your article makes excellent points regarding the accelerated shift to reality TV. I'm not a huge fan of unscripted television although I shamefully confess to being hooked on a few shows. But from the position of TV execs, reality programming seems pretty enticing, and the WGA needs to realize that in the long run they may be putting more of their union members out of work. If the strike continues, reality programming may become the norm, which means fewer writing jobs.
As a TV viewer, I'd hate to see that happen. A truly well-written show stays in my memory for years to come while reality TV feels like time wasted and is gone from my mind within a few days. As Dom points out, no one is going to buy DVDs of reality TV from years past. Who cares? But we're still purchasing DVDs of old favorites among scripted programs long after the shows have ended. Perhaps the network execs should think about that.
Frankly, I want to see the writers get more money. They make a better wage already than most of us who earn by writing, but I agree that residuals need to be more than the current miniscule amount. I simply would prefer WGA to consider what a lengthy strike means down the road. I'm all for an increase in writers' benefits–just not at the expense of scripted programming.
If you don’t mind an aside, let me thank you guys for this great site.
Kudos!!
As a writer who works outside the movie/TV industry, I have to say the on-going strike seems extremely foolish for the WGA. Your article makes excellent points regarding the accelerated shift to reality TV. I’m not a huge fan of unscripted television although I shamefully confess to being hooked on a few shows. But from the position of TV execs, reality programming seems pretty enticing, and the WGA needs to realize that in the long run they may be putting more of their union members out of work. If the strike continues, reality programming may become the norm, which means fewer writing jobs.
As a TV viewer, I’d hate to see that happen. A truly well-written show stays in my memory for years to come while reality TV feels like time wasted and is gone from my mind within a few days. As Dom points out, no one is going to buy DVDs of reality TV from years past. Who cares? But we’re still purchasing DVDs of old favorites among scripted programs long after the shows have ended. Perhaps the network execs should think about that.
Frankly, I want to see the writers get more money. They make a better wage already than most of us who earn by writing, but I agree that residuals need to be more than the current miniscule amount. I simply would prefer WGA to consider what a lengthy strike means down the road. I’m all for an increase in writers’ benefits–just not at the expense of scripted programming.
With both sides not talking, the damage is being inflicted on a lot of hard working people. The real problem is the actual “value” of a program being defined. Without actual numbers, not “formulated numbers” from percentages, no one actually knows what a show is worth. It is a perceived value from an educated guess. In film, DVD, The Internet, Satellite, Cable, and DVR, actual numbers can be obtained. But broadcast is a bit of a guess. Which means the salaries, and residuals are formulated on a factor that can't be totally defined. How is a producer, writer, talent or anyone else in our industry really able to figure out what they are worth? The best thing for everyone would be to find the answer on how to do business in absolute reality. The current business model is antiquated. Both the writers and producers have their points and they are valid. But how can they resolve the issue, without actual “price per contact” numbers involved?
Our industry has always had it's perceived sparkle, the “glamour”. Honestly speaking, this glamour is how the audience sees us. We need to concentrate on serving them, the audience, they are our consumer. Find out the real numbers of our audience. The money can then be properly adjusted from there, without any of the parties taking too much flagrant risk. With all of us understanding how important cash flow is, I don't think there is anyone on either side who would not want to solve this problem fairly. They just need the real information.
Tracy:
You write: “In film, DVD, The Internet, Satellite, Cable, and DVR, actual numbers can be obtained. But broadcast is a bit of a guess.”
The reverse is actually true. There are no reliable numbers for film. Box Office numbers are self-reported by the studios and can be (and are in my opinion) manipulated for effect (remember The Omen grossing 6,666,666 dollars?!)
The Nielsen ratings are the only thing that comes close to reliable numbers because they are gathered directly from a sample of the public. The only unreliability comes from the smallness of the sample (the error rate exceed what many shows, particularly on cable average in viewers) and the fact that it's extremely difficult to assemble a reliable sample of human beings (if only for the fact that many people don't want to be bothered).
That being said, the Nielsen ratings are immeasurably more reliable than DVD numbers where reporting is left entirely to the studios and the numbers they mention are essentially completely arbitrary and pulled out of a hat (again as far as I can tell).
The lack of reliable accounting is a big part of the problem between the studios and the unions as they lead to absurd situations like residuals being paid on projects that are still losing money (but then again the studios essentially claim every project loses money!!)
As long as a system can't be devised to account honestly for film and TV profits, the residual system will always be under attack.
With both sides not talking, the damage is being inflicted on a lot of hard working people. The real problem is the actual “value” of a program being defined. Without actual numbers, not “formulated numbers” from percentages, no one actually knows what a show is worth. It is a perceived value from an educated guess. In film, DVD, The Internet, Satellite, Cable, and DVR, actual numbers can be obtained. But broadcast is a bit of a guess. Which means the salaries, and residuals are formulated on a factor that can’t be totally defined. How is a producer, writer, talent or anyone else in our industry really able to figure out what they are worth? The best thing for everyone would be to find the answer on how to do business in absolute reality. The current business model is antiquated. Both the writers and producers have their points and they are valid. But how can they resolve the issue, without actual “price per contact” numbers involved?
Our industry has always had it’s perceived sparkle, the “glamour”. Honestly speaking, this glamour is how the audience sees us. We need to concentrate on serving them, the audience, they are our consumer. Find out the real numbers of our audience. The money can then be properly adjusted from there, without any of the parties taking too much flagrant risk. With all of us understanding how important cash flow is, I don’t think there is anyone on either side who would not want to solve this problem fairly. They just need the real information.
Tracy:
You write: “In film, DVD, The Internet, Satellite, Cable, and DVR, actual numbers can be obtained. But broadcast is a bit of a guess.”
The reverse is actually true. There are no reliable numbers for film. Box Office numbers are self-reported by the studios and can be (and are in my opinion) manipulated for effect (remember The Omen grossing 6,666,666 dollars?!)
The Nielsen ratings are the only thing that comes close to reliable numbers because they are gathered directly from a sample of the public. The only unreliability comes from the smallness of the sample (the error rate exceed what many shows, particularly on cable average in viewers) and the fact that it’s extremely difficult to assemble a reliable sample of human beings (if only for the fact that many people don’t want to be bothered).
That being said, the Nielsen ratings are immeasurably more reliable than DVD numbers where reporting is left entirely to the studios and the numbers they mention are essentially completely arbitrary and pulled out of a hat (again as far as I can tell).
The lack of reliable accounting is a big part of the problem between the studios and the unions as they lead to absurd situations like residuals being paid on projects that are still losing money (but then again the studios essentially claim every project loses money!!)
As long as a system can’t be devised to account honestly for film and TV profits, the residual system will always be under attack.
Rena,
You and I agree on the manipulation factor. And I know the Nielsen ratings take a samples from real people. What I didn't realize is what you said about DVD and Film sales, you are right. In my market when overnight's started they had three hundred meters sampling a population of 2 million, diaries aside, this left a huge margin for error.
Reliable accounting and reporting is the problem. Without this, how can value be determined or returned? It's not just in the writer's part of the business, The value system is a bit creative in and of itself.
All of us in the industry take part in building entertainment, or information products. They are for a consumer. Without the consumer buying, watching, or downloading, our products, they have no actual market value. (I hate saying that, but it's true)
If we built cars or toys, our income would be based on the wholesale or retail sales of those products. And the net gain would be realized after the costs of building the car or toy are taken into account.
In essence a fair and reasonable wage for writing, creating, directing, editing, acting, whatever it may be should be paid to build the product. This is the risk. The risk needs to be responsibly minimized. The sales should pay back the investment, plus a reasonable percentage for those who took the risk financing it. The creative residuals also get paid at a percentage that takes into account the upfront payments for the “labor” portion of the job and based on the actual performance of the property, and nothing more. If the product is a “hit” everyone wins. (and it becomes a bonus) If not, the risk is minimized for all. Right now if a product fails the producing company is bearing the bulk of the risk, but a lot of folks just walked off with millions in their pocket prior to actual performance of the product.
(I know this is over simplified but I hope it illustrates the point.)
Now here is the stunner, If a car salesman makes a sale, and that sale is returned, does he get to keep the commission? Absolutely not. Now he's in a position to have to make up for the loss, and get ahead.
In our business we have created so many strange “performance liability” situations. No one has the actual truth. And lots of people are getting fees, and the performance factors are ignored. There are not a lot of other business folks who could survive if their business is run the way the Film and Television industry is currently running. This plus the hyperbole we feed ourselves, is causing a huge problem in doing business not just with the world, but with ourselves.
Please don't get me wrong. I love this business. It is my passion to create. In my part of the world, I've been involved for 21 years, and loved most of it. There are people on both sides of the strike I admire.
I will make an appointment to watch a show written by certain writers, or a director, producer, or in the case of this interrupted season, a certain “consultant.”
I know about the false statements of loss that are perpetrated, It is a really foul part of the industry and everyone knows it. That kind of thing also has to stop. It is quite simply, despicable.
In my opinion, I would like us all to get serious about reforming our business models. And keep the industry sound for the future generations of Film and Television Professionals and Creatives.
But most of all for the audience who pays for our products. It is time for a little less greed, a better approach, and a lot more wisdom.
With Respect.
Rena,
You and I agree on the manipulation factor. And I know the Nielsen ratings take a samples from real people. What I didn’t realize is what you said about DVD and Film sales, you are right. In my market when overnight’s started they had three hundred meters sampling a population of 2 million, diaries aside, this left a huge margin for error.
Reliable accounting and reporting is the problem. Without this, how can value be determined or returned? It’s not just in the writer’s part of the business, The value system is a bit creative in and of itself.
All of us in the industry take part in building entertainment, or information products. They are for a consumer. Without the consumer buying, watching, or downloading, our products, they have no actual market value. (I hate saying that, but it’s true)
If we built cars or toys, our income would be based on the wholesale or retail sales of those products. And the net gain would be realized after the costs of building the car or toy are taken into account.
In essence a fair and reasonable wage for writing, creating, directing, editing, acting, whatever it may be should be paid to build the product. This is the risk. The risk needs to be responsibly minimized. The sales should pay back the investment, plus a reasonable percentage for those who took the risk financing it. The creative residuals also get paid at a percentage that takes into account the upfront payments for the “labor” portion of the job and based on the actual performance of the property, and nothing more. If the product is a “hit” everyone wins. (and it becomes a bonus) If not, the risk is minimized for all. Right now if a product fails the producing company is bearing the bulk of the risk, but a lot of folks just walked off with millions in their pocket prior to actual performance of the product.
(I know this is over simplified but I hope it illustrates the point.)
Now here is the stunner, If a car salesman makes a sale, and that sale is returned, does he get to keep the commission? Absolutely not. Now he’s in a position to have to make up for the loss, and get ahead.
In our business we have created so many strange “performance liability” situations. No one has the actual truth. And lots of people are getting fees, and the performance factors are ignored. There are not a lot of other business folks who could survive if their business is run the way the Film and Television industry is currently running. This plus the hyperbole we feed ourselves, is causing a huge problem in doing business not just with the world, but with ourselves.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love this business. It is my passion to create. In my part of the world, I’ve been involved for 21 years, and loved most of it. There are people on both sides of the strike I admire.
I will make an appointment to watch a show written by certain writers, or a director, producer, or in the case of this interrupted season, a certain “consultant.”
I know about the false statements of loss that are perpetrated, It is a really foul part of the industry and everyone knows it. That kind of thing also has to stop. It is quite simply, despicable.
In my opinion, I would like us all to get serious about reforming our business models. And keep the industry sound for the future generations of Film and Television Professionals and Creatives.
But most of all for the audience who pays for our products. It is time for a little less greed, a better approach, and a lot more wisdom.
With Respect.
Thank you Tracy for your very thought full post.
From where I stand, the WGA negotiations have been way too much over short-term gains and respect and not enough about the long-term health of the industry.
To give you one example, the WGA is making a huge point out of getting a fair share of internet revenue that hasn't materialized anywhere outside of studio Pr releases, but they are not even talking at all about the fact Saturday Night have been de-programmed on the major networks.
Not having Saturday Night (and Jeff Zucker would like to de-program 8-9 every day!) was a major loss of well-paid jobs for the WGA, but somehow the WGA leadership is more concerned about the internet.
It makes one very pessimistic about the future financial health of all involved in the film industry.
Thank you Tracy for your very thought full post.
From where I stand, the WGA negotiations have been way too much over short-term gains and respect and not enough about the long-term health of the industry.
To give you one example, the WGA is making a huge point out of getting a fair share of internet revenue that hasn’t materialized anywhere outside of studio Pr releases, but they are not even talking at all about the fact Saturday Night have been de-programmed on the major networks.
Not having Saturday Night (and Jeff Zucker would like to de-program 8-9 every day!) was a major loss of well-paid jobs for the WGA, but somehow the WGA leadership is more concerned about the internet.
It makes one very pessimistic about the future financial health of all involved in the film industry.
Rena,
I don't know if anyone will see this post, but if you do….
I am the owner of a small Entertainment and Production Company. Before, I was a CBS O and O Creative Services Producer. Specializing in programming outside of News, and Promotions. I am not a member of any guild. I've definitely had my experiences at using my writing skills to manipulate. And when the awards came, I bought into my own B.S. In the above post I mentioned being sold on our own “hyperbole”. I was not casually making a statement about others. I know exactly how we can have our ego stroked by our “work”. And how the instantaneous gratification factors available in our industry can distort your perception. I think it was written in a “Star Trek” episode, “For the World is Hollow, and I have touched the Sky”. I believe the strike to be a bit of this. It's not that the WGA is a lousy union, they are not. Nor are the Studio Execs total monsters.
The WGA has made a strategic error. The guild will not stop this industry, if a solution cannot be reached, New ways and New talent will eventually be sought. It might even rise somewhere else besides Hollywood. It's a basic lesson from Sun Tzu “only fight when you can win”. If the strike goes on long enough, and it becomes a war of attrition, the person with most wins, everyone else loses. And if that happens, everything that was built so far, goes a way, and we start over.
I am angry at how both sides are handling it right now. I have a freelance member of my staff returning to our state, because he just lost his residence in Hollywood because of the strike. It's not cheap to live there, let alone listen to some fairly financially successful folks, talk about “more”, “our” and “my”. I did not like the depressed tone of his voice when he called me about finding work. It's the holidays, and that just flat out sucks.
If the writers were getting “graphite lung”, or the producers were really being monsters, I would probably be a little less angry.
Didn't one of those folks on the picket lines write “There is only so much fortune a man can have”? Another one on the other side, financed those words. I think they all made great money with that.
The reality of this situation is not a battle of writers vs. studios. Work was stopped, people are losing their jobs, holidays are destroyed. Homes lost. Medical Benefits are going away. For a few percentage points over New Media? One that no one can say if it is a viewer shift, or new profit? (That equals potential greed on both sides in relation to current earnings)
There is a war on. 1 million people were without power last week in freezing weather. Katrina victims are still trying to recover. Then there's that pesky mortgage issue. Is new media really worth an actual strike, or could it have been the one point that was “tabled” for future negotiations? As writers and producers, we are always told to “think outside the box.” As of right now, there is more harm than good. It's time to get seriously real and get people back to work!
Good Will, Good Faith, Honor, and Integrity, that's what's needed.
….those are the things we make the movies and television about!!!!
Rena,
I don’t know if anyone will see this post, but if you do….
I am the owner of a small Entertainment and Production Company. Before, I was a CBS O and O Creative Services Producer. Specializing in programming outside of News, and Promotions. I am not a member of any guild. I’ve definitely had my experiences at using my writing skills to manipulate. And when the awards came, I bought into my own B.S. In the above post I mentioned being sold on our own “hyperbole”. I was not casually making a statement about others. I know exactly how we can have our ego stroked by our “work”. And how the instantaneous gratification factors available in our industry can distort your perception. I think it was written in a “Star Trek” episode, “For the World is Hollow, and I have touched the Sky”. I believe the strike to be a bit of this. It’s not that the WGA is a lousy union, they are not. Nor are the Studio Execs total monsters.
The WGA has made a strategic error. The guild will not stop this industry, if a solution cannot be reached, New ways and New talent will eventually be sought. It might even rise somewhere else besides Hollywood. It’s a basic lesson from Sun Tzu “only fight when you can win”. If the strike goes on long enough, and it becomes a war of attrition, the person with most wins, everyone else loses. And if that happens, everything that was built so far, goes a way, and we start over.
I am angry at how both sides are handling it right now. I have a freelance member of my staff returning to our state, because he just lost his residence in Hollywood because of the strike. It’s not cheap to live there, let alone listen to some fairly financially successful folks, talk about “more”, “our” and “my”. I did not like the depressed tone of his voice when he called me about finding work. It’s the holidays, and that just flat out sucks.
If the writers were getting “graphite lung”, or the producers were really being monsters, I would probably be a little less angry.
Didn’t one of those folks on the picket lines write “There is only so much fortune a man can have”? Another one on the other side, financed those words. I think they all made great money with that.
The reality of this situation is not a battle of writers vs. studios. Work was stopped, people are losing their jobs, holidays are destroyed. Homes lost. Medical Benefits are going away. For a few percentage points over New Media? One that no one can say if it is a viewer shift, or new profit? (That equals potential greed on both sides in relation to current earnings)
There is a war on. 1 million people were without power last week in freezing weather. Katrina victims are still trying to recover. Then there’s that pesky mortgage issue. Is new media really worth an actual strike, or could it have been the one point that was “tabled” for future negotiations? As writers and producers, we are always told to “think outside the box.” As of right now, there is more harm than good. It’s time to get seriously real and get people back to work!
Good Will, Good Faith, Honor, and Integrity, that’s what’s needed.
….those are the things we make the movies and television about!!!!