Writers strike is a go

[Glyfair]

Studios sell DVDs wholesale for $16; subtract $2 for manufacturing costs and $2 for marketing costs, and they're making $12 profit per DVD..

Having managed a video store, I can say those numbers seem way off. The sellers of DVD might end up paying $16 for each DVD, but out of that you have to count transportation, the distributor's costs, etc. I'd believe $8 or maybe even $10 per DVD. $16 just doesn't allow for the DVD prices we see in the market.

 

[Grog]

Having managed a video store, I can say those numbers seem way off. The sellers of DVD might end up paying $16 for each DVD, but out of that you have to count transportation, the distributor's costs, etc. I'd believe $8 or maybe even $10 per DVD. $16 just doesn't allow for the DVD prices we see in the market.

The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.

 

[WayneLigon]

Robert Rodriguez has some funny anecdotes about this in his book "Rebel Without A Crew", about how when he went to Hollywood to work on a big budget movie for the first time, he was doing the editing and post-production work himself, saving a lot of time and money as a result, and was told point blank that he couldn't do it, that's not the way it's done (in fairness, part of it was due to union issues). It's really pretty funny (and sad).

Which is one of the reasons, or the major reason, he's not a member of the Director's Guild? Or was it something else?

 

[Mistwell]

What I want is for you to provide some support for the things you are claiming are facts. And I want you to leave the personal comments out of it this time.

Now, are you willing to do this, or am I wasting my time?

Most of the facts came from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers page.

Some came from the articles I had previously quoted.

One came from a writer friend of mine (he supports the strike, but does not agree with the demand to be paid before everyone else, and is upset about the lack of negotiations 6 months before the deadline when the Alliance first asked).

 

[Glyfair]

The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.

Like that would do any good.

I did check to make sure the major distributors are still dealing with DVDs, and confirmed they are (Ingram for instance). Some companies are likely dealing directly with the studios (Blockbuster did for many titles while I was there), but it's certainly not all and only the largest companies can afford to do that.

 

[Mistwell]

My point was that the actual managing of the strike has no relevence to the reasons for the strike.

The thread was not limited to just reasons for the strike. Post number one was essentially "let's talk about the strike, and it's ramifications". People starting posting about what jerks the Producers were being. I didn't see you object to those posts. So if your objection is "stick to the the more limited topic of reasons for the strike", I have not seen you chastise anyone else for not sticking to that limited issue when it came to bashing the Producers for their bad behavior.

If we are talking about whether the writers are justified in starting a strike or not, the details of the strike itself are irrelevent. The same can be said concerning your mention of the other people who are making less money than the writers. The fact that they are making enough money or not is irrelevent to the writer's own issues.

The writers are striking with a claim that the Producers are taking too much money and not giving enough to the writers, and many people have mentioned in this thread that the writers are underpaid. It's absolutely relevant to state that they are actually doing quite well on average. and some are millionaires, and some of the people they are striking against make LESS money than them. I am sure you can see why that would be relevant to this discussion, given it directly contradicts some claims made in this thread. It's OK that I am responding to points made in the thread, right?

Finally, so far, while there have been many nasty claims about the producers, they only pertain to the reasons for the strike, not the act of the strike itself, so I am not contradicting myself here.

There was an accusation of "Union busters in the AMPTP and others had been working against them" Later, someone linked to this blog, which details various bad behavior from the Producers since the strike started titled "The CEOs Aren't Playing Fair". Then there was a link to this article detailing claims that the Producer's duped the writers and lied after the strike happened. Then someone posted this article claiming the Producer's have been dishonestly working the press corp. So to address your claim that the pro-Writer's position in this thread hasn't ever bashed the Producer's behavior since the strike, as opposed to simply focusing purely on reasons for the strike itself, I feel you are wrong.

I never said I didn't have a stand, I just said I don't know the details (such as how much people deserve to be paid, and such). I just said the kinds of things that should make people think they should ignore my opinion, not that I don't have an opinion. Right now, I am favoring the writer's side.

However, I dislike your implication that I made a choice on my stand (or that others in this thread have done so) arbitrarily, and are deliberatly ignoring one side in order to further my (our) own views.

I absolutely did not accuse you of arbitrarily coming to the conclusion that you side with the writer's. You in fact came to the same conclusion I did.

I did however say that you already came to that conclusion, and that you are reacting as most people react to things they perceive as questioning their prior conclusion - to try and poke holes in it rather than sit back and carefully consider it. Most people, myself included most of the time, carefully consider things before we draw a conclusion, and not after we have already done so.

That is unfair and untrue. I am simply making a choice based on the information and views expressed in this thread. I think that is as impartial as I can be expected to be. It just happens that, in this thread, a pretty good case has been made for the writers to have good reason to strike.

Fair enough.

 

[Mistwell]

The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.

What about selling something wholesale tells you that no distribution costs are involved. How do you think the wholesale DVDs get to the retailers?

My company sells graduation gowns wholesale to some retailers. There are substantial costs involved beyond manufacturing costs.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Which is one of the reasons, or the major reason, he's not a member of the Director's Guild? Or was it something else?

I'm sure it contributed to it, but the main reason (final straw?) was that they wouldn't allow both he and Frank Miller to share directorial credit on Sin City. (RR said that his artwork in the GN was the primary influence behind his directorial choices, and the DGA said that wasn't enough, FM would have actually had to be a co-Director on the film, sharing duties, etc.)

 

[Grog]

Like that would do any good.

I did check to make sure the major distributors are still dealing with DVDs, and confirmed they are (Ingram for instance). Some companies are likely dealing directly with the studios (Blockbuster did for many titles while I was there), but it's certainly not all and only the largest companies can afford to do that.

Well, according to this article, 40% of DVD sales go through Wal-Mart alone. Add in all the other big retail chains, like Best Buy, etc., and I'm sure that they account for well over half of U.S. DVD sales. With the studios selling direct to the major retailers, distributor "middleman" costs are kept to a minimum, so I suspect the numbers in the NYT article are accurate.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, according to this article, 40% of DVD sales go through Wal-Mart alone. Add in all the other big retail chains, like Best Buy, etc., and I'm sure that they account for well over half of U.S. DVD sales. With the studios selling direct to the major retailers, distributor "middleman" costs are kept to a minimum, so I suspect the numbers in the NYT article are accurate.

Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87, it seems the article must be at least somewhat inaccurate. The other article cited said that the Writer's Union felt that the Producer's were keeping $10.55, not $12. I think it's safe to assume the WGA is probably more accurate than some writer who seems to be citing numbers off the top of his head rather than stressing the accuracy of those numbers (he starts by saying "for example" and then says "about" throughout the paragraph, I think to stress that these numbers are not to be taken as gospel).