Writers strike is a go

[Mistwell]

Getting the producers' point of view on the strike is all well and good, but that article was just a rant as far as I could tell.

About a third of the articles posted here are essentially rants.

Anyway, nothing I've heard from the producers so far has addressed the central issue of the strike - namely, that the writers want to be paid for their work, regardless of what medium is used to deliver it to viewers.

Please share the sources you have heard from the producers. That was my point, we are hearing only one side in this thread. If you have articles from the producers side that you think are not rants, then share them. If not...they when you say "nothing I've heard from the producers so far..." what is it you mean?

 

[Mistwell]

The whole thing basically comes down to one simple question - do you think that the writers (and the directors, and the actors) should get paid less (or, in many cases, nothing at all) because their work gets shown on the internet rather than on TV?

That is an overly simplified answer. I know you feel strongly in favor of the writers, but pretending the Producers do not have a side of their own is kinda silly.

Again, do you know the Producers opinion on why they have not settled on the internet answer? Hint - the answer is not "we just want all the money". Even the WGA admit it's WAY more complicated than just a case of money.

 

[Grog]

About a third of the articles posted here are essentially rants.

So far in this thread, I've posted three articles and one other person has posted one. None of them were rants.

Please share the sources you have heard from the producers. That was my point, we are hearing only one side in this thread. If you have articles from the producers side that you think are not rants, then share them. If not...they when you say "nothing I've heard from the producers so far..." what is it you mean?

I mean exactly what I said. I have not heard anything from the studios that addresses the issue of "new" media, and why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for material shown online as opposed to on TV.

That is an overly simplified answer. I know you feel strongly in favor of the writers, but pretending the Producers do not have a side of their own is kinda silly.

Again, do you know the Producers opinion on why they have not settled on the internet answer? Hint - the answer is not "we just want all the money". Even the WGA admit it's WAY more complicated than just a case of money.

Where has the WGA admitted this?

 

[Mistwell]

So far in this thread, I've posted three articles and one other person has posted one. None of them were rants.

I disagree, but lets leave it at that.

I mean exactly what I said. I have not heard anything from the studios that addresses the issue of "new" media, and why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for material shown online as opposed to on TV.

OK then we are miscommunicating.

Please post an article you have read, other than the one I linked to, that you think fairly represents the Producers side of this strike.

If you have not read an article, other than the one I posted, from the Producer's perspective, then say so.

Where has the WGA admitted this?

In their discussions concerning the formula. The WGA went in asking for a rigid formula for internet royalties, but came out of the negotiations admitting the issue is far more complicated than that, since it doesn't allow any flexibility and could essentially eliminate some internet advertising for their own shows. What the formula will eventually end up looking like is yet to be seen of course, but I think both sides now know that it's going to be complex, and will have to deal with some hard accounting issues that have to take into consideration risks of illegal copying and distribution, free shows, cross-promotions, and all sorts of complex issues that makes a fixed formula a less than optimal solution.

While I come down slightly on the side of the writers in this debate, I do agree with the Producers on one key point - The writers should have started discussions 6 months ago when they were asked to, because this is a complex set of issues and trying to rush it at the last minute didn't have a great chance of success.

 

[Grog]

OK then we are miscommunicating.

Please post an article you have read, other than the one I linked to, that you think fairly represents the Producers side of this strike.

If you have not read an article, other than the one I posted, from the Producer's perspective, then say so.

Define what you mean by "fairly represents the Producers side of this strike." There are tons of "he said, she said" articles about the strike out there with statements from both sides - I don't think I need to link to one, we can both agree that they exist, no?

But - repeating myself yet again - I haven't seen anything in the news from the studios that explains why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for online content.

In their discussions concerning the formula. The WGA went in asking for a rigid formula for internet royalties, but came out of the negotiations admitting the issue is far more complicated than that, since it doesn't allow any flexibility and could essentially eliminate some internet advertising for their own shows. What the formula will eventually end up looking like is yet to be seen of course, but I think both sides now know that it's going to be complex, and will have to deal with some hard accounting issues that have to take into consideration risks of illegal copying and distribution, free shows, cross-promotions, and all sorts of complex issues that makes a fixed formula a less than optimal solution.

It still all comes down to a question of money, and the studios not wanting to pay the writers (and the directors, and the actors) a fair share for their work. The fact is that the studios are already making money for online content. If you watch an episode on a network's website, you will see ads, which obviously, the network charged money for. And so far, they've been very stingy about sharing any of that money with the people who made the episodes. I'd like to see that practice end, and obviously, so would the writers.

 

[sckeener]

I noticed something...ALL the picketing writers had a serious beer belly going on. I mean, there were over a dozen, and all of them were not just a tad overweight (because really, few among us are not a tad overweight), but they were seriously in need of some weight loss.

Ha! reminds me of the UPS 1997 strike. Though I understand this writers strike, the 1997 UPS strike was just silly. The teamsters just wanted to flex their muscles.

I was tech support at UPS in Houston during the time. I was non-union, so I had to go to work. The ones picketing were fat and drinking beer. One of them even threw a beer can at my car.

And it was all stupid. I saw the contract before the strike. The teamsters had already gotten permission to strike before they even saw the contract. They went on strike and then after UPS caved, they signed the same contract. It was ridiculous to go through all that...to bring UPS to a halt and drag Clinton into it....just to send a message to all the other companies that the teamsters were a political force. In the end the employees/union members are the ones that got screwed because they would have gotten a $1500/employee signing bonus if they didn't strike. Since it was the same contract, I felt bad for all the employees that I knew were struggling who didn't get that money. The scabs that crossed got the money...

I also remember this one mechanic who started a fight with a manager 15 minutes before the strike was supposed to start....he was fired on the spot. He became the most vocal striker and when the strike was over, he got his job back.

The teamsters leave a bad taste in my mouth. I quit UPS afterwards. I wish they had broken the strike.

 

[Mistwell]

Define what you mean by "fairly represents the Producers side of this strike." There are tons of "he said, she said" articles about the strike out there with statements from both sides - I don't think I need to link to one, we can both agree that they exist, no?

So far, except for the "rant" I posted, all the other articles are expressly favoring the writers side of the debate. I am asking that you post something that expressly favors the producers, so we can read both sides of the debate. You said so far you had "heard nothing from the studios" about an issue. OK, so, what HAVE you heard from the studios, as opposed to hearing it from the writers talking about their view of what the Studio position?

But - repeating myself yet again - I haven't seen anything in the news from the studios that explains why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for online content.

Have you seen anything from the Studios at all? On any topic? Actually from the Studios? I mean, it would be easy to say right now "I have not heard anything from the Studios saying that people should brush their teeth every day" and conclude the Studios are against brushing your teeth every day, but that would not be logical.

From what I can tell, in this thread, nobody has read the actual Studio position on this topic. They've just read the view of the writers on what the writers think the Studio position is, and that is the obvious "they are just greedy bastards".

It still all comes down to a question of money, and the studios not wanting to pay the writers (and the directors, and the actors) a fair share for their work.

I disagree. It's more complicated than that. And your use of "fair share" means you are looking at it with a biased view.

The fact is that the studios are already making money for online content.

Right now, that is not correct. I've read a lot of the financial documents of the studios, and the stock reports, and the dispute with Apple over it, and right now the Studios have not found a way to make the internet sales do anything other that come up with a slight loss, and sometimes a break-even. They are not currently making money from it. And the WGA position is not that they believe the Studios are currently making money from it, but that they WILL eventually make money from it, and they want a set formula in place to deal with the issue when it eventually comes up.

The Studio position (though again I would like to read more about it, from their side) seems to be that a fixed formula would be a bad idea until they can experiment with the medium and work out formulas that work for different kinds of online projects. Eisner said some interesting things on the subject that basically said "WGA is stupid for drawing a line in the sand on this issue before the issue is ripe, because they will shoot themselves in the foot just like they did with DVDs last time around". Here are some quotes:

http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9812703-36.html?tag=cd.blog

If you watch an episode on a network's website, you will see ads, which obviously, the network charged money for. And so far, they've been very stingy about sharing any of that money with the people who made the episodes. I'd like to see that practice end, and obviously, so would the writers.

I have not read anything at all that indicates the ads are producing a profit for the online projects. Indeed, given the Producers position that their work to distribute online is not only so far costly, but causing people to rip it off and distribute it for free and therefore decrease the viewing of the live TV shows themselves, I find it hard to believe you have read anything that shows solid evidence that it's been profitable at all so far.

 

[Grog]

From what I can tell, in this thread, nobody has read the actual Studio position on this topic. They've just read the view of the writers on what the writers think the Studio position is, and that is the obvious "they are just greedy bastards".

Fine. If you're so hot on getting us to see the studios' position, why don't you share it with us?

I disagree. It's more complicated than that. And your use of "fair share" means you are looking at it with a biased view.

Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.

Right now, that is not correct. I've read a lot of the financial documents of the studios, and the stock reports, and the dispute with Apple over it, and right now the Studios have not found a way to make the internet sales do anything other that come up with a slight loss, and sometimes a break-even. They are not currently making money from it.

No offense, but I find that very hard to believe. Oh, don't get me wrong, I can believe that they made a bad deal with Apple over the iTunes side of the equation, but as far as showing episodes on their website? If they're not paying the writers, directors, or actors anything for them, what does it cost them to show those episodes online? Nothing except their bandwidth costs. I have a really hard time believing that they can't make that up and more with advertising revenue, because the fact is, ads during internet episodes are more valuable than ads during TV episodes, because you can't skip them.

 

[Mistwell]

Fine. If you're so hot on getting us to see the studios' position, why don't you share it with us?

That's exactly what I have been trying to do. I posted two of them now, and I am trying to articulate some of the combined stuff I have seen in some financial docs and other places. I will look for more articles, but that was my whole point - has anyone read any good articles from the other side on this and if so can they please post them?

Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.

First, that whole four cents thing is a bit inaccurate. On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.).

Second, my "more complicated" was directed at the online issue and not the DVD issue. The DVD issue is relatively easy. My understanding is that during the last negotiations the WGA withdrew the DVD issue. It's the online and "new media" issue that is the complicated part of this dispute.

No offense, but I find that very hard to believe. Oh, don't get me wrong, I can believe that they made a bad deal with Apple over the iTunes side of the equation, but as far as showing episodes on their website? If they're not paying the writers, directors, or actors anything for them, what does it cost them to show those episodes online? Nothing except their bandwidth costs.

If people copy the online content and distribute it themselves to their friends, causing those people to not watch the actual show at all whereas they would have previously watched it, then it's costing them money. In addition, putting it up online costs money, and not just in bandwidth. There is an army of guys right now dealing with online issues at the studios, they make decent money, and right now those departments are not considered profit centers but "potential future profit centers". In other words, they are a write-off right now. Like Eisner said, it's their own darn fault for talking up the online stuff before it was making money in order to impress investors, as it had the unintended result of actually convincing non-investors like the writers that it really was currently profitable when it's not.

I have a really hard time believing that they can't make that up and more with advertising revenue, because the fact is, ads during internet episodes are more valuable than ads during TV episodes, because you can't skip them.

Right now, as far as I can tell, they are not profitable. While you cannot skip over those ads, it's very hard to even convince advertisers to place them and pay well for them, and sometimes the ad you are seeing is actually a FREE ad attached as a special to an TV ad deal, which serves essentially as a placeholder to try and show that the advertising in that media can work.

If you have any evidence that the online shows are making a profit, could you link to it? Given how worthwhile it would be as information for investors in those Studios, and how the disclosure requirements for public companies require announcing material profit centers of the company, it should be out there. Right now, as far as I can tell, it's not. And, that's because they are not right now turning a profit, but are buried in advertising and promotional costs as a negative and not a positive.

Here are some additional facts from the AMPTP site:

1) As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on permanent digital downloads.

2) As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on pay-per-view digital downloads.

3) When the WGA went on strike, an offer to pay writers for Internet streaming was on the table.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

That's exactly what I have been trying to do. I posted two of them now, and I am trying to articulate some of the combined stuff I have seen in some financial docs and other places. I will look for more articles, but that was my whole point - has anyone read any good articles from the other side on this and if so can they please post them?

I think the reason you're not seeing them is because, as Grog pointed out, the studios aren't talking. The AMPTP hasn't issued any press statements other than Nick Counter's press release following the breakdowns of the talk (which they issued despite, as has been reported in numerous places, an agreement to have no press releases about- a condition the AMPTP put on the WGA). Since then, they've made no moves to go back to the bargaining table, issued no press statements, nothing.

The only thing I have been able to find is a decidedly uninformative and insubstantial disclaimer about their role in things on the front page of the AMPTP website.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT…

As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on permanent digital downloads.

As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on pay-per-view digital downloads.

This additional compensation was part of the more than $260,000,000 in record-breaking residuals paid to WGAW members in 2006.

When the WGA went on strike, an offer to pay writers for Internet streaming was on the table.

(Maybe their PR people went on strike, too?)

Anyway, if you haven't already, you might want to poke around there for something. Maybe you'll find something more substantive than I have.

[EDIT- Actually, I do see a clip from Variety that notes Nick Counter saying he expects the AMPTP to be negotiating next with the Director's Guild rather than the WGA. Which doesn't exactly speak much for how concerned they are with the writers. Although I suppose it's theoretically good news that they're getting a jump on the DGA talks, which contract doesn't expire until June. *shrug*]