Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » That Shitty DGA Deal Is At Least A Start…

That Shitty DGA Deal Is At Least A Start...

I'll post starting tomorrow but in the meantime express yourselves intelligently here. Given that the writers may have just enough pre-Oscars leverage over the next three weeks to quickly hammer out something less excremental, that is if the moguls can stop punishing them for striking in the first place, what should that be realistically using the DGA deal as a framework? As always comments are monitored.

Posted by Nikki Finke on Monday, Jan 21st, 2008 at 08:14AM | Permalink |

« DHD Update: Better But Not Back Yet SOURCES: Bob Shaye's New Line Contract Won't Be Renewed By Time Warner Boss »

106 Comments »

Still, there’s something to be said for never completely shutting this town down.

And to get a deal AT ALL is a HUGE accomplishment in these union busting times.

I have missed you, Nikki, as I’m sure most of this town has, and I hope you are taking care of yourself in these stressful times.

Peggy Lane O’Rourke

Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — January 21, 2008 @ 9:21 am
I still believe the deal the writers placed on the table was fair, though I wouldn’t expect producers to sanction sympathy strikes against them. That said, using the DGA deal as a framework, the WGA shouldn’t settle for anything less than a flat fee of, say, 2.5 percent of distributors gross across all non-broadcast distribution platforms, including internet and DVD, with a window no greater than seven days.

Jurisdiction over animation and reality shows should be in this contract.

Comment by Writer Bob — January 21, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Is it shitty? It’s wise to get as much opinion as possible. There are some good links over at United Hollywood under the heading “Dissecting the Deal.” Jonathon Handelman’s essay over at HuffPo is pretty good. And of course you can get a little John Wells slavering thanks to Artful Writer.

I suspect the truth is that it ain’t good, it ain’t terrible, and the only real question is how much more we can get as everyone nears the drop/deadline. Which is about two days before the Oscars.

Comment by Harley — January 21, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Tough to tell others to “express themselves intelligently” when you have already stirred them up by labelling the DGA deal as “shitty.” Enough muckraking. Let’s act like grown ups… There are alot of very good things in the DGA deal. Granted, there are spots that need work and improvement, but that’s no reason to fan the flames by calling it “shitty” right off the bat. Shame, shame, shame…

Comment by John — January 21, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Oh, and welcome back, Nikki. Good to know the AMPTP didn’t make you an offer you couldn’t refuse (my favorite picket line rumor).

Comment by Harley — January 21, 2008 @ 9:55 am
You probably won’t post this and that’s a shame. But I’ll comment anyway, futile as it may be. I come from a family of instigators, where someone will say to someone else that so-and-so said this awful thing about them, fueling anger and resentment on both sides. Most of the time, these gossiping family members think they’re “doing a good deed for the greater good of the family”, when in fact, they’re simply creating an atagonistic environment. What they really must do instead is: let people resolve issues amongst themselves. And that’s what you need to do with the strike. By posting your “shitty DGA deal” comment, you’re again fanning of the fires of radicalism. Which is what this strike has become. A radical, irrational shit-throwing war. Rational people in the WGA are muzzled by louder, angrier and bitter people in the WGA. Notice how progress was made in your absence, without your snarky editorials. Bottom line: you’re not really in the movie and TV biz, Nikki, you just report on it, yet inexplicably your comments can arguably iffluence the position of many people who are actually WORKERS in this town. Look, you do some very good reporting, but right now, you’re getting involved in something you shouldn’t be getting involved in by fanning the flames. So use your power wisely. I know you try to, but at times, like today, you do nothing but make a bad situation worse. Just like people in my family do. I see it all the time and believe me, people like you do no one any good.

Comment by Rational Thinker — January 21, 2008 @ 9:57 am
I thought what Paul Haggis wrote (posted on UnitedHollywood.com) was wise and well timed. I was grateful to read it. It headline here on DHD suggests the DGA deal isn’t all so great. I’m a writer who is not yet in the guild - I’m one of those guys who has been hired before but is not yet in the guild but is close. I’ve been following the politics and bs like so many of you, weighing in on the bs and trying to learn what I can. But, I don’t know why the DGA deal is bad - and frankly, I don’t know why it’s good either. The UH site had some smart analysis, but I’d like to hear more about the negatives of this deal and where we need to AMPTP to go to make writers happy. Looking forward to your posts and to Nikki’s POV on the DGA deal. She’s obviously not impressed.

Writer - outside the gates with you but not yet in the guild.

Comment by outside the gates — January 21, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Just wanted to welcome you back. I had no idea how dependent I was on this site until it went down. I hope you’re feeling better.

Comment by Mike Galvin — January 21, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Two things the WGA negotiating committee should go for, that would build on the DGA agreement and tailer it to address writers’ needs:

1. Accept the DGA framework for digital revenues, but for only the first two years of the new contract. Have the 3rd year increase the %/$ - even if nominally - setting that precedent for the year leading up to the next negotiation. That might help preempt today’s %/$ rates settling in “as is” for the next 20 years. (As it did for video.)

2. Develop some kind of automatic 10% “gross tax,” on the % cuts of distributor’s gross currently being liberally given to actors, directors and producers (i.e., to everyone EXCEPT the people who write the script that make their cuts possible). So if 30% of distributor’s gross is being given to a project’s lead actor(s), director and producers(s), then automatically apply another 3% for the writer (10% of the 30%). This probably won’t wind up costing the congloms anything anyway, because that’ll be factored into their negotiations from the start, to cap the total at 30% (or whatever). The other participants shouldn’t have a prob - it’s imminently fair, and we’ll still wind up with the smallest %. Ask Spielberg, Hanks and Cruise about this one - bet they’d get in front of the parade.

Comment by WrteStufLA — January 21, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Glad to have you back. Cautiously optimistic on the deal. At least they’re talking! Got to get that seventeen day window out and need a better definition of what they mean by disclosing finances. I still think the guild will be patient and wait for a deal that fits us, not a deal that fits the other unions.

Comment by Glad you're back — January 21, 2008 @ 10:19 am
oh how i’ve missed you Nikki - T

Comment by Troy — January 21, 2008 @ 10:23 am
You go, Nikki. Thank God you’re back.

Comment by David Sheffield — January 21, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Those “breakpoints” are a pretty shitty mark to meet right now. But in the next decade, as streaming slowly replaces syndication, that 100,000 breakpoint won’t seem so unreachable.

Comment by 40yearoldstitzer — January 21, 2008 @ 10:32 am
There has always been a potential deal on the Internet (Reality and Animation are a different, but complicating story) that would guarantee fairness and stability and easier future contract renewals: adopt an enforcible agreement (i.e. auditing and arbitration provisions) that migrates minimums and residuals to the Internet as the audience migrates to the Internet (i.e. a percentage or step-payment structure that all sides agree is meant to preserve the same ratio of initial and residual compensation to budget, revenue and, perhaps, audience size). These principles would work for both film and TV - which will soon become harder to distinguish as digital production and distribution subsume both.

The DGA appears to have gotten only a start on this. Most notably, in three years they’ll still either have to wage a new fight to increase their pay structure by several magnitudes to reflect the displacement of broadcast TV distribution by Internet distribution - or they’ll have to tell their TV directors that the rest of the DGA doesn’t care about what is probably something like a quarter or a third of the TV directors’ incomes.

Of course, as of this writing, no one - perhaps not even the DGA - really knows what their agreement provides. They seem only to have negotiated a press release with the real, possibly tricky agreement yet to come.

Comment by Lackland — January 21, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Hope you are feeling better.

Comment by nice — January 21, 2008 @ 11:00 am
A rolling percentage of distributor’s gross on streaming. Maybe it’s not the number we want, but without that structure as part of the deal this strike will be remembered as this generation’s 1988.

Comment by larry fouch — January 21, 2008 @ 11:00 am
WGA needs to stand strong and not cave. This is a terrible deal, and if they take it then strike was for naught. Members need to read Paul Haggis posting on United Hollywood.. Don’t fall for the studios PR about the guild fracturing…

Comment by victoria — January 21, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Yeah, the DGA deal is a start, but little more than that. If we accept it–or anything remotely close–it would be another example of the WGA taking the crumbs and leaving the pie. That’s what we did with home video, and again with DVDs. But egregious as those failures were, this would be far worse–because a loss here will inevitably lead to the withering of our livelihoods and the gutting of our guild. Yes, I want to get back to work. Neville Chamberlain wanted peace. Not every deal is a good one.

Comment by StickingWithMyUnion — January 21, 2008 @ 11:05 am
There have to be bandwidth limits to this ad-supported “promotional” streaming. It doesn’t matter what it’s called–if the studios are allowed any way to stream enough data to play on TV without paying residuals, then residuals are gone forever.

What things are called doesn’t matter any more. The only thing that matters is what they can be used for. So *any signal* that’s streamed with enough bandwidth to be broadcast quality or near broadcast quality MUST be paid a fair residual. ‘Cause that’s the only residuals there will be in a couple of years.

Comment by Stewart — January 21, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Glad you’re beginning to feel better. We miss you! Just curious - new look for the site? Kinda miss the old logo…

Comment by g — January 21, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Nicki,
Make sure to take good care of yourself, you were missed last week and I don’t want you to get so run down you have to take a long break.

What about the DGA contract is bad? Since you were gone I had to depend on Variety’s coverage and they seem to like it.

Comment by George — January 21, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Well, shitty or not, it’s hard to tell. Lots of opinion on both sides. United Hollywood has some good links, including a good split/the/difference piece by Jonathan Handelman over at HuffPo. United H has a new link to a Forbes article that has some interesting comment. And of course John Wells is slavering all over the DGA deal thanks to a link/post at Artful Writer.

The truth is probably somewhere between. Let’s see what we can get in the coming weeks. Then decide if it’s worth taking, or worth striking until June. Because those seem to be the choices.

Comment by Harley — January 21, 2008 @ 11:43 am
I think the WGA should take the DGA as a framework and push for bumps in streaming residuals per 100,000 streams per quarter, expressed as a fraction of script fee (this was the WGA’s retooled proposal before the December AMPTP walkout.) BUT (and this is a big but, which is why it’s ALL CAPS)– these increases will only be tenable if broadcast residuals are creditable against them. So, if you do get that 20K first rerun check, you only get the $1200. But if you don’t, you get $1200 + some reasonable figure like (hypothetically) $1000 per 100,000 streams per quarter. And if the episode gets a broadcast rerun sometime down the line, (like when Lost syndicates in five years, for instance), whatever traffic bonus $ the writer recieved previously gets applied against the $20K.

This saves a lot of money for the companies (and also, importantly, it REMOVES THE INCENTIVE NOT TO RUN BROADCAST RERUNS) and also guards against writers having to trade 20K for 1.2K across the board. I think everyone could live with it.

Comment by Mike — January 21, 2008 @ 11:58 am
The DGA deal as a framework? Get serious. Jurisdiction is not enough as far as streaming content and the Internet goes; if the WGA accepts this, then they’re accepting the same shitty wait-and-see deal they struck years previous for DVD/HV.
Of course the DGA deal was easier to hammer out. As a union, they’ve never struck - they’re too cozy with producers for that - and what do they care about the WGA’s need to finally unionize animation and reality? I’ll be bitterly disappointed if - after all this - the WGA caves to the DGA deal.

Comment by Angry WGA Member — January 21, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Nice change in DHD format; easier to read and pleasant on the eyes.
As always, your comments are the most insightful, honest and interesting
(not to mention always accurate and well in advance of anybody else).
If I had only one point of view to read, it would be YOURS!

Comment by Karen Lee — January 21, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Nikki, I echo everyone’s well wishes– I missed your “inside baseball” accounts of events last week, but I absolutely support your need to take care of yourself first.

As a WGA strike captain who attended last Friday’s captains’ meeting, I want to reinforce (and please forgive my caps) that WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE ACTUAL DEAL YET. All we’ve seen is a press release which has incomplete information, and has likely been presented as positively as possible, so both sides look like heroes.

As of Friday morning, the WGA negotiating committee was trying to get a copy of the actual deal from the DGA, so they could parse through it over the weekend and then give their formal assessment. In the meantime, I urge everyone NOT to form any final opinions yet, since all we’ve read so far are the Cliff’s Notes. Thanks for your patience and understanding!

Comment by Aaron — January 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Welcome back, Nikki, for another good reason: although I agree with others here that your overall effect is to whip people up a little more than is good for us with rumours and half-truths, the comments section over at United Hollywood has been taken over by the radicals. This has happened because, to dissuade the numerous casual trolls who once roamed there, it’s now not possible to comment without having a blog page. The majority of calm, moderate writers who might have a very good point to make in passing simply haven’t got the energy to go start up a blog simply so they can add their voice. As a member of the silent majority who believe the DGA deal isn’t good enough for us, but can surely be improved upon and thus should serve as a basis, welcome back. I now have somewhere to speak up.

Comment by Paul — January 21, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
“Sunset clause:” While it’s not a cure-all for the frustrations of WGA membership in not seeing some of their legitimate demands in the details of the DGA agreement, does it not present the opportunity to redress whatever falls short in the negotiated contract? Who really knows how the dollars will be flowing in content distribution in three years time? A sunset clause gives the Guilds an opportunity to adjust their contract demands based on data, not speculation. Why aren’t the Writers expressing their support for a contract that includes a Sunset Clause? Am I missing something?

Comment by academy screamer — January 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I just want everyone to think a second…

When NBC asks everyone to subscribe to a “feed” of their TV show (think RSS)– that means your computer will *automatically download* the episode within an hour or so of when it’s pushed online… whether you watch it or not.

So explain how this 17-day no-residuals window is supposed to work exactly? Right now if I subscribe via i-Tunes store to free “Meet the Press” or “the McLaughlin Group” feeds, I get the show automatically within the hour. I might watch it, I might not, but it is on my machine until I’m ready. Both shows have ads.

Any fan of a show is going to subscribe to the entire season. (Right now I don’t think they can yet, but give the networks a couple months to figure out that having a viewer subscribe to a program will increase the likelihood they’ll watch… the ads). The networks will be falling over themselves to get viewers to subscribe to their shows because of the demographic info they can use..

Even if the networks for some reason don’t provide RSS feeds, the *fans* (and third party developers a la TiVo) will build tools to automatically download episodes when they first appear.

In short, the 17-day rule means no residuals for you!

R

PS- don’t bother telling me that this only applies to real-time “streaming” ad-supported video unless you’re prepared to tell me the necessary and sufficient technical/legal distinction between “streaming” and cached/downloaded content. And good luck w/that.

PPS– One (crappy) solution is to treat the show as a rental which expires 17 days after the initial release. If you download it the first day you get 17 days to watch it or it self-destructs. If you download it on day 16 you get one day to watch it. Of course, this is just begging to be worked around.. we’ll see how well Apple does with their timed 24-hour rental. Already people are reported to be changing their computer/ipod’s date to get around the time restrictions…

Welcome back Nikki!

Comment by R — January 21, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Lackland’s idea is a brilliant, quantifiable approach to resolving the potential problems with the DGA deal. The Writers Guild is worried of cannibalization in the rerun market, as viewership naturally shifts to the Internet. This displacement of broadcast TV to Internet distribution will be pretty accelerated in the next three years (especially if these deals incentivize the networks to save money in the process — Justine Bateman wrote a good post about this on United Hollywood) — we already witness it when LOST viewers need to go the Internet, and I know many people who solely do their first-run viewing on the Internet already. This deprives writers of the traditional rerun income streams and a graduated shifting of that stream — based on the easily quantified numbers — could ease all sides. Remember, even if the WGA settles, SAG has the potential of shutting down the town in July if the fear of such cannibalization isn’t resolved first and foremost.

Comment by thom taylor — January 21, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Shitty? Not perfect, not by a long shot. Writers need different things than directors. But the DGA wasn’t stupid and the strike gave them leverage. This deal isn’t great, but it isn’t bad. It’s totally framework. We need to stay calm and collected and do everything we can to force the AMPTP to do the same to we can negotatiate a deal and save our shows.

Comment by Caitlin — January 21, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
The following statement comes from Alfredo Barrios, a WGA strike captain and a former corporate attorney turned writer, who had this to say about the DGA deal:

“I was asked to comment on the DGA deal. I decided to wait a few days. Like most of you, I was waiting for more information about the deal than a broad sketch in a press release.

In the meantime, it’s my understanding that a small group of self-described “moderates” who advocated “patience” have ignored their own admonition and embarked on a mission to get as many names on a petition that essentially advocates that we should take the DGA deal, no matter its shortcomings – and as we all know, there are substantial shortcomings.

I’ve been heartened to hear that most people have resisted the urge to sign this so-called petition – regardless of whether they think the deal is generally favorable or bad. They know that the Negotiation Committee is about to go into meetings with studio CEOs in order to address problem areas in the agreement. And the CEOs seem willing to listen, given the leverage that we have at the moment. So why would you sign the petition, which only serves to undercut the Negotiation Committee’s power? You wouldn’t.

I won’t go into great detail about the DGA deal’s shortcomings. Most people know that the Electronic Sell-Through Rate is still abysmally low. As lawyer Jonathan Handel points out, the studios didn’t even meet us half way, and their rate only kicks in after certain sales volumes are met.

Most people also know that while the studios agreed to DGA jurisdiction over new works created for the Internet, it only applies to shows that have production budgets in excess of certain threshold numbers. Basically, if it’s a low budget Internet show, the guild doesn’t have jurisdiction over it. The problem of course is that most successful webisodes are low budget, and if you plan to create one, chances are you’d fall outside guild jurisdiction. So those threshold numbers need to move down in order for the jurisdiction provision to mean anything.

And then there is Ad-Supported Streaming… At the moment, the network rate for a rerun of a one-hour dramatic episode is roughly $21,000. The studios are now offering $1200 for a year’s worth of streaming of that same episode on the Internet, and this only kicks in after an initial two to three week period in which they would be able to run it for free. So as TV reruns become Internet reruns – and as anyone who owns a computer can attest, it’s happening now – our residual payments are obliterated. That’s why this proposal is characterized by many as a massive rollback. Remember, this is what we were fighting to avoid.

So what’s the answer? A flat rate closer to the existing network residual number? We can ask for it, but I think the studios will resist it. They argue that they’re still working out the business model for Internet streaming. They don’t want to be locked into a high flat rate number…

Which is why a graduated scale of residual payments makes so much sense. In other words, if a show streams on the Internet, and it’s successful (i.e., gets a certain number of hits), the writer of that show would get higher residual payments than the writer of a less successful show. It protects us and the studios. We both share in the upside. And if a show doesn’t do as well, the studios are only on the hook for a relatively low, initial flat rate payment.

I haven’t heard any reason why this wouldn’t work. I’d be interested in hearing what the CEOs have to say about it.

Some are asking: but would prolonging the strike be worth it? Would we want to strike for one or two or maybe several more months for a graduated scale and improved terms in various other areas? Fair enough. It is a cost-benefit analysis. And it depends – and this is critical – on what you think our leverage is.

The real question from my point of view would be: is it worth it to the studios to have us striking over a graduated scale that would protect them and us? I don’t think so. I think they want to do a deal now.

Before the DGA deal was announced, I thought the most interesting part of the deal wouldn’t necessarily be its substance – although important, we all anticipated it would have problems – but rather the timing of its announcement. That would tell you something about the studios’ timeline for getting this strike resolved. They back-channeled through the holidays and really pushed the DGA for a quick resolution. Remember, these were the same studios that wanted to make us feel the pain of the holidays to improve their bargaining position. So if they had more time, the smarter play from their own playbook would’ve been to sweat us out a little while longer. They didn’t.

They’ve taken a lot of financial hits over the last few months – much bigger than they probably anticipated – and have many more looming on the horizon (with the Oscars and the commencement of pilot season weeks away, and a potential SAG strike just months away). They realize it’s time to end this, and they have the power to do so…

… if they deal with us reasonably and fairly.”

Comment by Hank Moody — January 21, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Glad you are getting well, Nikki. We have missed your sound counsel. People say you are too pro-WGA. My reply is “Have you seriously read this woman? She bows to nobody. If she agrees with us, I take it as both a compliment and an acknowledgment that we are doing the right thing.”

Comment by AnotherWGAwriter — January 21, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
If Variety can lie and say “Directors Make Big Gains in New Media”, despite the fact that by the DGA’s own admission they CHOSE NOT TO FIGHT FOR NEW MEDIA COMPENSATION, then Nikki can accurately report that the deal is shitty.

Comment by Klaatu — January 21, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
The number one problem with the DGA contract is a cap ($1200 per hour, presumably less for half-hour) on streaming residuals. Though, Internet revenues don’t currently warrant residuals equal to second-run TV residuals ($20k per hour, half that for half-hour, half that again on cable), they will someday. Internet delivery to your TV will eventually be the norm.

Removing the cap is the only way to protect BOTH SIDES!

Comment by Klaatu — January 21, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
academy screamer,

Yes, you are missing something. A sunset clause is nothing. The contract expires in three years anyway, so everything is up for negotiation. There are not teeth to the sunset clause.

In fact, the studios, in three seperate, past negotiations, convinced the WGA (and other unions) to take very minimal payments for home video royalties, cable work and residuals, and foreign residuals. Their argument was that these were new market segments that made very little money and may not grow. They promised to revisit each of these areas as they became more viable. THEY NEVER DID. We still get the same amounts for each of these now hugely profitable market segments.

WE CANNOT BE FOOLED A FOURTH TIME!

An uncapped percentage of distributor’s gross for streaming is the only way to a) not bancrupt the studios as their online business grows, and b) protect the creative community’s future.

It’s so simple. Really. What are THEY missing?

Comment by Klaatu — January 21, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
NIKKI - WELCOME BACK! LORD HOW WE MISSED YOU! Nikki, I emplore you to stay solid in your continued reporting! The DGA IS a shitty deal. The DGA is NOT the deal we want or need or have been walking the picket lines all these weeks to achieve. Please do not balk at the noisy but miniscule minority that are ready to blindly jump into whatever BS deal the AMPTP wants to give. I’m fed up with the whining candy-asses who just don’t get it. Who learned nothing from the last strike. Who learned nothing from the shitty dvd/vhs debacle formula of the 80’s. We are standing on the cusp of our future. We will NEVER have a better opportunity to get what’s right and fair than we have now. Short-sightedness and blind trust in ‘revisiting’ forumla’s is what got us here in the first place. I for one, am ready to walk the line for as long as it takes to get what’s fair. And i implore our fearless leaders to not be pressured by the weenies! Yes, we all want to go back to work, but the future is now, people. This is our shot. We have to stand strong. United. blah blah blah and all that jazz.

Comment by Dorothy Gale — January 21, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
I think people are overemphasizing this whole thing about the $1200 flat rate for streaming being an incentive for not running broadcast reruns per se. Remember, even with a 20K residual, running a first rerun of a scripted show only costs 100K-200K. As John Wells pointed out in his widely circulated letter, this is cheaper than anything else you can put on the air, even the crappiest reality show.

What’s incentivizing networks running fewer reruns is, unfortunately, that they tend to be out-performed by even low-performing reality shows often. And this is not going to be impacted either way by a streaming deal. Case in point: Lost. Before ABC stopped running ‘Lost’ reruns, the reruns were doing about a 1.5. Which is pretty awful. But it still only cost them 100K (or whatever the residual package is) to put that on the air. Whatever crappy reality show they replaced it was costs at least 500K. But it’s doing way better than a 1.5, so it’s worth the extra 400K.

So, that’s the problem. The cost savings of broadcast reruns are often outpaced by first-run reality shows, which cost more than reruns, but which often do a lot better ratings-wise. I don’t see how accepting a $1200 cap is going to change this.

Comment by think about it — January 21, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Klaatu: not entirely true. There are different types of sunset clauses, and actually there are all sorts of complicated procedures for opening or re-opening sidebars in this type of negotiation. Without seeing the language of the DGA sunset clause provisions, of course, it’s premature to comment. But it is not a given that it is toothless.

Comment by Mike — January 21, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
I hear the writers got the producers back to the table today for prelim talks; is that right?

Comment by Ames — January 21, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Those who comment that we don’t know if this is a good deal or not - You don’t understand the metrics or structure of the money on the internet, or how media deals are being done on the internet. As for the flat rate - I was making many times more than the flat rate being offered for writing media content with running times of less than five minutes. That was six years ago. The money is getting bigger. The deal is not a good one.

The model is changing and evolving. The television re-run residual came to be, based on how business was being done at that time. TV originally was live - then, networks were able to fill programing time slots - with little or no cost without paying residuals. It was a way of finding a compromise. The networks saved money by not having to pay for a full program - the writers gave up copyright while getting some semblance of compensation commensurate with the real value of the content they created.

All non television reuse of content should be classified as one type - Reuse. The Compensation should be based upon a fair percentage of the value of that to the studios. Ad revenue, sales, rentals, etc - should go to the bottom line of reuse. If the distinctions between “types” of re-use went away - studios would be free to re-use in the way that made the most sense for the particular project. Writers would be compensated for their work. The arguments of What kind of use would go away. a Simple formula would be best.

Also the idea of a diminishing percentage should be considered. In terms of the rank and file - more writers would benefit if a larger percentage were paid initially - with a small percentage if it goes bigger. A larger percentage of a small return does not cost the studios much in terms of real dollars - but nets more writers more money in the long run. A smaller percentage of runaway hit, with lots of revenue costs them less - and still nets a good return for writers - since a slightly smaller percentage of a larger pie can still result in more actual dollars in the writers pocket.

Start at 5% from first dollar or stream, once a certain number is hit in volume - drop to 3%, Then another Volume number , 2%, then 1%. or some such formula.

I know it goes against conventual wisdom - but maybe that’s what’s needed to solve the stalemate.

Comment by bk — January 21, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Lackland- good idea but the problem is that, even if/when 100% of television has migrated to the internet, it is not clear that the revenue per viewer will be anything close to what it’s like in broadcast TV. The internet basically makes all advertising cheaper, because there are more entities selling adspace, which means downward price pressue. Let’s say ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ was only on the internet and got roughly the same viewership it does now. Well, advertisers could get the same exposure by buying space on Google or Facebook. And in fact, can target their demographics more specifically. (And by the time this migration happens, I think you’ll see a lot more video ads on sidebars and banners throughout the web, taking advantage of the same bandwith increases that well allow for TV web broadcasting.)

So, in the future you’re trying to plan for, TV networks no longer have anything close to the monopoly on big-market ads that they do now. Which means, a lot less $$$.

So that’s why your proposal wouldn’t work.

Comment by Mike — January 21, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
It’s nice to see you back, Nikki. Don’t worry about the rumors. Imbeciles must speak speculatively regardless of fact.

As for the deal, I only want a deal that was worth a strike. This is my criteria:

1. Will WGA members who have to write checks to repay strike loans receive more value from the deal than the amounts that they write on those checks?

2. Will the BTLs look at the WGA deal and think it was worth a WGA strike?

I’m not going into the details of this percentage and that percentage. Those are technicalities.

Fundamentally, the deal needs to be worth the strike.

It will be like pornography. We’ll know it when we see it.

Comment by Fair Deal Desired — January 21, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Mike

Sorry, have to respectfully take issue with your arguments. Re Sunset Provision, the only teeth it can have in practical terms, is a subsequent strike. As a former M & A guy on Wall Street, once a $ is set, you’re stuck with it, barring war. Re web advertising, embedded ads, i.e., those that can’t be fast forwarded through, receive a premium, and when combined with salient metadata represent the opposite of what you’re arguing — not a dilution of ad strength, but a kind of silver bullet ad that finds its desired customer and commands his/her attention, leading to higher transaction conversions. Also, your supply side argument re the cost of advertising doesn’t hold water. That assumes a finite number of goods and a finite amount of buyer attention time. More advertising doesn’t equal cheaper advertising. Just, fortunately or unfortunately, more advertising. Extended to the general economy your metrics would assume zero GDP growth ad infinitum.

Comment by writer — January 21, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Glad your feeling better Nikki.

The DGA deal seems better than what they were offering the WGA the first time around, but that doesn’t make it very good.

Everyone sees the numbers for the internet are just wrong. It’s bad enough that it’s $600 for 26 weeks, that’s after a 24 day “promo” period.

What is is that? Does that mean I choose to watch the show during the “promo” period I don’t have see any advertisements? I doubt it. So for the first 24 days the studio is the only one making money how is that promotional.

I mean we’re talking about $600 this is not a lot of money, kids working at McDonald’s will make $600 before the promotional period is over. And whose to say the keep it up for more than 24 days?

If the guild went on strike to get a fair deal let’s hope this isn’t the one they take.

And people have said it before and they’ll say it again, but the Sunset Clause is some flowery jabberwocky lawyer speak. The contract is up in three years. The whole point of this is to discuss the deals of a new contract and for both sides to talk about the problems with the last one. And the Sunset clause is to make sure they do that… umm…but they were supposed to anyway.

So is what they are really telling us is that in every contract that didn’t have a Sunset Clause they had no intention of negotiating again and they all went home giggling like school girls because there wasn’t a Sunset Clause?

Who are trying to fool with this mumbo jumbo?

Here’s my clause idea I call it the “Next time you keep your butt in the chair while we negotiate a deal instead of throwing a temper tantrum like a child Clause” maybe it’s a bit wordy, but if they want to take away sympathy strikes I think it’s they least they could do.

Comment by Joshua — January 21, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
I can’t believe the DGA were conviced a “Sunset Clause” means anything. A precedent is a precedent. Three years of entrenchment later, it will be engraved in titanium.

Comment by George — January 21, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
First of all, welcome back Nikki and please take care of your health.

All this talk about “progress was made because Nikki Finke wasn’t posting…” is perhaps the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. If anyone is still too stupid or naive to figure out that the AMPTP never intended to negotiate with the WGA and always intended to negotiate with the DGA because they’d make a quick, crappy deal, then they don’t deserve to be in this industry. Spend your time instead buying shit from late night infommercials — you’re their target customer.

And Kudos to Nikki for calling it what it is — a shitty deal. If you’re a WGA member and you just want to get back to work, then admit it. It might be for a very legitimate immediate financial need. But don’t insult the rest of us by pretending that further analysis is going to make these numbers any better than they are. They suck. For chrissakes, you don’t get anything for the first 17 weeks something is re-run on the internet. Imagine if the same thing applied currently to tv.

Furthermore, the .6 number is pathetically low. In practical terms, it’s the DVD rate plus a few more pennies.

We have some leverage now. We’ve all suffered greatly to get here. Let’s allow our leadership to fight for a few more weeks to make it all worth it. Let’s not lie to ourselves that a shitty deal is a good one.

Comment by ld — January 21, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Top Five Reasons You Know the DGA Deal is Shitty:

#5. AMPTP shills are already on these message boards selling it hard.

#4. My agent called to say it’s spectacular and we should take it today, before it goes away.

#3. Years ago, my agent called to say the DVD rate was spectacular, and we should take it today before it goes away.

#2. Craig Mazin posted a letter that called the deal “Good. Very Good.”

…and the number 1 reason you know the DGA deal is shitty: John Wells is the one who wrote that letter!

Comment by picketing showrunner — January 21, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
To Rational Thinker, who complained about “radicalism” and who wrote:

“Rational people in the WGA are muzzled by louder, angrier and bitter people in the WGA.”

Really? Those are easy words to throw around but I’ve been front and center since the beginning of this strike and have seen NONE of that. What…do you have one or two pissed off friends you’ve been talking to and are generalizing to the entire Guild?

It is easy to condemn Nikki for weighing in with her opinion on the deal. Since her opinion of “shitty” is pretty much how almost everyone feels about the DGA deal…what flames exactly is she fanning?

The assumption not articulated but inherent in your POV is that the AMPTP’s behavior alone is not enough to “fuel anger and resentment” amongst writers. That the proposals they have offered from the beginning aren’t enough to piss us off. It is radicalism that is the problem! It is people like Nikki! Uh…no.

If you start from the possibility (possibility!) that the AMPTP’s behavior alone is enough to tick off almost entire Guild - then you don’t need to look for echos of radicalism or your former family dynamic to explain the situation. So just for shits and giggles…think about that. And look no further than the AMPTP. You’ll get all the explanation you need to explain the situation.

There aren’t ALWAYS two reasonable sides to every story.

Comment by Rational Observer — January 21, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
The only leverage window I can see now IS now. The Oscars and the billions it represents to the studios prove that NOW the ONLY time to make a deal. Once that window has passed, this town is out of work until June 30th and maybe beyond.

As an employee of a multi-camera show shut down the DAY the strike was announced, and as an actress who receives residuals, I can see both sides of the issue. I don’t want this strike to be in vain, there’s too much damage to lose the future, ( my apt. in March for one), but the rules of television and development are changing as I type this. This business will NEVER be the same. We are fighting HUGE corporations here, and they WILL throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let’s not be the “babies” here.

Peggy Lane O’Rourke

Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — January 21, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
STEWART WROTE:

“There have to be bandwidth limits to this ad-supported “promotional” streaming. It doesn’t matter what it’s called–if the studios are allowed any way to stream enough data to play on TV without paying residuals, then residuals are gone forever.

What things are called doesn’t matter any more. The only thing that matters is what they can be used for.”

Great idea Stewart…to which I would add, if the studios REALLY want that 17 day promotional window…then fine, we put in a clause that sells that are not allowed to sell advertising and still call in promotional. Then they can have their 17 days for free.

Comment by Stewart Support — January 21, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
The DGA deal was good–for the DGA. Many of their members are below-the-liners who don’t depend on residuals anyway for a living, and their higher-tier members get money through channels besides the residual ones. We cannot take their deal, exactly.

However, there ARE elements in the deal that would work for us, and if we can work with the studios to achieve something between what the directors got and what we want, then I’ll be happy. As for those of you who are hard-lining about reality and animation jurisdiction, I agree that they should be covered under the WGA contract, but that’s not why I went on strike, and if we stay on strike only for that principal, then I’ll be blowing the fi-core horn.

Comment by Sammy Glick — January 21, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Nikki –

You are probably the best-sourced journalist outside some of the Washington guys, and we missed your voice.

I just wanted to add my two cents. Obviously there is no end to this strike until the studios accept a reasonable, percentage-based streaming formula and get realistic about the promotional period. We haven’t been out for three months to just go lightly.

But the DGA deal so far has no doubt been a PR coup for the AMPsters. The fact that they’re now showing a desire to re-open the dialogue is not something that should be applauded — nor should it be seen as a big step forward. Good-faith negotiating should be a given, not a weapon or reward.

Comment by nick straus — January 21, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Nikki,

I want to address the folks who have thrown out some digs at you for this post’s headline. Truthfully, I have no clue if the deal is shitty or not.

But I do know how the world of blogs work, and you should never hesitate from putting out here EXACTLY how you feel.

You’ve read the deal. You think it’s shitty, right? Great. What would be shitty is if you said anything other than the fact that you think the deal is shit.

Keep it up, Nikki, and welcome back!

–Daniel

Comment by danielkells — January 21, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Yay! Nikki is back! Now we don’t have to read those horribly biased articles by Dave “Try to Scare Me” McNary in Variety!

Comment by George Glass — January 21, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Sadly, I’m not one to believe the DGA will be anything but shitty (once we actually get to read it.) 60% of the DGA membership gets no direct residual payments (all those hard-working ADs, Second ADs, and UPMs.) And then the leadership of the DGA is made up of A-list and B-list directors who all get profit participation in any project they work on. They too couldn’t care less about residual payments. That leaves about 20% of the DGA (TV directors and first time feature directors, mostly,) who do care about residual payments. But being the minority, they have no voice in their union. And therefore I really doubt the DGA’s leadership fought to get a particularly good deal. I think what they got was a deal that could play well for the AMPTP in the press and put pressure on the WGA leadership to take it or else look unreasonable by comparison.

And John Wells and Craig Mazin, one who famously forced his writers on “West Wing” to forgo their contracted promotions so he could pocket the change, and the other who has hated the Guild’s leadership since his best friend Ted Elliott lost the Guild election to Verrone, have made the WGA’s leaders position even tougher by very publicly calling for them to take the DGA’s crap deal. Thus, reinforcing the idea that the WGA leadership is unreasonable if they say no, and actually stand up for the writers who elected them.

Comment by Jenny C — January 21, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Nikki Keep up the great fight girl. they need to get the best deal they can get. for me the question is why they made a deal with the DGA so easy while they need to deal with the WGA now not months from now. We need to get this done soon.

Capt Jack Salutes you Nikki

Comment by Capt JAck — January 21, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
I mean come on. This is so obviously not a good deal.
17 day window?? What??? Why would anyone except this???? All the money is going to come in the first two or so weeks when the episode is new. And $1200.00- are you kidding???

Writers need to get creative and take their business elsewhere and do their own thing- period. The days of traditional “writing” in film and television are over. It’s the inevitable de-professionalization of the entertainment business. Writers need to take risk and not rely on the studios and networks. I’m pro-writer but many writers just hide under the studio umbrella (development deals, going show to show, etc.) and now that the umbrella is being pulled away they’re scared. Business as usual is over and the sooner you accept that the sooner you can move on to greener creative pastures…or write a novel or play- something that comes from the heart and is not “made to order”.

Comment by Flyby — January 21, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
This is very simple. If the AMPTP doesn’t agree to a percentage of downloads and streaming from day one….there is no deal.

Comment by m — January 21, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
It IS a shitty deal, and I’m glad someone like Nikke, who wants the town to get back to work ASAP, said so. If the writers can stay united as the threat of an actors strike increases week by week, I’m willing to bet the producers will ultimately cough up a better deal than the one the DGA accepted. Gee. I wonder if Gil Cates capitulated THIS TIME because he wanted to put on his big show, or because directors get most of their money upfront. Now there’s a question. P.S. Hope you feel better soon, Nikke. You’ve proven to be an invaluable resource at a time when it’s virtually impossible (no, make that completely impossible) to get unbiased news from the mainstream media. Which in itself is a really depressing thought.

Comment by Andrew S — January 21, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
The Content Providers should receive more money than the Web Site administrator who merely puts the content on the web. No programmer would work for $1200 for 52 hours a year.

If I understand correctly, a one hour program for 52 weeks will pay $1200.00. That’s $23.08 / hour. It’s been a long time since I wrote anything that cheaply.

You need to look at this stuff with different eyes. It doesn’t matter what you got for the first hour. That’s a different sale. First Run Rights and Reprint Rights. Think like an author. An author is somebody who is a Writer who has made a sale. Just because they sold it once doesn’t mean they have to “give it away” the second time.

Comment by Dave — January 21, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Agreed with m. A percentage of downloads and streaming from day one or no deal. For all the hardships we’ve suffered the past three months, it means nothing if we throw in the towel just to get back to work. Work won’t pay for a Happy Meal in a few years if we settle on this DGA deal and end residuals as we know them. John Wells’ unabashed gushing over the DGA deal is a huge red flag packaged as a ringing endorsement. He couldn’t get his own opinion out in front of our elected leadership’s fast enough… and who do you think benefits from that, us or the AMPTP?

This is an honorable (and extremely profitable) profession and it all starts with a script. The companies are banking our hard work; we deserve nothing less than to be partners in the fruits of our own labor. Let’s never forget that as we move forward. We’ve come this far. Green envelopes 4-ever.

Comment by Skull Leader — January 21, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Nikki I’m so glad you took a break and put your health first!
We want you around AND feeling well.
The guys over at LateShowWritersOnStrike.Com tried to fill your shoes and, well….let’s just say we’re glad they didn’t quit their day / night jobs.
Welcome back.
Thanks for all you do.

Comment by shelly — January 21, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
The DGA agreement builds a foundation on which to built a proper house, a house built to last. No scrimping. No short cuts. Quality from top-to-bottom. Something you want to go home to and can live with for some time.

Comment by pb — January 21, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
I don’t understand all of this fuss about the internet. The internet is the past! Content delivery via nanobots is the future. Soon, swarms of microscopic machines will be wired into our neurons, delivering 3D, life-resolution content directly into our cerebral cortices. Broadcast TV? Electronic sell-thru? Please! I’m staying on strike until we get coverage on Intracranial Nanobot Downloads. And you can tell Mr. Nick Counter to shove the hated four-cents-per-eyeball “contact lens plasma screen formula” up his arse. This is not going to be a repeat of 2019.

Comment by Letsdothetimewarpagain — January 21, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
How about this one…stay on vacation. Obviously you realize that if the strike stops, no one give a shit about your site anymore now do they?

Comment by Larry — January 21, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Okay, I’m a naive waif of a writer, currently outside the Guild, building credits, stacking rocks, etc. until I can get in, but this whole residual thing looks like it went off the tracks years ago and you’ve all spent the interim just building new sidings for it that go to bizarre and hopeless new places while the rest of the money train keeps chugging down the main line. Wow, that was a big, ugly metaphor, wasn’t it?

Why (other than AMPTP intransigence) can’t we just decide on a global percentage that we think represents the writers’ contribution to the very existence of a piece - remembering that there were directors, actors, suits and craft service people involved - and just use that percentage of the distributor’s gross to determine the writers’ residuals forever, across every medium, every delivery system and every day? And maybe I’m completely whacky, but wouldn’t that number be somewhere around 5%? That number represents the notion that for the existence of the original show in its original medium, the writer probably represents a larger percentage than 5%, but further down the line, when it’s being exploited by creative marketing on the internet or whatever delivery system comes later, the writer isn’t actually doing any more work, but his/her contribution to the very existence of the piece is still valid, just more dilute.

I realize that this is way too simple to work, I just don’t understand why. If the AMPTP says irrelevant things like, “We don’t know what the numbers are going to be for this or that medium,” we say, “We don’t know either, but if you can’t turn a profit on 95% of it, then you probably shouldn’t be doing it.” Maybe we can save them from themselves and their poor own decisions. If they say something about how little they make on the third showing on German broadcast TV, then we say, “That’s okay, it’s found money anyway, and we’ll take 5% of that pitiful amount, and you can still keep the 95%.”

Seriously, what’s the problem here? I mean this number, a fairly small one, can be built into every deal from now on, no matter the format, the medium or the budget of the piece. It’s 5 fucking percent! Hell, we could probably go down to 3% and still be in good shape. If the moguls are hanging on by such a thin thread that 3-5% is going to make all these various media and new profit centers unprofitable, they ought to consider getting into a line of work they’re better at.

And if the Guild is going to go out on strike and stay there for several months, then use the opportunity to set the whole thing right. If the membership balks at this chance to finally get a fair and decent percentage of the profits of their work in perpetuity, then they deserve to get hosed by a stronger, more determined adversary. I realize that the AMPTP has much deeper pockets with which to weather a strike, but hey, the Guild isn’t broke either, and most members, who don’t really make a living at writing, already have other jobs anyway. The rest are probably deeply talented people who can get other jobs - like starting new distribution companies that will treat writers fairly.

Let the flaming begin.

RandyV

Comment by Randy V — January 21, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
One word: June.

Comment by GIL GRISSOM — January 21, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Obviously it’s not a shitty deal for the directors or they wouldn’t have taken it so happily. Let’s be real here. Directors are far more important than writers. If the WGA doesn’t make a deal so the Oscars can go on without disruptive picketing then there won’t be any deal until October. The studios will be so pissed at the writers for ruining the Oscars that they will force this strike to go 11 months in length.

If that’s what you all want then by all means reject everything and continue picketing for another eight months. The networks have already written off the current season and they don’t care about pilots or the upfronts. They are making more money with crappy reality shows and getting rid of overpriced deals via force majeure. Jeff Zucker just announced today he is doing away with the traditional pilot season entirely. He is going to exact his revenge and every network will follow his lead.

So it’s now time to decide people. This can all be over by the middle of February or it can drag on until October.

Comment by Anonymous — January 21, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Please can someone help me. I read these comments because they connect me and I feel like I get a good feel for where people’s heads are (thank you for that service, Nikki). But I get so exasperated by the maturity level of many of the authors– or should I say immaturity level.

Let’s start with “Id”. He or she says the DGA made a “quick crappy deal”. And immediately I’m thinking, getting the AMPTP to agree to distributor’s gross instead of producer’s gross doesn’t seem so crappy. In fact, as I recall, this was the bellwether issue as stated by David Young at a WGA meeting last month. Then Mr. or Mrs. Id says the “17 week” window is a dealbreaker. Even assuming that was an honest mistake– it’s 17 days– how does that window screw us? I am genuinely asking. I understand I would get only $1,200 for streaming for the first year, but wouldn’t I still get my regular residual if my episode airs network prime time… ever? How does the episode I’ve written lose all its value in that 17 day time period? Do I not get foreign sales anymore? Is the assumption that it will never air or stream or– most importantly, in light of the recent Apple and Netflix and today’s HBO brodband deal– be “rented” ever again? I think not.

Agreed, the $1,200 STREAMING ONLY number seems shitty. But it’s more than I get for streaming now which is zero. And I think the rental rate from the 2001 side agreement, which is much higher, will be the relevant deal point anyway. Sure, I’d love to see a sliding scale with no cap, but I’d also like to see reality and animation covered and we all know that not’s gonna happen. This is a negotitation, people. By nature it’s incremental.

Id, I will admit it. I want to get back to work. How is this a bad thing? If, as many people argue, the AMPTP was never serious about negotiating until they made a DGA deal, well… that sucks. But here we are. And this deal– at least what we know of it so far– seems like progress. It makes no sense to me to let ego get in the way and cry about the DGA stealing our thunder. This is business. It’s not personal. And I say that with a mortgage and kids. Maybe if you had a real stake in this outcome you would temper your analysis with some reality. I appreciate your efforts on the line and your clever “Nick Counter is a wiener” signs but at some point we have to behave like rational businesspeople and engage on the issues that matter.

However. I would like to know if it is in fact true that Craig Mazin’s best friend lost the WGA election to Verrone. Because that deep sixes his credibility in my view. Anyone?

Comment by afrustratedwriter — January 21, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Welcome back Nikki, we missed you. A lot.

Using Caps instead of a Percentage formula is DOA.

It’s a step backwards.

We have said from the beginning that using a percentage is the fairest way for all concerned.

As long as the Companies calculate they can frame Negs based on Caps, they might as well kick this can to March.

We know they want to set this up as a way to say “We offered a deal and they walked” but they’re forgetting, it’s also shitty deal for SAG.

Move off it and maybe we’ll see some progress.

Comment by PJ - Writer — January 21, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I have been jonesing for your posts! Welcome back.

Comment by Scott Hornbacher — January 21, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
A quick Google review of tonight’s strike news reveals:

NBC is saying they won’t do upfronts this year.

CBS got rid of 20 pilot deals today.

ABC is letting actors out of holding deals.

The whole model is changing, right before our eyes.

And yet?

The deadline for advertisers to back out of last year’s upfront commitments passed recently with no cancellations, according to Advertising Age.

So… apparently the people who provide our employers with all their revenue still believe in network television, even with all the crap that’s currently on the air, and even without the prospect of free NBC food and Jeff Zucker’s bad cocktail party breath.

Should we be depressed? I don’t think so. We should take this as a sign that the strike has allowed the studios to accomplish their main goal: fixing the fucked-up television pilot system. By getting rid of it.

They’re feeling flush. The DGA has teed them up, so now we go in and get our fair and deserved reuse percentage across all media, and call it a day. And everyone’s happy. And we don’t have to wait in those ridiculous bathroom lines at Radio City anymore.

And oh– feature writers? Sorry. This was never about you anyway. But at least you got to get out of the house.

Comment by skyisn'tfalling — January 21, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Just to clarify, the “Sunset Clause” is a bit of a false concept. As David Young described it at our Strike Captains’ meeting on Friday, every time a contract comes up for negotiation, everything in the previous contract expires and you can start all over again. Thus, everything in our contracts has a “Sunset Clause” built in, because everything in the contract expires. Obviously, they use the previous contract as a starting point for the next negotiation.

The Guild is strong. My Strike Team is unified. No one I know is wavering in any way. We’re holding out for the deal we deserve.

Comment by Guy Who Walks In Circles Outside CBS Radford — January 21, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Well I honestly have to say I don’t know what’s going to happen if the negcom comes to the union with a so-so deal to vote on. It’s impossible to tell if the hard-liners outnumber the moderates or not. I know about as many writers in each camp. Should be “interesting.”

Comment by Ted Striker — January 21, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Frustratedwriter:

I agree that while the $1200 figure is too low, people are overestimating the extent that streaming is impacting (or will impact in the future) the likelihood of a specific show getting a broadcast rerun. I know some people dislike John Wells for personal reasons, but I’ve yet to see anyone attack successfully the reasoning in his endorsement of the DGA deal as a framework. Particularly this part, which is a) true; b) a pretty complicated point; and c) because of b), completely ignored by everyone so far:

“The Companies are going to jealously guard the value of our work to make sure they don’t undercut the syndicated and foreign market value of these episodes. I suspect we’ll find the Companies make most shows available online for the initial “free” promotional window and maybe one 26 week period and the episode will disappear online until the episode has been fully exploited in syndication and foreign. Only to “reappear” online as a library piece some years later in the hope of “soaking up” some library “gravy” after we’ve seen our full syndication and foreign residuals paid.”

The point is that whether or not a show is rerun is not really going to be related to how high or low the streaming rate is. The sad fact is, a lot of shows don’t make sense for networks to rerun these days anyway, since reality shows are not much more expensive than a rerun and tend to get much better ratings. Meanwhile, studios (and their network partners) really will guard the syndication and foreign values of their shows, since unless shows stop running $1-2 million deficits per episode, that’s the only way the business model works.

So the streaming window is likely to be much shorter than people assume anyway. And not significantly impact the likelihood of a broadcast reruns (which, I’m afraid, will continue to be scarce unless/until the reality genre fades significantly.

Writer: (use a less generic handle please!)
I hope you’re right about targeted ads being a ’silver bullet’ for streamed tv, since I’m a tv writer and would like to be working still five years from now. But I think you’re assuming a level of clustering of adspace around the eventual streams of prime time network fare (and away from current internet ad leaders) that may, or may not, happen. I would not bet heavily on it, but I think it is a genuine unknown.

And I would argue that the online adspace *is* finite– in the sense that there is a finite amount of time that consumers will spend with media so that they can be exposed to ads, even if the ‘adspace’ itself is continuously expandable. Maybe this amount of time is a little bit elastic, but not infinite. So I do think there will be downward price pressure if/when all of broadcast moves to streaming.

Comment by Mike — January 21, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
To afrustratedwriter,

The reason everyone is worried that the total might just be @1200 is because in 5 years or so, you will get all your TV via the internet. Your TV will have an internet connection and you will be able to, let’s say go to Fox.com and stream any episode of “24″ or “The Simpsons” that ever aired… for free! (which is awesome as a tv fan.) But each episode will have commercials, and you won’t be able to fast-forward or change to another website while they’re on your TV. (And most likely they’ll be geared towards your buying habits, so Fox can charge advertisers even more for them.)

And when a new show is on, rather than have repeats on prime time or a syndication market, they’ll just offer the repeats via streaming. And so rather than get a network residual and then smaller syndication payments, you’ll just get $1200.

The writers of “Lost” are already facing a similar situation. Rather than their episodes repeating on prime time, and getting 15 grand (or 9 for a sitcom) they get nothing because the only place to see repeats are on ABC.com. (Who currently don’t pay them anything, as it’s just “promotion” to air their episodes.) And yet the ads for “Lost” online (the streaming episodes) cost advertisers more than a broadcast network ad, as the audience is seen as smarter and can’t fast-forward or change channels.

So in the short run, yes, getting something for the streaming episodes is better than the nothing you get now, and you still have your syndication market to air your shows, but that’s quickly ending. And unless writers, actors, and directors get their tiny piece of the pie as these business models are being created, we will forever be locked out (like if we accept the “Sunset” agreements– where the studios are miraculously expected to make a fair deal a few years in the future, even though there’s no way in hell they ever will without us going on strike again.)

Comment by Clarissa Explains it All — January 21, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Anybody know who “Jim” is or was supposed to be in that BS letter John Wells wrote? Just wondering. It should be clear to everyone what Wells thinks about writers if he believed that they would buy that propaganda.

Comment by Gabo — January 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
The DGA can afford to make a shitty deal — we can’t!!

Comment by rodney — January 21, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
academy screamer, you’re absolutely missing something. A sunset clause is meaningless. The AMPTP argued in the past that DVDs were an iffy proposition. Just accept a miniscule flat fee, and we’ll revisit in the future. Well, we asked for an increase in the flat fee from 2 cents to 4 cents. Sounds like a reasonable adjustment, right? DVDs seems fairly profitiable. Well, we know what happened there.

If we don’t get a reasonable percentage here, then in 3 years it will be “revisited” in the sense that we’ll be generously offered $1300 instead. That’s almost a 10% increase! And by that time, the technological infrastructure will be in place to shift most broadcast repeats to the internet instead. We’ll have no choice but to go on strike again, except this time we’ll have far less leverage and be stuck with a horrible prescedent that constitutes a rollback. We have to get a framework hammered out BEFORE the technology catches up and internet profits explode, we’ll never get that money back otherwise.

Comment by Giveitarest — January 21, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
To Larry,

What an insightful point you brought up to a woman who just told you she’s been away for a week due to illness. I mean, it took a brain like yours to point out that this site, which has been more focused on the writers strike than any other news source during this incredibly unstable time, might not actually get as many hits when this crisis in writers lives is over and normalcy returns.

You, my friend, are a genius! And the way you phrased it, was truly awe inspiring. Mamet better watch out!

And I quote:

“How about this one…stay on vacation. Obviously you realize that if the strike stops, no one give a shit about your site anymore now do they?”

Such wit! Such purposeful disregard for grammar and coherence! I bet your scripts sell for more than all the other writers combined!

Comment by Wishing I was as smart as Larry — January 21, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
The only point of having a “Sunset Clause” in a contract is if it pertains to terms within said contract that end earlier than the overall contract. So, if the Sunset Clause said that the issue of residuals on internet streaming was to be revisited and renegotiated in one year while the overall contract ran for three years then maybe - maybe - there would be some point to it. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, this is just window dressing and something to help the PR spin, as by definition the expiry of a contract means that all its terms are up for re-negotiation anyway.

Comment by Just Sayin' — January 22, 2008 @ 1:19 am
One thing is for certain, seems many writers (assuming those who claim to be here, actually are) really intend to take this all the way and have no plans for settling for anything less than thier full demands. It’s funny, the same people criticise the AMPTP for being so ridgid perhaps the term negotiation doesn’t apply to the WGA side or holds a different meaning.

The DGA agreement is quite comprehensive, those who say it lacks details either haven’t read the thing or are relying on someone else’s interpretation. It breaks new ground in gathering financial information from the studios, provides for both sides to share in streaming revenue while recognizing it is still a risky venture.

The agreement is far from perfect, though it is a good deal for the DGA members. Obviously it wasn’t created with the writers in mind, which is why the WGA will have to sit with the AMPTP and come to terms that are suitable for both sides. I don’t know where people got the idea that the DGA agreement was supposed to be a settlement for the WGA. but reading the posts here I am left with the impression that this is what some of the writers seem to think.

This strike is going to be pointlessly longer if some posters here get thier way. But it’s your strike, good luck with that, tear down the very industry you work in if you must.

Comment by Chips Down — January 22, 2008 @ 2:16 am
“Chips Down” says: “I don’t know where people got the idea that the DGA agreement was supposed to be a settlement for the WGA….”

Well, how about the front page of Variety, Pravda of the AMPTP? Or the “letter to my good ole pal Jim” that John Wells “allowed” to be posted on the Mazin site? Or the white flag that Dick Wolf tripped over himself to raise, nanoseconds after the DGA deal materialized?

As WGA members we need to remember: (1) That our pattern of demands was modest, actually; (2) That nevertheless the AMPTP rejected it outright and in a perfunctory way, never intending to negotiate, and actually walking away from the table; (3) That the DGA deal intersects with our pattern of demands more tangentially than most people realize, and is, in any case, a lousy settlement largely crafted by….drum roll….the man scheduled to produce this year’s Oscars.

Our course now is clear. We stay focused, and united. We go bowling Oscar night. And we apply the old sunset clause to our Variety subscriptions.

Comment by StickingWithMyUnion — January 22, 2008 @ 6:32 am
Boy, $1200! You mean to say this deal will guarantee me twelve hundred clams a year? Why, that’s real money, see! That AMPTP sure is a swell bunch of fellas! I’m gonna get out my Underwood and start writing a one-hour drama for Internet streaming. Twelve hundred smackeroos!

Comment by Bob, the Writer From 1938 — January 22, 2008 @ 8:16 am
To Clarissa explains… -

There are problems with the DGA deal, but lets not use “Lost” as an example. “Lost” should not be the poster child for streaming issues in this strike. Shows like Lost and 24 don’t do well in network first reruns. That’s why the network chooses to replay on the internet. (Not because the networks don’t want to pay 15-20k, that’s cheap prime time TV.)

If a show attracts the audience for a network re-run, it will get it. (See L&O, CSI, Office, Earl, etc.)

Comment by not going to be led down that one — January 22, 2008 @ 8:34 am
The 17 day window thing gets me. They’ve obviously done the research to know that the most hits come in the first 10 days - 2 weeks. Can you imagine a deal where a studio gets no percentage of the gross for the first 17 days a film opens at the box office????

Comment by Goog — January 22, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Chips Down:
This isn’t a regular negotiation over the amount of a simple raise, where you can just agree to meet in the middle. This negotiation is how the rules are applied in a new medium. Of course, no one is expecting everything to be perfect, but there are a number of things that writers just can’t really budge on or else they are moving terribly backwards. That isn’t the same as being rigid.

Mike 10:48 pm:
I’ll tell you where Wells lost me to the point of not even caring to think about anything else he had to say. That was the part about rentals. Unless I misunderstood, he was making the argument that we shouldn’t care about bad rates on ad supported streaming because the congloms want to move towards Internet rentals instead and there’s a better percentage for that. Really? I’m expected to believe people are all going to become content renters instead of watching free stuff with ads? Really? Really?

Comment by Lover and a Fighter — January 22, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Mike

A couple things where I believe you’re confused. The added value and cost of embedded advertising in online programming isn’t hypothetical, it’s a present reality and receives sweetened compensation. It’s not about clustered ads fighting for attention, the ads are part of the show. A hugely desirable attribute. Also, certain shows attract certain buyers that certain advertisers desperately want to reach (CPM’s). This also garners premium fees for the publisher/distributor.

Re your support of John Wells’ argument that networks will not burn-out product online to protect foreign syndication, you need to understand that networks want to eventually supplant said syndication by reaching foreign viewers themselves online, and pocketing the middleman commissions. Foreign syndication companies know this is coming and are very distressed. We’re negotiating for a 2011 world, not a 2008 world, that’s why a percentage of distrib gross is the way to go.

Also, your belief in relatively finite viewer attention is a subjective one, and goes against every axiom of market growth taught in B-schools around the world. As access to high speed internet expands in this country, and then around the globe, reaching into the second and third worlds, advertisers are exposed to a virtually boundless field of potential buyers.

Lastly, regarding the curious jab at my generic handle ‘writer’ (is ‘Mike’ more original?), I’d be happy to reveal my full name if you do so first. I’ll look for your response when I stop picketing at the end of the day.

Comment by writer — January 22, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Hey, ‘SkyIsn’tFalling’, how dare you suggest this isn’t our strike? It’s our union, we pay our dues, we vote, we picket, we stand alongside our fellow writers. Are you even a WGA member? If so, what kind? A TV guy who thinks you’re superior to feature writers? if so, let me tell you - the WGA wouldn’t be here without us. This strike has been supported across the board by all types of writers. It’s just the occasional moron like you who lets everyone down.

Comment by Feature Writer — January 22, 2008 @ 10:33 am
There is a breakdown comparison of the DGA deal versus what the AMPTP and the WGA want on the guild’s website.

The parties are essentially $60 million dollars apart over three years, all of it based on compensation for ESTs. Which begs the question– is a movie or TV episode that is rented online from Apple or Hulu or the like considered an EST? If not, that $60 million gets a lot smaller.

Comment by numbercruncher — January 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Fellow WGA-

Don’t fall for lines like “And oh– feature writers? Sorry. This was never about you anyway. But at least you got to get out of the house.” by “skyisn’tfalling.”

And don’t fall for all this talk about “muzzling moderates” in the Guild.

It’s just propaganda. The people behind these anonymous posts aren’t really in the WGA. They are actually PR folks at AMPTP headquarters who are being paid to go on these websites and pretend to be WGA, in an attempt to foment discontent within our ranks.

Look for postings by people like “moderatewriter” or “skyisn’tfalling” whose post names are cleverly designed to make them seem level-headed and reasonable. It’s all a psy-ops campaign.

Sure, we in the WGA have disagreements and discussions about what would make for an acceptable deal. But nobody is muzzling anyone. Nobody is foaming at the mouth. That’s just silly.

I know most of us are smart enough to see through the propaganda, but as a writer with a background in the intelligence business, I am seeing some very recognizable psy-ops tactics being used by the AMPTP. If I were in their position, I’d be doing the same thing.

But take these posts with a grain of salt and the know that people posting anonymously on this site can claim to be a part of our union, but often are not.

Comment by WGA writer — January 22, 2008 @ 10:37 am
to Wishing I was as smart as Larry - Bravo! Couldn’t possibly have said it better (which only underscores the need for writers…)

Comment by wackiland — January 22, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Under the old contract, if you wrote an original episode of Grey’s Anatomy, you’d get $30,823.

If they reran the show on the network, you’d get an additional $21,078.

So, that’s $51,901.

If all reruns go to the internet, which is the suspicion of all the new media rollouts of Hulu, AppleTV, Netflix, etc. then the second payment would not happen.

And if you max out the internet residuals, you’d get $1,200.

So, a television writer used to getting $51,901 in compensation for normal network practices, will now get $32,023.

Old: $51,091
New: $32,023

That’s a 38% pay cut for television writers PER EPISODE.

For a director, if he/she directs that same episode of Grey’s Anatomy, they got $35,927 under the old contract. And an additional $21,528 when the program is rerun.

Old: $57,455
New: $37,127

That’s a 35% pay cut.

Is that math right?

Did the DGA just negotiate a 35% paycut for their television directors????

If you could save close $20,000 PER EPISODE PER WRITER AND DIRECTOR by streaming the reruns through AppleTV, wouldn’t you do it?

Especially since you can fill that air time with a reality or game show that doesn’t cost nearly as much to fill that time?

Comment by Jake — January 22, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Your TV will have an internet connection and you will be able to, let’s say go to Fox.com and stream any episode of “24″ or “The Simpsons” that ever aired… for free!

FWIW, I’ve noticed a lot of ads lately, urging viewers who missed the airing of a show, to ‘check out Fox On Demand to watch your favorite shows online!’

Comment by Sara — January 22, 2008 @ 11:34 am
When the RIGHT deal is presented to the guild to vote on, we will approve it. Until then, we can not bow to pressure from the outside. This will be a deal we have to live with so we need to follow our heads and hearts.

No writer wants to “tear down the very industry we work in”. The guild never left the table, the AMPTP did. Did you see how fast they came back to us after the DGA deal was done? It was planned all along.

We have to stay united and together. We have to be smart about our future.

Comment by Lola — January 22, 2008 @ 11:56 am
bk: your “re-use” concept seems to make sense — a completely platform-independent model.

I don’t think your diminishing percentage model is a good idea, though. It ought to be an escalating percentage, for two reasons. First, at low volumes, the cost of overhead makes it hard to pay out residuals, while at high volumes, overhead diminishes as a percentage and more cashflow is freed up to pay content creators. That makes the idea more attractive to the producers.

Second, an escalating percentage acts as an incentive to create something beyond the ordinary. It’s just one more reason to want to create a hit. Again, that makes it an easier sell.

Comment by Stuart Creque — January 22, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Nikki, you stopped posting at the worst possible time (as I’m sure you’re aware). Your site was the only place to get a balanced view of how good or not this deal is. If you have an opinion you really should explain WHY it’s shitty rather than call it shitty and tease more posts. I was angry today to find a letter from the president of the Camera Guild essentially saying this is a great deal (even John Wells says so, as if that matters) and I though, Wow! What would he think if Patrick Verrone told him how wonderful a deal for the ICG was? To hear many writers tell it, Wells, a producer too, helped cause the WGA contract to be as terrible as it is right now.
The point is that I don’t think he should be telling the WGA how wonderful the deal is and I don’t think you should be telling your readers how shitty it is without some real, in-depth analysis.
(Actually, I don’t think one union has any business EVER taking sides with management against union brothers, so there’s no excuse for that letter. But it’s hard to excuse you for posting your conclusions sans analysis. Post some analysis from real WGA management. The conclusions should speak for themselves).

Comment by IATSE MEMBER — January 22, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
When the WGA do finally reach a agreement, what will be gained?
-Already, Reality TV has a stronger market share than scripted TV for 2008.
-The current TV season for scripted shows is now cut.
-The current TV pilot season for 2008, is dead or will be drastically cut back leaving us all fewer jobs to compete in 2008 TV
(penny wise and dollar foolish)
Personally, I think it would have been smarter to continue working all these months, without a contract and receive retro pay based on a new contract.

Comment by john — January 22, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Welcome back Nikki!

As a SAG member, if my guild leadership presented my guild with a deal like the one the DGA negotiated, I would vote it down. And I know I am not alone.

Our leadership at the WGA and SAG needs to know that we will send them back to the table if we don’t like the deals they negotiate. Period.

Put a positive way, I walked with the writers again today (and I have to drive more than 60 miles to do so), and I fully support negotiating a strong deal. The WGA has already ceded reality and animation (I wouldn’t have, but they did). It’s time for the AMPTP to get serious about dropping that ridiculous window and putting up a solid 2.5%, to be calculated and paid from the microsecond they post the content.

Comment by mheister — January 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
John-

Working for all these months while trying to negotiated a contract at this monumental turning point in the business would not have worked.

I think In October that was the thought and the general consensus in town. And at that time Television series were learning that they were going to be working through their hiatuses, and that additional episodes were going to be shot and that they were doubling up the shooting schedules on many shows.

In Other words - The studios were getting ready to stockpile and be prepared to have most if not all of this season and at least part of next season shot and in the can by June 30.

Once the stockpiling would have been completed - there would be zero leverage for any of the guilds to negotiate. The studios could wait out a strike for over a year. And about a week before the strike was called I woke and realized the sad truth - The only way to have any leverage was to strike right away. The signs were all in place that the studios were gearing up to hunker down for the long haul and play a game of attrition.

The penny wise, dollar foolish strategy would have been to take a few months pay now and give up the future or wait out a much longer strike. Because we would have seen the same stand by the AMPTP - No deal and how long do you work without a contract? Three months, six months, three years? At some point - it is unfortunate - to get management to negotiate when they refuse is to strike. And cause them economic harm. And it’s not about bullying. It’s about not being bullied.

And if things get resolved - don’t bet that there won’t be a way to salvage some of the TV season.

Over the last 20 years - when and how the season starts and looks has constantly been evolving. The start of TV season has been pushed back and forth - Mid Season Shows, Summer Shows - New Series begin and end at all times of the year - There is no reason to think that it will not continue to evolve and shift. Especially in this time of time shifting, DVR’s, on demand programming, streaming and downloadable content.

Consumers care less and less about when a show is on - or even care what network they are on. The Show and content are king -if they come on at times they don’t like, they will just get the content on line or record it and watch it when they want to. They are already doing it by the millions. ( All the more reason that this fight happened now).

There may be fewer jobs in the 2008 season. But to again -penny wise and dollar foolish. To think about one season as opposed to a career. Hard for everyone in town. But much less difficult than losing the future.

Comment by Brian — January 23, 2008 @ 8:39 am
Writer:
(first of all, I was just kidding about the generic handle thing– sorry that wasn’t clear).

Well, look. I honestly think these issues touch upon a really hazy future. I tend to be pessimistic in general, and I’m only right about 70% of the time. But I’d point out a couple things about your scenario.

1) in terms of embedded, unskippable ads, there’s always going to be a way around that. Some third party will develop a tivo-like skipping device; people will capture the streams and bittorrent them with the ads excised (in general, I think internet piracy is one of the big unspoken factors in determining online video market growth. Everyone I know under 26 who watches any TV content at all does it mostly via pirated bittorrents, and the embedded ads you predict will probably lead to even more piracy.)

2) Take a look at the newspaper industry right now. Granted, it’s not a perfect parallel. (For instance, no classified ads on TV to be decimated by craigslist.) But every newspaper is adding huge amounts of content online– and gaining large online viewership numbers and revenue. However, at nearly every newspaper in the county, these gains are outpaced by the massive revenue and circulation drops in their print newspaper businesses, and profit margins shrink every quarter by a couple points.

And remember, in terms of internet exposure, the newspaper business is much more mature than the television business- major papers had their content online for more than a decade now, and there’s no silver-bullet targeted-ad goldmine yet.

Comment by Mike — January 23, 2008 @ 8:53 am
I’m glad you’re feeling a little better, Nikki.

Comment by fritz — January 23, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Your TV will have an internet connection and you will be able to, let’s say go to Fox.com and stream any episode of “24″ or “The Simpsons” that ever aired… for free!

Actually several of the Sony Bravia’s do have a direct Internet connection (with a Sony set-top box), and the Internet-to-tv link Slingcatcher is about to be released.

The main weakness in the DGA’s assumptions is their overestimation of how long it’ll take for streaming to catch on. Internet streaming to tv (without the necessity of a computer) will make major inroads within two years (not 5-10), and erode broadcast residuals immediately.

Not only will the initial window guarantee no residuals during the time most viewers will stream ad-supported programs, but the thresholds established will allow the studios to profit from long tail distribution. (Like amazon.com, the studios will sell many low-priced ads on low-volume programs that fall beneath the minimums set by the contract.)

Comment by outsider pov — January 25, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Nikki, I absolutely LOVE your work on this site, tremendous job keeping all of us up on THE TRUTH of the negotiations and the spin. But it just seems that as of today - Jan 25, 2008 at 12pm - you’ve gotten VERY QUIET at what is an absolutely critical time. Not to make a Bourne movie out of this but I know some people don’t always play it straight and honest. No one’s gotten to you, have they? What’s going on?

Comment by Writer Joe — January 25, 2008 @ 10:58 am
To echo a lot of comments here, calling something shitty without backing it up is what we would expect from someone like… Variety. The DGA is concerned about production and has successfully lobbied Washington for a US production incentive to attempt to stop larger issues like runaway production unlike any other guild in the business. Perhaps is is time to look deeper than the Above the Line issues that are the primary concern of the WGA. I still support the strike, but bringing out inter-union/guild animosity is something that the producers are loving right now.

Comment by Fablloyd — January 28, 2008 @ 8:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

That Shitty DGA Deal Is At Least A Start...

106 Comments »

Leave a comment

Top Ten Movies

Film Spotlight

TV Spotlight

Latest Posts