I know I don't because he's an arrogant SOB. But he's also a mogul who found a way to make money in New Media and the Internet. He should whisper the secret to his Hollywood pals. In the past, Diller has been outspoken that he thinks only professionals -- "meaning people who are in the industry and are trained for it" -- turn out the really good content able to attract big audiences. But here are his comments to Fox Business Channel calling the writers strike "stupid" but also blaming both sides for "mishandling this one":
“I expect that it will probably be a long strike, which would be unfortunate because I don’t think it makes much sense….I think it’s stupid. I don’t think they should have gone out on strike…Both sides must have really mishandled this one…In order to have gotten to ‘strike moment’ everyone must have screwed up, which makes it difficult to get them back to some sort of sanity.
“What this strike is about is not revenues from first usage. It’s about revenues from what happens in this digital age, of which right now there are none…What they want to do is strike so they’re protected for the future. The problem with that is right now it’s a future that no one can figure out…What they should have done is say, we’re going to take the next five year period - we want to know where all of these revenues are coming from. We want to freeze this area until we can understand the revenues, which aren’t going to develop for another few years…There are no profits for the work that writers do that is then digitized and distributed through the Internet.”
Hilariously out of touch and old-man-ly.
Comment by Mike — November 12, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I think the old bastard’s onto something.
Strikes are stupid. Of course they’re stupid. If both sides are going to eventually reunite, what’s the point of a strike? Stupid. It’s like those idiotic 25 year old couples who break up 19 times before they finally marry; and each time they break up everyone around them rolls their eyes. Stupid.
You know what’s stupid? Listening to Patrick Verrone’s lackluster speech last week while (what sounded like) six writers booing and cheering him on. That’s stupid. Fifteen minutes. It’s what Warhol said, no? He wasn’t stupid.
Stupidly Yours,
MT
Comment by Mark T — November 12, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
“It’s about revenues… of which right now there are none.”
Also, he’s straight and dating Diane von Furstenburg.
Comment by Ted — November 12, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
I guess that 15 million NBC made on iTunes last year wasn’t profit. Good to know.
Comment by DA in LA — November 12, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
“There are no profits for the work that writers do that is then digitized and distributed through the Internet.”
Dear Mr. Diller — As surely you know, there are never profits in Hollywood. All the writers want is a drip of the revenue stream. If there’s no stream, then there’s no drip. 2% of zero is zero.
Comment by Dilroy — November 12, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
So Mr. Diller — there are NO revenues being made from digital or ad-supported Internet? So….um….kind of a silly question, I guess….but….um….THEN WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH GIVING THE WRITERS A CUT? Let’s do the math — 2.5% of zero is…(mumble, mumble…carry the one…) — oh, yea — ZERO!! So what’s the problem?? Geez Louise. The AMPTP must truly think that most people can’t add, subtract or do fractions. Not to mention the hilarious yet stunning video at http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com where the moguls themselves talk about how much money is being made in new media. These people are really something. I hope they enjoy their Christmases. I can see them all in church right now, going through the charade of “the spirit of the season.” Give me a break.
Comment by David — November 12, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
“What they want to do is strike so they’re protected for the future. The problem with that is right now it’s a future that no one can figure out…What they should have done is say, we’re going to take the next five year period - we want to know where all of these revenues are coming from. We want to freeze this area until we can understand the revenues, which aren’t going to develop for another few years…”
Barry,
Guess what? The writers already tried that exact strategy once. It was over a non-descript, un-figure-out-able thing called VHS (and, later, DVD). The writers agreed to an essential freeze in participation in VHS (and, later, DVD) sales until the studios could understand the revenues on those freaky, mysterious tapes and discs. Well, here we are, 20 years later, and the studios have figured it out. Heck, they’re making billions off ‘em… and the writers are still “frozen” out of that revenue stream, making next to nothing on the cash cow that is DVD sales. Not only have the studios spent 20 years refusing to increase the residual rate from that initial “next-to-nothing-while-the-studios-explore-this-new-thing” rate, they now, in fact, refuse to so much as *discuss* the issue. They walk away from the table every time we try. That issue, they say, is closed, and over.
Seriously, Barry Diller, how dumb would the writers be to fall for that a second time?
All the writers are asking for is a percentage (and a small one at that) of new media revenue. If the studios make no money off this mysterious, new, unknowable thing called the internet (as Barry Diller claims is a distinct possibility, in hopes we’re dumb enough to believe him), the writers make no money. But if the studios *do* make money off the internet, we get a tiny share.
That’s just basic fairness. Which might not mean anything to Barry Diller. Which is just one more reason I’m glad I’m not Barry Diller.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — November 12, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Isn’t that what people agreed to do with VHS residuals?
Comment by Joe — November 12, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Nikki, you’re right, he’s an arrogant SOB, a blowhard…”freeze this area until we understand the revenues.” Freeze? What does that mean? It does make sense to see how the new internet business model develops and not make any long-term deals either way, BUT in the meantime, the AMPTP must give the writers their fair share. What would happen during Barry’s five-year freezeout? Would the studios just collect the money and then decide later how much to pay the writers? Good luck with that. The AMPTP must, in good faith, give the writers a fair deal NOW… and then we can revisit the deal in three years and see where we are at. Makes sense. My fear is that the WGA will once again settle for too small a percentage now and lock us into yet another bad deal going forward.
I also agree with Mark T above… Patrick Verrone’s speech was weak. I was ten feet away from him and almost fell asleep. He’s a great man, but we need better speakers. We need some fire and brimstone.
Keep up the great work, Nikki - you are already a legend. FIGHT ON WRITERS!
Comment by dante writer — November 12, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
I just would really love the studios to sit me down and show me one movie, TV show, website, magazine, or whatever that DID make a profit so I can understand why none of the stuff they’re talking about now is capable of that. That? Would be really fucking helpful.
(My guess: they’d just sit there scratching their heads.)
Comment by Nick — November 12, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Actually, Ted, they’re married, which only further strengthens your argument.
Comment by Jon — November 12, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Well if it was on Fox Business Channel it must be true…
Comment by stuck in development — November 12, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Well, he’s right. I guess I should have opened up some of that endless stream of mail I get from the WGA; maybe I would have realized what a hapless douchebag Patrick Verrone is. Well played, Pat!
Comment by Jake — November 12, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Gawsh, it’s amazing that all these moguls are so wealthy when they find it so damn difficult to figure out ways to make money. This New Media stuff is a world class stumper.
Comment by Anon — November 12, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
What Barry and Michael Eisner FAIL to acknowledge is that DVDs and videotape were also “new technologies” that no one knew for sure would be profitable. The WGA bought that argument once from the AMPTP, and got burned badly. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Comment by Sivert — November 12, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
so i guess that would mean freezing all the ad rates for the mandatory ads shown on streaming content too — and that means freezing the ad income in some kind of escrow account or som’n? i’d go for that…
Comment by cassandra complex — November 12, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
For Eff’s sake. He’s Barry Diller, when I’m ready to write for Joan River’s Jewelry then maybe I’ll listen to him.
he doesn’t know dick..well, wait a minute that he does know… but the WGA vs AMPTP..nope he’s off.
Comment by Jupiterjoy — November 12, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Remember, this is the same Barry Diller that killed the highest rated shows on cable, the two WCW wrestling shows, because it did not appeal to audience that he wanted to attract. Now if you remember 10 years ago when this was the case, the audience that WCW was attracting was comprised of 14 - 35 year olds, with a heavy college campus component. Whether you like wrestling or not, it was making big money. I’d be careful of taking advise from a man who was willing to kill a cash cow because he perceived that it denigrated his ego.
Comment by Anon — November 12, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Nikki,
while I don’t mind at all reading about the buffoonery of Barry Diller,
what’s the latest on the agents trying to get the two sides back to the bargaining table?
Please give us a little more glimmer of hope if you have some. Please?
Comment by What'sUpWihTheAgents? — November 12, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
We’re currently sitting thru ads on the Internet which appear before network clips. Barry, what the fuck??
The current United Hollywood YouTube video is brilliant. Brings out the real hypocrisy in each and every one of ‘em.
Comment by Turning letters — November 12, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Maybe the studios’ strategy is to jump start the internet momentum with this strike, by chasing all the advertisers from broadcast television to broadband internet. Because that’s surely where the advertisers will be turning with their ad dollars, given a paltry mid-season line-up and an exodus of viewers.
Comment by Deb — November 12, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
apparently Barry hasn’t seen the video…
Comment by writer who earned 60K in 07 — November 12, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Is it a wonder that the head of “Dillers’ Killers” (Eisner) is in lockstep with his old boss???? These are bottom line company people who work on a global level.
Comment by realworldperson — November 12, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
“Anyone Care What Barry Diller Thinks?”
Nope.
Comment by s — November 12, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Well, of course, in the world of “Hollywood accounting” Barry is right on. Big profits = no money. So, Barry, you win! Back to work Monday everyone!
Comment by Anonymous — November 13, 2007 @ 12:20 am