(Keep refreshing for the latest...) I was told last night by a top Hollywood CEO that the moguls had decided to allow AMPTP to put on the negotiating table a sweetened deal at Talks Day #4 today. "The producers are trying to put something on the table tomorrow [Thursday] that will jaw this loose. It will include streaming and EST [electronic sell-through] and all the rest," the source said specifically.
The problem is I can't confirm yet that the AMPTP has indeed bettered its offer today. (For a full report on the talks so far see my Day #3, Day#2, and Day #1.) But this is the sweetened proposal everyone has been talking about since before this new round of talks resumed. The really key issue is a better formula for ESTs, something that back on Sunday November 4th, the WGA negotiators had been led to believe was coming during that session so they dropped their DVD residual demands. Only to put them back on the table when the ESTs proposal never happened.
Until now, "the producers have not moved one inch on ESTs. It's never been addressed," the mogul I talked to confirmed last night.
On the TV issue of streaming, I'm told that the moguls' initial 9-month waiting period will be shrunk to 6 weeks. True, that's not the 3 days that the WGA is seeking, but it smacks of a compromise. (At least it's not entirely the "when we stop making money we'll give you money" thinking that's been driving the WGA so nuts.) Now, some WGA toppers are telling me this is exactly what the moguls were proposing back on November 4th. But others say the streaming proposal that Sunday was so un-fleshed out that they didn't know what the window being offered was. I do know that at the time I was reporting those tick-tock negotiations, the AMPTP side told me their streaming proposal was for the first season of a TV series to be free, and then at the start of the second season the writers would start receiving residuals for the first season, etc. Six weeks sounds a lot better than that.
But the CEOs are still standing firm on the issue of not sharing ad revenue with the writers even though those streaming shows are embedded with commmercials because "we don't even give that to Dick Wolf on broadcast."
I've gotta say, if this sweetened offer doesn't materialize today... (Expletive deleted.)
I've been trying to get a handle these past few days on what the moguls are thinking while the strike and these talks continue. Not just the obvious force majeure issues, the Directors Guild's soon-to-happen negotiations, the inevitable difficulty of the Screen Actors Guild's bargaining, down the line. But the thinking right now. Sure, there's a lot of senseless spin out there (just read today's The New York Times to see a ludicrous example of that). But in the end what only matters is what's on the bargaining table.
As far as the ESTs issue, the light at the end of the tunnel may lie with Ken Ziffren. That's right, the entertainment uberlawyer who helped solve the 1988 writers strike and is now representing the Directors Guild Of America in what will soon be their negotiations with the moguls. Ziffren is telling agents that he has "a solution to New Media" that includes the all-important ESTs but is still "working on it". One of the fears is that, if Ziffren shares it with the WGA negotiators, and they reject it, then the whole initiative may implode. On the other hand, if the WGA side accepts it, then the problem could be solved.
- Talks Day #3 'Stalemated'
- Talks Day #2 Still Friendly But Unproductive; "Game Of Chicken"
- Talks Day #1 Productive; "Reasonableness Ruled The Day"
- Dare We Hope A Deal Has Been Struck...?
- Talks Restarted At Agent Bryan Lourd's Home After Weeks Of Quiet Backchannel
- LET'S STRIKE A DEAL! Both Sides Agree To Go Back Into Talks
Well, it’s something. Thanks, Nikki!
Comment by Caitlin — November 29, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
C’mon guys, let’s get it together NOW!
Comment by Teamsterman — November 29, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
problem is the writers were negotiating in good faith and AMPTP are sharks vis a vis numbers
AMPTP did the typical inflation of demands, for example the waiting period (9 months!!!) so they could look reasonable when they shrank it down to 6 weeks (still absurd) which is what they wanted to begin with
it’s a tired bad faith negotiating tactic that attorneys pull in litigation all the time
writers should stand by their guns on many of these issues because the quantities they put on the table were the straightforward reasonable ones off the bat.
AMPTP counted on writers being soft targets and has been caught off guard that WGA isn’t being as much of a pushover as calculated.
stay strong WGA
Comment by showrunner — November 29, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
WGA won’t fold on this one. There’s too much solidarity. If the moguls think this incremental approach is going to get them what they want, they’re sorely mistaken.
Comment by Late Night — November 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I don’t understand the whole six-week thing, anyway. The shelf-life of streaming video is not six weeks long in the first place.
Comment by Max Bell — November 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I’d be interested to see what the numbers for DVD sales are in the first six weeks of release. I bet it’s something like 90%, which means, yes, the AMPTP are again trying to fuck writers in the ass. What I want to know is where’s the proverbial first kiss?
Fuckrag writer
Comment by Counter-fucked — November 29, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
I’m a moderate and that 6 week bs is, well, bs.
Repeat viewership can happen on the same day with literally the click of a button
Look at Theatre/Studio ticket sales. Studios collect almost 100% of the ticket sales in the first 4 weeks and then slowly, as time wears on, the ticket sale percentage fattens to the theatres’ side. But the system favors the studios who come in, make the bulk of the box office in the first two weeks, and then replace this box office hit with another one.
They are trying to apply the same model to writers accept writers don’t have candy sales to fall back on.
Comment by No Nikki — November 29, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Yep, sounds like the first phase bs lowball offer strategy many expected. They have a complete plan layed out…
March Offer, June 08 Offer, etc.
This is only their 1st offer and it sounds lame as hell.
Maybe it IS time to play serious hardball and kick their asses into digital obscurity. Paul Allen, Google, there is an unprecedented opportunity here.
I hope in five years the headlines read, 2007, the year petty Studio tactics bargained away their future by driving talent to new digital platform Partners.
I also hope this kind of treatment allows for them to LOSE their shot at consolidation with the pending FCC bill in Washington.
I also hope the Guilds ban together and launch a Major lawsuit against them for depriving Guild members of properly earned residuals by intentionally using false and illegal accounting practices.
Comment by PJ - Writer — November 29, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
This is the Gandhi moment.
First the mock you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Stay strong and say no. The other guys think they didn’t, but they just blinked.
Public sentiment is totally on the WGA’s side. And politicians (ie senators) can smell public opinion like whores to a diamond. I really believe that a few senators are already trying to figure out how to insert themselves (ie hearings) and haul the moguls into that committee chamber. “Under oath, Mr. Murdoch, how much money did Fox gross last year. Don’t bother trying to answer, just let us examine your books….”
We can get it all. We will get it all.
Then we win.
Comment by anotherWGAmember — November 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Still so obnoxiously, arrogantly, and mind-numbingly greedy. After SIX WEEKS, they will graciously give us a tiny fraction of the income we’re generating for them. Aren’t they generous?
Perspective is a funny thing. It’s so easy to see this as progress, and a “victory” for the writer. But the truth is, a few cents on the dollar - a full month and a half after all the water cooler talk about any given episode has long since moved on to the NEXT FIVE EPISODES that have aired since! - is still an insulting slap in the face.
Comment by sully1971 — November 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
The streaming issue will also affect the movie business, because the Studios are already doing free, streaming ad-supported deals with a number of platforms - such as Joost. Advertising will be a significant revenue generator for online in the long terms, and one that will play a greater role in the online movie distribution value chain in the 3 year timeframe.
Comment by Skeptic — November 29, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
As a crew member affected by this strike, this offer (if as advertised) sounds reasonable. The residual for first airing on broadcast should, quite frankly, cover the first period of streaming (if this irks you, bump up the first airing residual a bit). You could argue 3 days or 2 weeks or any other arbitrary length would be more reasonable, but this would be arbitrary nonetheless. Six weeks seems a bit long, but not totally unreasonable — certainly good enough for the first contract to include it. (Hey, ya gotta leave SOMETHING to negotiate on the next contract).
Streaming beyond this period picks up a residual. Sounds reasonable.
I’m not saying the Writers should cave — I’m saying this deal is not caving.
Let’s get a deal done and get Hollywood back to work.
Comment by Ang Li Cru — November 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
“Less talk. Make it happen.”
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Comment by Fussy Protocol Droid — November 29, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Max Bell is right. The shelf life is usually three to five weeks. In my experience, FOX usually pulls episodes of “24″ from its MySpace site three weeks after it first airs on the network. ABC reportely does the same though its video player is complete crap in some cases (though that could improve with XP Service Pack 3), and NBC usually does 5 weeks for full episodes. Yup you writers are getting screwed and you better drop the three day demand and say that all streaming should be treated like overall broadcasting.
Comment by Jessy S. — November 29, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
“Still so obnoxiously, arrogantly, and mind-numbingly greedy.”
Hate to tell you guys, but so is the WGA. It’s all about the moneymoneymoneymoney. You say you want what’s fair, but really how that translates is that you want more.
Really? The studios are being obnoxious? They may be arrogant and greedy, but I think the WGA is by far more obnoxious and self-centered.
Get back to work so everybody else who works in the industry can get back to their jobs during the holidays.
Comment by God of War — November 29, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Well, that’s kind of the issue about internet streaming and residuals that I don’t think the WGA is taking seriously. If ‘water cooler’ type viewing is drawn away from broadcasts and happens instead on the internet, it seems reasonable to consider that that kind of streaming is a primary market, rather than a secondary market, in which case it’s covered by the upfront payments we get, not the residuals. I don’t get a residual check when an episode I write runs for the first time on broadcast. If some portion of the audience skips the broadcast and catches up within the week via an online stream, I’m not sure I’m morally due a residual for that, either.
I would support a one-week free window. And I’m a TV-employed WGA member, and yes, I realize that will mean not-huge residual checks. It makes sense philosophically, and it will help sustain the scripted television business while broadcast viewership continues to plunge dramatically, largely because people would rather watch stuff on their own time online. This may mean, yes, lower residuals overall if broadcast reruns, for which we get very healthy-sized check (I just got one in the mail for 20K) dry out. But that eventuality is also going to mean less revenue for the entire industry, and this whole town may have to face that.
Comment by Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Also, sully1971, remember pattern bargaining means we aren’t just asking for “a few cents on the dollar.” Once you factor in the other guilds and the IATSE health funds, you need to multiply the WGA rate by 9.5. So, if we get what we’re asking for, 2.5% of gross, then studios are giving about 22% of gross to the various unions. Is 22% of gross really “a few cents on the dollar?”
Comment by Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Still, for TV there might be a compromise that’s not six weeks. Maybe you just say one week for all shows that have been on the air for 14+ episodes and then, all shows that have only aired the pilot + 12 episodes can be whored out for the networks gain. It creates a financial incentive for networks not to cancel shows so quickly and it gives the writers a chance to build something and get to a compromised deal.
These networks which now own the shows do risk a lot with new shows, and if they don’t have a hit on their hands, where do they go? New shows should get every possible promotional possibility available to the networks, and if that means streaming the first 13 is for promotion only and the nets get all the revenue from imbedded ads, maybe that’s a compromise worth doing (or even just the first 6 episodes).
Comment by Douchezero — November 29, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
I’m just so glad none of you are on the WGA NegCom. “Get it all.” “Win it all.”
Absurd. In a negotiation, you don’t get it all, you don’t win it all. You end up with a compromise.
To be clear, I am not saying the “6 week” model is a good offer or a bad offer. I am saying that this is a negotiation and it’s only the fourth day.
My sources also indicated that the AMPTP had absolutely no EST offer on Nov. 4th. Two members of the AMPTP did not believe the WGA would strike or that the membership would support a strike. Therefore they had not approved any sort of proposal to put forth on Nov 4th.
Any current proposal, is actually the first real proposal from the AMPTP.
Comment by Kit Sargent — November 29, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
So… I’m an interested bystander. I’m not a mogul and I’m not a writer. And, to me, the six-week proposal doesn’t feel like BS. I think 1-2 weeks would make more sense, but the key question for me is: “What rights are the studios paying for when they pay a writer to write an episode, and what is not covered by that initial payment?”
For a TV show, it seems to me that they’re paying for the right to ‘broadcast’ it, but that the term ‘broadcast’ could reasonably be defined as broadcast via the Internet as well as via TV.
And in an on-demand world, we basically come down to the question of ‘what is a rerun’ — I don’t personally know enough about the contracts yet, but I would assume that just as there’s no residual when ABC broadcasts a first-run episode of Grey’s on Thursday at 9pm, there’s also no residual when they rebroadcast it the next day at 8pm. I would further assume (though I don’t know the specifics) that there is a residual when that episode is rebroadcast three months later because it’s January and they want to save new episodes for sweeps. (And I’d love to know whether and how the writers get paid when I watch CSI for free four weeks after broadcast on my cable system’s video-on-demand setup.)
If that is the case, then wouldn’t it be reasonable for the same to apply to streaming? You got paid to write the episode; for that, you gave the studios certain rights. What those rights are is a matter of negotiation, either in individual contracts or in the master WGA/AMPTP contract — you could choose, for instance, to be paid a little more in order to give the studio the right to stream (without further compensation) for six weeks instead of two. (Two weeks seems to be the most reasonable ‘default’ for me, but I’m just one person. Three days is definitely too short, six weeks is probably too long.) You could even negotiate a form of TV-rerun residual that incorporated the same streaming rights as the original — the networks could well go for that so that they continue to have content to stream in January and other TV wasteland months, and it would (presumably!) be a significantly higher residual than you’re getting now.
If the moguls were proposing to give you zilch on EST for the first six weeks, that would be unfair. But this is streaming we’re talking about, which is basically the same as ‘on-demand’ TV. I guess I don’t see that it’s so entirely unreasonable for them to propose that your compensation for writing an episode of TV includes the right to stream it and broadcast it on TV for a period of time. (Probably an equal period of time for both.) The length of that period of time is a matter of negotiation, but any reasonable answer is likely to be a single-digit number of weeks. And if you want to be paid more for including a few weeks of streaming rights, raise your per-episode scale.
So (to quote Darren Star) I couldn’t help but wonder: why is all that an ‘insulting slap in the face’ as one commenter put it? Am I missing something other than the breakdown of trust between writers and moguls?
Comment by Alistair — November 29, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
The real issue here is not an attempt by writers to get MORE money via the Internet, but the fear that Internet reuse will replace all other reuse (reruns, forign, DVDs, etc.). And it will. So, if there are no residuals on Internet reuse, then there are no residuals at all. A big rollback in salaries.
And, as far as residuals go, the big one, is the first primetime, network rerun. That residual is about half a script fee. They get smaller after that, down to almost nothing.
So, if writers were told that first big residual were protected, they would feel a big sense of relief. It’s already disappeared for some shows, even hits. “Lost” never reruns, but it is online by the morning after the first broadcast.
So, here’s my proposal — a reasonable one, I think:
That big (half script fee) residual is payable on first reuse — internet or TV. And in exchange for paying it, the studio gets one primetime rerun AND one-month of ad-supported streaming. That way writers are assured the most significant residual, and the studios get more than they get now for the same money. Everybody wins. And since the studios are paying for the second run, they should use it. Somewhere, sometime. It can even be on one of their cable sisters (second window) if they don’t want to rerun it on network.
After that. Use some version of the existing TV rerun formula. With something like each 30-days of streaming equal to a national rerun.
For pay downloads (iTunes, etc.), pay based on 80% instead of 20%, since the manufacturing and distribution costs are so low. It will still only be pennies per download.
And for DVDs. Whatever. Keep it where it is. Maybe double it for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, since the studios can charge a little more and/or sell people movies and TV shows they’ve already bought before in some other format. Beyond that? Who cares. It’ll all be delivered electronically soon enough.
Comment by Klaatu — November 29, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Alistair, great post. In answer to your question about current broadcast residuals, you get paid for anything after the initial broadcast. So if your Grey’s episode gets rerun four days after the first broadcast, you get paid for that. You get a first rerun check, which is the same amount whether the first rerun is four days or four months later. Pretty nice check, actually. Same for cable reruns of CSI (though the cable formula is a little different and the payments aren’t as big.)
The underlying issue, as I see it, is that broadcast reruns are basically an inefficient, blunt delivery device for getting the content to everyone who wants to see it. A lot of people catch the first airing, but some of them miss it and see the second or third or fourth rerun. Internet streaming / downloads are ultra-efficient. Every single person who wants the content gets it, whenever they want. This is great for the consumer, but not so great for the creator of the content (by which I mean both the studio and the writer), because that efficiency ultimately means less ad space to sell. (And I just don’t think that there’ll ever be, say, fifteen million people willing to pay $1.99 to watch an episode of television they used to get for free, so I suspect that paid downloads are not going to be huge part of the market.)
Comment by Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
God of War, what would you consider a non-greedy move on the WGA’s part? Taking what they’re offered by the studios and S’ingTFU? Do you know what kind of repercussion a passive act like that would have on EVERYONE who works in the business?
I feel badly for crew members and BTL folks who are out of work, but this is far from the first strike in the history of the industry and it won’t be the last. This is a union biz from the top down and anyone who takes a job in this business should know that strikes and shutdowns come with the territory. It sucks, but it’s true.
Comment by Yahoo Seriously — November 29, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Bryan Lourd has too much pride to let these talks crumble under his watch. It would look like he couldn’t get it done. It’s in his best interest to mediate a settlement that will appease both sides. No one’s ever going to be 100% content. I hope it happens quickly, otherwise it’s shaping up to be a pretty miserable holiday season.
Comment by Producerman — November 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
re: Kit Sargent 1;57
problem is the writers didn’t play the hackneyed negotiation game but started out of the gate with reasonable terms
they should’ve said no window, to allow room to negotiate up to a few days window
in this digital age, and with the bombardment of so much stuff online, the shelf life of any entertainment or information is eye-blinkingly fast
Comment by showrunner — November 29, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Now that Ziffren’s maybe involved, it’s going to be resolved
Comment by canuck wolf — November 29, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
It comes down to two things…first, what the capable and intelligent Kit says…it’s a negotiation, and second…the simplest fact, or what I considier the “truth” of this for writers. After the Studios best summer in history…and with the internet already generating $$$$ what do we want? We want what we had with broadcast television…if we write a good enough show that you can play it over and over and make money…ANYWHERE…that shouldn’t mean a CUT IN PAY. Why are studios so intent on trying to keep us from paying our rent? What’s the victory in that?
I am increasingly less interested in what the formula is…like so many writers, I just want to know that in a period of enormous profits, astronomical salaries for studio heads and executives and legions of new and money-making markets, no one is going to seriously consider an offer where we end up making LESS MONEY for generating more profit.
You’re all rich on the backs of what we wrote. Now don’t expect us to give you even more than we have already.
Comment by picketingwriter — November 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
I don’t understand where this idea that a first time re-run is FREE came from. That’s just not the case. Say you’re a model, and your product is your face and body and the photo product that comes from that. Upon running your image in each magazine or format, you get a payment EVERYTIME for the use of your product. It is the same in Film and TV. This is what is meant by RE-USE. Residuals are re-use payments and they start from the very first re-use.
I stand by the original bottom line of 2.5% for every re-use no matter what the format and 0.6% DVD. Do not lose the game. The game is maintaining the current residual rate. Anything less is an erosion and crime against your peers who are currently climbing the ranks.
I agree with PJ@12:49P. I’m glad there are negotiators at the table, but I believe the rank and file can’t afford to lose this battle. It’s up to the “plebe” writers when it comes to ratification, and I think anything less than the original rates transferred to the internet rips off our next generation of talent.
Comment by Frustrated Bystander — November 29, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Alistair,
The initial, fixed payment is for creation. Secondary, varied payments (i.e. residuals) are for use of that creation. Together they equal a writer’s “salary.”
Comment by No Nikki — November 29, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Stop telling WGA members what YOU think WE should do.
Thank GOD none of the dolts on this thread are in the negotiating room.
You’re giving everyone douche-chills.
Comment by Fussy Protocol Droid — November 29, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
if, indeed, this is the real deal from amptp, we writers will look like fools — and worse — if we don’t take it.
Comment by soon-to-be-ex-writer — November 29, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Kit Sargent,
Not only are you named after a fantastic classic TV character dame, you make tons of sense. I only hope that you are a show runner or some other influential individual as you are a real voice of reason.
The studios have realized that their bluff didn’t work, now the writers need to get over the victim thing. It’s a negotiation. It was a joke before,the companies made a bold move, got shot down, fine, but now the real work begins.
No one will come away “happy” or “victorious.” That’s the nature of negotiation.
For the first time EVER advertisers are contemplating asking for actual MONEY back, not just “make-goods” on the eyeballs that haven’t been delivered.
The so-called stockpiling of movie scripts didn’t really work as big pictures are shutting down.
Network advertising represents 45 BILLION dollars in annual revenue to the companies. If the advertisers start actually asking for cash back, that will have a huge impact. The studios feel pain.
The town is almost shut down for TV. All creatives are feeling pain, the teamsters are feeling pain, fine, we get it, we’ve had our shock and awe and now everyone is hurting.
So, now, the pain is being felt by all which means everyone has to get down to the hard work of hammering out a deal no one will love.
Or the business as we know it may be destroyed beyond repair.
No one wants that. No one. Please let’s let cooler heads prevail. Let’s be thankful that a skilled negotiator of show business deals is helping out with mediation. Let’s dial down the rhetoric and leave out terms like “hardball” or “have some balls” or really anything that involves balls.
Let’s leave balls out of it. Let’s be sober-minded and just get down to the task at hand.
Comment by WGA Writer with Business Sense — November 29, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
No deal will be struck until the full force of the force majure can take place…the studios are cleaning house …but the sad news is this…lots of new game shows, equal or better ratings, a tenth of the cost…do the math
Comment by Tom — November 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Picketingwriter: Studios may have had the “best summer in history” movie-wise (though actually it depends on what metrics you are using), but prime time scripted TV, which is what the issues we’re at strike over are mostly about, is a business in pretty serious trouble. Very few first, second or third-season shows recouping their deficits (and this is putting aside shady studio accounting). Those that are, facing a much dimmer syndication market than the hits of yesteryear. Reality and game show hits delivering MUCH better profit margins than scripted shows without any deficit risk at all.
So, it’s a little more complicated than you suggest.
Comment by Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Klaatu- your proposal is really smart. Around the first week of the strike, I had a conversation with a WGA NegComm member and suggested something around the same lines (guaranteeing the first rerun check and including some streaming rights in it.) The response was, basically, ‘interesting idea, but it would have to come from the other side, because we wouldn’t want to put it on the table and look weak.’
So, my hope is, a month later, these sorts of creative solutions are being considered.
Comment by WGAmember — November 29, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
I am WGA. Can I just say a couple things:
1. This six-week bullshit is absurd and there is no way the WGA membership will accept it.
and
2. The distinction made in online delivery (digital sell through vs. online download is not based in *ANYTHING* except trying to extend the concepts of TV broadcast and DVD to a digital world.
Streaming vs. downloading is arbitrary. To download you have to “stream” data to the home computer. To “stream” you are effectively downloading. The only distinction is whether it’s being viewed “now” or “later” or both. Which all depends on the consumer’s ability to do so.
I’m seriously worried these negotiations are swirling around flawed, analog, archaic models which will be shattered within a few months of the agreement.
IT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE BETWEEN ONLINE “STREAMING” AND “DOWNLOAD”. THEY ARE TECHNICALLY THE SAME THING.
The companies will take advantage of this once a deal is made.
Comment by Writer — November 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
I think a free week of streaming is okay, so people can catch up and still tune in for the new episode (of a serialized show let’s say.) After that, they can pay for it, a small price, and the studio and creators of the work can share in the profit (with the creative side getting a tiny piece.)
But as in a few years the entire library of a studio’s tv shows and movies will be available to stream — with ads — over your tv (with its amazing net connection) the writers need to get a piece of this. This is the new syndication market. A free week for an eternity of payment for streamed viewings seems reasonable to me.
Comment by George Glass — November 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
re: Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm and
Alistair — November 29, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Re: reruns in the first week after initial airing and sometimes the run of the same episode in a small time frame on another network (i.e. a cable partner) will NOT count as a rerun in terms of paying the writer, but is called “promotional,” even if additional advertising dollars are generated.
Jennifer G., TV writer
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
@Tom 3:23, if the networks start glutting up the schedule with all reality/game shows, it’ll be the best thing to happen to writers. People will get so saturated with these programs, the pendulum will swing and scripted tv will be in greater demand than ever.
Even “reality” tv producers are not thrilled with the new over saturation by studios because they know it will create a backlash against their genre.
Can you say short term thinking? (”you do the math” went out about 5 years ago)
excerpted from AP:
“You could imagine a future that has so much reality that the nation clamors for scripted content because it seems so fresh and new after all the reality content they’ve seen,” he said.
Marc Berman, analyst for Media Week Online, notes that reality has been part of broadcast TV since the start — “Candid Camera” was born in 1948. “The Real World” got the new-wave party going in 1992, with the genre exploding in 2000 when ABC launched (and then overdosed on) “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” and CBS struck “Survivor” gold.
Alternative TV is more entrenched than ever.
“We opened the fall season with the most nonscripted programming ever seen in the history of television,” Berman said. It’s cheaper to produce and “a lot of it works, so why not do it?”
But “if the strike continues with no end in sight, and there’s more and more reality, viewers will get fed up with it,” he predicted.
Langley, who also produces the new series “Jail” for MyNetworkTV, already is disheartened. He argues that while “Cops” was a groundbreaker that brought an arthouse-style documentary program to network TV, most reality shows are simply dressed-up contests.
“It’s all game shows,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s `Survivor’ or `The Biggest Loser’ or `The Bachelor’ or `Amazing Race.’”
And more is not better, according to Langley.
“You’re going to get a lot of bad reality shows as a consequence of the strike. … It encourages all kinds of dilution of my franchise,” he said.
Comment by producer — November 29, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
yeah, an internet download looks great (sarcasm) on my 108″ screen. if the world started replacing their plasmas and lcds for computer monitors id believe your bullshit. you guys are idiots.
Comment by reality bites — November 29, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Hey self-proclaimed “WGA Writer with Business Sense,”
Not that my MBA means anything, but if the business as we know it is “destroyed beyond repair,” it won’t be because writers refused to come back under terms we consider fair, but because acceptable contract terms were never offered.
I for one will not ratify another “compromise” between a good wage and a poor one. Not this time.
Comment by WGA Writer with Business DEGREE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Writer @3:51,
When people say “streaming”, they generally mean free, ad-supported downloads (i.e. nbc.com). When they say “downloads”, they generally mean pay/purchase downloads (i.e. iTunes).
The terms aren’t perfect, but that’s generally how they are being used.
Comment by Klaatu — November 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Reality shows are more profitable in the short term. They are generaly cheaper to produce and license fees are greater than production costs.
But a hit scripted show is generally more profitable than a hit reality show, because they rerun and syndicate and stream and sell online and sell on DVD and sell internationally much better. If a show is not a hit though, it can lose money because often the cost or production exceeds the license fee.
However, many reality shows can’t be piloted. They need to shoot an entire cycle on an island or on a house or on the farm where farmer wants a wife, before they know if anyone wants to watch it. When they get cancelled immediately, which is happening more and more as new reality ideas suck, they can actually lose a lot of money.
Comment by Klaatu — November 29, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
reality bites, an HD download will look great on your TV.
Comment by Klaatu — November 29, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
reality bites @ 3:58 PM:
Actually, you’re the idiot.
See there’s this thing called Internet2. It will allow data rates that equal a DVD in about 7 seconds.
I’d tell you more, but it might hurt your head to have to do all that thinking.
Comment by Captain Obvious — November 29, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Writer, if you’re going to be so angry about the proposal, at least know the difference between the 2 things. The difference between “streaming” and “download,” as they’re being referred to in these negotiations, is this:
Streaming is when someone watches a movie/show online for free, and ads are inserted it. Like right now when you watch a show on a network’s website. Download is when someone pays to own a download of the movie/show, and there are no ads in them. Many people think in the future, streaming will be similar to broadcast tv (your tv “streams” the show, with advertising, and downloading will be like buying the show on dvd.
Comment by to writer — November 29, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
If a real estate agent tried to sell you a parcel of land on Mars at a great price, was rebuffed, then came back with a “terrific deal” on a parcel of land in the middle of the Mohave, would that, in your opinion, “smack of a comprimise”?
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
“an HD download will look great on your TV.”
yeah im going to wait the 3 days to download 30 gigs. NOT!
Comment by reality bites — November 29, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Whatever the negotiation result, all I see when I look at network television is a dying business. Each year viewing declines. Internet usage for scripted shows will not attract the ad revenue broadcasting does. Belt tightening should have gone further by the networks years ago but methods and practices are still wasteful in a way that wouldn’t be tolerated in most businesses.
Small old style nets WB and UPN failed and replacement CW doesn’t look like it will ever get off the ground. That’s less writers being paid. The more economically run Univision often has higher ratings than the CW. That’s less well paying work for writers. Where have all the syndicated scripted shows gone?
The only bright spot is more cable companies are producing scripted shows but they will never have the ad money the networks made and subscriptions have probably already peaked.
Comment by realnumbersplease — November 29, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
umm Captain,
you think my cable company is going to let me have all that bandwidth required for my 35 bucks a month and cut them out of the other 200 i pay for all the channels? yeah you are a bright one.
Comment by reality bites — November 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
reality bites, it will not take 3 days. Nor will it be 30 gigs. It’ll be about 4 gigs or less per hour of programming. It doesn not take long to download that much, and soon it will take seconds.
Comment by Klaatu — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
This is about the future, reality bites, not the speed of your current internet connection or the current content delivery paradigm.
These contracts extend across multiple years. They have to be constructed to contend with various scenarios and contingencies; especially ones that are most likely to occur.
Thanks for your enlightened commentary. We all appreciate it, truly.
Comment by Captain Obvious — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Reasonable, my ass:
For streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year’s reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.
Dear studios: Blow me.
Comment by DA in LA — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Re: suggestion that writers are being “greedy”
Broadcast TV is soon to be replaced entirely by internet streaming and downloading. If we don’t set up a reasonable and fair way of paying for the new media, we will be getting nothing in a few years; the residuals and fees that feed our pension and health plans with disappear.
Is it greedy to want health insurance?
Jennifer G.
Comment by jennifer — November 29, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Hey Klaatu and writer@4:25 pm–
I know exactly what the difference between streaming and download is in the context of this negotiation. What I’m pointing out is that they are **from a technical standpoint** IDENTICAL.
The current practice of method #1 streaming = “nbc.com streaming with ad-support” and method #2 sell-through = “downloading the whole show like itunes” is completely arbitrary and does not mirror the technology nor its potential/likely use in the years to come.
The analogy has been characterized as follows: streaming download is like a TV broadcast. It’s a live viewing of a program, supported by ads which can’t be blocked or skipped, free to the user, and supported by downloads. An electronic sell-through is like buying a DVD and having the program on your computer, free of ads, to be watched whenever you want.
Okay, fine. Great analog->digital analogy. Except that it sucks.
I can demonstrate this a few ways:
WHY THESE TWO MODELS SUCK
Scenario #1
What happens when a network allows you to stream a show either (A) for free with ads *OR* (B) streamed free provided you give it some personal information, such as your viewing habits or (C) free with an “NBC Frequent Viewer pass” paid subscription?
These are all streaming models that generate income, but while (A) is the way we’ve been talking about, (B) generates income but not via ads (rather by say, selling your personal information to advertisers) and (C) is via a payment which is not exactly digital-sell-through because viewing isn’t tied to any particular viewing of a program. It’s more like the subscription you’d pay to a cable company than anything else.
Scenario #2-
A company decides to release a film old-school DivX style– you get five “free” plays at home– one “live” one while it’s downloading, plus up to four more off your hard drive, and then after that pay $1 for every additional play using the studio’s amazing unhackable DRM-enabled media player software.
So that’s a streaming- no wait, it’s actually downloading, but you can watch the download. So you own it, only you can play it five times for free. But then if you play it again it’s a rental… but it’s played offline, so how do you know how many times it was– no wait- umm…
What model are you going to use here?
Scenario #3
In order to “tease”/promote an upcoming show, the first half of the pilot is streamed free and ad-free. The second half can be watched supported by ads to your computer, but after you watch the ads (and revenue is collected), you can then watch on your computer as much as you want.
So it’s like… um.. half free.. then ad-supported… then you can play it yourself. Umm.. uh oh.
Scenario #4
A show’s first two EPISODES are available free, ad-supported (or just plain free). You want the rest? You have to buy them on the traditional digital-sell through itunes model.
Okay… so whoever wrote those first two episodes are totally FUCKED because they ended up writing commercials for the rest of the shows, and whoever wrote the rest get to split the digital sell through EXCLUDING the first two episodes.
Scenario #5
As video games and films blend into each other, a film is rendered (or streamed) by a game server, allowing the character to play within the world of the movie– in real time. The user pays not for the movie but for the boxed game at Best Buy.
How does the writer get paid? Is this streaming or digital-sell through?
These scenarios are just off the top of my head. The potential methods of distribution get more complex as the years go on– how will p2p factor in as a means of distribution? What kind of control do studios expect to reasonably have over playback of media on machines they don’t control?
This is a much more complex issue and the relative immature concepts of “streaming” and “digital sell through” are going to come back to bite the writers in the ass as new media grows– because I have not seen any indications that these concepts have really been thought through properly.
Get it now?
A WGA writer
That’s my point.
Comment by Writer — November 29, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Does anyone know REAL numbers on what streaming an ep of a show makes for the networks on ads? Does a click through of the ad increase the revenue? We can come up with a number on what a network makes per 30 seconds on broadcast. If it streams on NBC.com it must be different then if another site hosts that show as well. And if it is hosted by a third party site, how would that change the formula as then the Network would be making less. Also, of whatever the streaming money would be (say $250 a year as being talked about), is that per writer on the show, the person with the Written By credit, the creator, divided among the staff???
Comment by realworldperosn — November 30, 2007 @ 6:45 am
Maybe the WGA should bring in an INTERNET mogul to negotiate this aspect of the contract and not rely on old school guild people.
Comment by realworldperson — November 30, 2007 @ 6:50 am
All the scenarios still fall under “pay to watch” or “watch ads to watch”. Both generate income for the studios.
An hour rerun on network TV costs the studios approximately $200k in residuals — $20k to WGA, $20k to DGA, $60k to SAG, $90k to BTL unions. (Yes, BTLers, you get residuals.)
A 30-second spot on a primetime rerun costs at the minimum $50k. There are approximately 32 commercials per hour (16 minutes). That’s very conservatively $1.6M in revenue for that rerun.
So, residuals are about 1/8th of revenue for reruns.
How about applying the same rate to Internet use, no matter how they derive the revenue? We’re only asking for money if they make money.
Comment by Klaatu — November 30, 2007 @ 7:39 am
How does playing INSIDE a video game fall under “pay to watch”? How does a “promotional” free two episodes for the rest of the season (for pay) fall under either category?
And dude– I’m just riffing. The patterns for distribution will vary WILDLY in just the next few years. Our two categories which we’re currently negotiating are far insufficient.
Paying for time (30 second spot) may make sense,although that too will have consequences (studios might want shorter product for example). In any event, I don’t see any indication that the realities of Internet technology are matching the framework for the discussions.
What if you combine streaming w/ads WITH a purchase? Ie– you download to cache with ads. You save the cached program and can re-watch it WITHOUT ads (maybe paying for each viewing, more likely not). Which formula does this fall under?
Also, you realize that any paying per view of a video cached on a person’s computer/TV is ridiculously outside the control of any studio, right? DRM is a joke, so we as tech-savvy writers have to assume that studios will control purchased content as much as music companies control CD content once they’re purchased, which is to say– NOT.
Please, someone at WGA HQ address this?!!
Writer
Comment by Writer — November 30, 2007 @ 8:22 pm