This is the third in the Screen Actors Guild's 2008 contract reports about issues. Report #1 discusses middle-income actors and #2 talks about New Media (at end of post), and now #3 explores residuals below:
SAG CONTRACT 2008 REPORT
Number 3 – Residuals
April 25, 2008
The following update represents only a portion of our proposal priorities. We will be updating you about other proposal priorities in the coming days. SAG and the AMPTP have been meeting since negotiations began more than a week ago. On April 23, the parties agreed to extend the bargaining session and continue negotiations through the week of April 28. Our proposals address many critical issues confronting SAG actors. Below is information on the important topic of residuals.
Why are Residuals Important To Actors?
Residuals are critical to an actor's ability to make a living. As a deferred payment for the use or reuse of an actor's work, residuals are paid on a time cycle that allows many actors to receive income on a reliable basis. Residuals accounted for 53% of all pensionable principal earnings for middle-class actors under the TV and Theatrical Contracts in 2007. Changes in industry business models – like declining network repeats and increased online streaming -- and reality shows-- mean declining network residuals payments. Getting fair residuals formulas in new media, DVD's and other markets is a priority for the Guild.
What is the state of affairs in residuals?
• Real earnings are on the decline with average inflation-adjusted residual earnings decreasing 7% over the last 5 years. This has contributed to a negative annual growth rate in real aggregate earnings to actors over recent years. So, if it feels like you're making less, it's because you are.
• Primetime repeats are down 25.1% the last two television seasons resulting in fewer residual payments to actors.
• Total home entertainment consumer spending (rental and sell-through) is projected to top $31 billion in 2012, up from $23.4 billion in 2007.
• The DVD market is forecast to remain viable for years to come, partly because of projected growth in the BLU-Ray segment.
• Some series are streaming all episodes produced on ad-supported formats.Here's what we are asking for:
1. Reasonable residuals for actors' work released to DVD and home video.
2. Reasonable residuals for content made for new media.
3. Reasonable residuals for content moved over to new media platforms from traditional media.
4. Reasonable residuals for made-for new media programs released in traditional media.
5. A sustainable residuals structure that ensures working actors can maintain a middle class income, and represents an appropriate share of the value contributed by actors.Please note that the above information is not intended to be an exhaustive list of our proposals. It is simply intended to keep you informed. We will keep you apprised of developments as the negotiation process continues. Check SAG 24/7 website at www.sag.org. Watch for Contract 2008 Report No. 4 coming soon.
The word reasonable is subjective…it implies that everything you’re asking for is within reason, and if the other party doesn’t agree, then they are not…………..reasonable.
How about some numbers… for example, how much does SAG want for DVD sales…or residuals in new media, etc., etc…
Reasonable is vague.
Comment by btl teamster — April 26, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
I didn’t see any actress named Anonymous on the IMDb. Perhaps you use another name.
Comment by David Sobolov — April 26, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
David,
Awesome rebuttal to Anonymous.
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — April 26, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Not that awesome.
I found 31 listings for “anonymous” on the IMDB.
Anyway, Anonymous gives a perfectly valid reason
for wishing to remain anonymous in his/her post.
Comment by Bill Gray — April 27, 2008 @ 6:59 am
Vague, vague, vague.
But hey, when we stood united with the WGA, we didn’t need numbers or concrete information then, either. Surely they’ll back us this time around!
Let’s keep this ship on course. Won’t be fooled again!
Comment by Choking on Sarcasm. — April 27, 2008 @ 9:16 am
I understand the people who feel that we don’t need another strike now. We’ve just emerged from the trauma (not even entirely) of the writer’s strike and now there’s a SAG labor action?? That however, is the way things work. A labor union cannot negotiate a deal with management without the possibility of a strike. It would be like facing the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis without our own nuclear weapons. For those who believe Rosenberg and Allen are fools, I advise you that few people are really so simple and totally misguided. Theirs is not our individual concerns but the fate of the entire working Guild. In fact, the working and NON-working Guild.
Let’s see what they get done. From what Nikki Finke and others have reported, the Studios and their corporate owners seem unlikely to offer SAG anything. Literally. Their offer consists of not even beginning a labor negotiation but asking SAG to continue to work under the same conditions without an offer of any kind. This seems not only insulting, it denies the essential nature of this relationship: it is adversarial bargaining. Without offers and proffered counter-offers, we have nothing. The studios seem interested in breaking SAG. AFTRA, for whatever reason (many believe this is due to their own inferiority complex but I don’t totally understand that either) chose to splinter the unified labor position. Fine. It’s dumb, but their right. SAG has to get the best deal possible for its members. For people in this business, which is an enormous collaboration, to ask actors to take ‘one for the team’ and accept less for the good of the whole doesn’t understand how detrimental that move is for all unions. If strikes are so painful (for everyone) why does the AMPTP push every union toward them? I think we’d do better if every union made it clear that if AMPTP was seen as unfair, they’d all walk.
Maybe then we’d have something. Something we used to have. Oh yeah: organized labor.
Comment by Wide eyed raven — April 27, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Comments from anyone who signs as “anonymous” - especially when they attack a person’s character - should be appreciated for their entertainment value, then discarded. Their opinion means nothing because without signing a name there’s no one to account for the things they say. Those people claiming to be employed actors, or “Bill Gray” could easily be 80 year old Zulu women living in arctic Canada. Only cowards throw rocks and hide.
This is a very newsy site - and Nikki has great info to share - but it’s a BLOG people… TMZ with a business angle. NO traditional media outlet (especially tv / radio / newspapers) ever publishes or broadcasts a comment from anyone who won’t identify themselves with verifiable information to prove who they are. Comments from anonymous people here are entertaining and often informative - but could be posted by ANYONE. You can’t trust the source. I doubt some of these angry anti-SAG posters here would say the things they’d say if they had to show their faces and no one should take anything they say as legit if they won’t.
Bill Gray was one of the kids in Father Knows Best in the 1950’s - he’s 70 years old now and hasn’t worked in 12 years. Someone please call him and let us know if he’s the person actually posting here. I doubt he’d care enough about the industry in 2008 to leave comments here, but y’never know.
Comment by David Sobolov — April 27, 2008 @ 11:39 am
I didn’t find any Nikki Finke on the IMDb. Perhaps you work under a different name? Perhaps you do commercials only (a great money maker that has been good to me and that takes skill that is mostly unappreciated).
You use the term “reasonable” repeatedly regarding SAG’s contract demands. Okay, so now we all know that your piece is not really news at all, but just an opinion piece at best, propaganda at worst.
Let’s balance the picture by looking at who is leading our Guild. Alan Rosenberg was called a militant by he Los Angeles Times. I believe he has been aching for some kind of strike ever since he took office. In the mold of Ed Asner, the disastrous Bill Daniels, and the completely talent-free Kent McCord he believes that actors should hold dominion over the entire entertainment industry.
Doug Allen, our Executive Director and (God help us) Chief Negotiator, said “Unions don’t cause strikes to happen…” which is, of course not only incredibly stupid, but a blatant lie to anybody who knows the first thing about labor negotiations. Strikes are an acepted and primary tool of labor unions and have been for over a century. Perhaps you might advise Mr. Allen that Management cause “lockouts” unions call for strikes.
I haven’t been active in SAG politics but I will actively oppose ANY call for a strike. Allen and Rosenberg seem hell bent on ruining SAG. Sad. It was a great organizatin.
Comment by Anonymous — April 27, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Raven -
Excellent points!
The moguls have a clear financial interest in breaking the unions. They are also under some pressure from Wall Street. From “the market’s” perspective, the question is, why do actors and writers have to be treated differently than all the other labor we shamelessly and mercilessly exploit???
Comment by mheister — April 27, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I find the report on current negations to be perplexing if not downright stupid. Is this report addressed to members of SAG or written for the general public. I cannot imagine any actor who needs to be told what residuals are and why they are important. The information regarding reduction of jobs is not any kind of a secret within the industry. And then, the big wrap: SAG is asking for ‘reasonable’ increases. What the hell is that supposed to mean?? I guess it’s an attempt to show “your union at work” These kinds of ‘reports’ are the worst kind of PR manipulation. What, exactly, do we learn? Oh, SAG is asking for increases that are ‘reasonable’ and actors need to get residuals. I resent the blatant attempt at manipulation. Oh, and how come no criticism at the other posters who do not sign their names?? Is it that they agree with Mr. Sobolov?
Comment by Kathy Joosten — April 28, 2008 @ 6:46 am
Kathy,
I have said all long these statements are nothing more than PR press releases just based on the fact that they don’t provide any meaningful content. However, not being in the industry I didn’t even realize that the target audience is the general public (as you have pointed out) since all working actors would already know everything contained in the supposed update. Thanks for providing that perspective.
Comment by Intrigued — April 28, 2008 @ 10:47 am