Forbes: Real Winner of the Strike is New Media

Forbes.com has featured consistently balanced coverage of the WGA strike, rightly (in our minds!) pointing out that in a time of great uncertainty and digital transformation, Hollywood's unions and companies need to be working collaboratively to build new revenue streams.

In a piece posted on Newsweek.com, Forbes journalist Lacey Rose writes, "[T]he agreement legitimizes the new medium within the industry, guarantees the writers a stake in it and aligns the interests of everyone in Hollywood in seeking Internet success."

Rose's argument is that the conglomerates' best bet for succeeding in new media is to make it attractive for the creative professionals they rely on in traditional media to ply their trade online.

Charlie Craig, proprietor of the stellar "My Second Strike," is quoted as saying, "This deal may have saved the guild from becoming irrelevant. So was the strike worthwhile? Absolutely." And Rose concludes, "Someday soon, the studios may agree."


Not An said...

LAT front page story this morning - as we know the LAT has a certain slant and the story takes that slant but we are talking attributed quotes - but I'm not surprised to find out that the other side had and agenda, what I find most interesting is the section about the Dirty 30. There was so much talk back and forth about whether this group even existed with several name writers swearing that it did not, while apparently it was widely known amongst the very people who denied it that it did exist. Why did those in the know mislead us? We knew we had a good case, were they so unsure of us? If they misled up about that, what else did they mislead us about? There were 600 of them and they couldn't trust us to know that 30 people were in dissent? They sure didn't have any problem trusting writers to show up on the strike line. I consider myself to be a touch cyncial about these things but I guess I'm not so cynical as to think people I support wouldn't trust me with the truth. Oh well, at least now I know: don't trust anybody outside your own family and extremely close circle of friends.

And the worst part - apparently NF actually did have the inside scoop and was reporting it accurately - the thought makes me gag; that's the reason blogs like that can flourish because there may be a grain of truth in with the crap and our leaders force us to search through the crap with our page views to find it.

embers said...

I think the attention on new media during the strike will turn out to be a great thing for the writers. There are deals going forward that writers are making directly with online corporations, by-passing the networks and studios. If the AMPTP had never forced this strike then writers might never have found these new venues.

Mitsu said...

Forbes is absolutely right about this. This deal is in the best interests not only of the writers --- but the studios as well. What was so inexplicable about the studios' intransigence is that they were shooting themselves in the foot: they were pushing for something that was in fact going to cost them far more than it would have gained them. This comes from "penny wise and pound foolish" accountants like Nick Counter trying to press for idiotic deals that cut out the creators from a piece of the action. Makes no sense whatsoever --- from any perspective. Sometimes the union just has to force the employers to do what's in everyone's best interest --- including the employers!

It's funny, other industries have already learned this: high tech gives out stock grants and options to employees to give them a sense of ownership and to align their interests. Why doesn't Hollywood understand this? They think it's money out the door: but it's money well spent.

-nth- said...

Today I watched a episode of Jericho in preperation for its season premier tonight. I had been abstaining from internet viewership until the strike was offiicaly over however I did make this one exeption today. While viewing the program a little translucent box popped up asking if id like to take a survey, normaly i would never to think of doing it but i was curious due to the tenative deal regarding new media. The first part was mostly about my online vieing habits compared to my televison viewing habits it included a lot of suspicious questions that lended possible exploitation of the new "promo" window. I found it concerning in regards to the advancements that have been made with the tennetive deal. the second half was more about the advertiser that sponcerd the viewing and what i did during the advertisments and the length there of and how it influanced my product choices which of course it did not.

Luzid said...

@ not an:

"If they misled us about that, what else did they mislead us about?"

I'm not going to say they misled on this, perhaps they are just mistaken (or I am, but no one has explained how yet) - the third-year "precentage". It's not a true percentage if it's based on a cap; it's a renamed flat fee. A Guild member pointed this out on the threads last week, and I think he was right.