tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post7954689463136174313..comments2023-08-28T01:47:52.421-07:00Comments on United Hollywood: More Clarification on the AMPTP's NumbersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-31055389133736552222007-12-04T16:35:00.000-08:002007-12-04T16:35:00.000-08:00If I had a union, I'd probably strike as well. Bu...If I had a union, I'd probably strike as well. But, I'd remind the writers of this: while your cause is commendable initially, you have to be willing to compromise as well! Any new monies offered your way are not rollbacks: they're RAISES! I work for a bank and I bring in new money through loans and mortgages daily. Every payment the client makes on that home or financing (like every commercial aired for a tv show) contains interest- gross bank profit. How much do I see? JACK! The only difference: I can't strike. My only solution if I felt in a similar manner to the WGA would be to find a different job.<BR/><BR/>Given a union and an opportunity to receive residuals on the loans I set up, I'd certainly be willing to take a stand. But, the WGA should keep in mind that in most lines of work that isn't an option. Granted, they have the right to stand up and fight for what they feel is fair.<BR/><BR/>But they should also find a new job if they don't feel they are fairly compensated. Unions largely slow down production. This is proof.fupussckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320535808987736687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-1134685202099476392007-12-03T18:14:00.000-08:002007-12-03T18:14:00.000-08:00Some guy wrote I pay for cable and I don't care ab...Some guy wrote I pay for cable and I don't care about writer's working conditions, I want my shows, hire new writers (cause writers grow on trees). <BR/><BR/>The writers' problem is not my problem! <BR/><BR/>And he also said that what goes on at Mc Donald's is not his problem. He just wants to eat his Big Macs.<BR/>Do you know the Big Mac you eat is propably road kill? Or that is full of cancer? <BR/><BR/>Unless you want to live in a society of your own, get together with this one, get off your ass and fight. Cause we don't fight only for ourselves, we fight for you too. <BR/><BR/>Do you really want to be ruled by conglomerates?Tom Conradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304390298452120551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-57437961038637328772007-12-03T18:01:00.000-08:002007-12-03T18:01:00.000-08:00There are two specific comments here that my jaw d...There are two specific comments here that my jaw dropped while reading. I won't even bother with the comment about $20k being enough to "get by fine". Spoken like someone who has never had to "get by" on $20k (before taxes and deductions) until the next bout of work comes their way.<BR/><BR/>The comments about it not being "their problem" if the products they use or they money they spend is not distributed fairly amongst those who produced the product. I'm taking liberties in summarizing.<BR/><BR/>"Someone else's working conditions are not my problem."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I'll bet you believe they aren't. Just as sure as I'd bet that if they were your working conditions you'd care. Happy holidays, buddy. Happy holidays.<BR/><BR/>It obviously is your problem. You are here commenting on it. You are, as a consumer, being directly affected by what is happening. It may not be about the availability of a cheeseburger (as your example stated), but it is about your source of entertainment. You are right. You pay for it. It should be there. <BR/><BR/>But not at any cost. And you should be absolutely livid if you are told to accept anything less.Angel - Having a Nemesishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430969791263854328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-21393855020305789412007-12-02T20:33:00.000-08:002007-12-02T20:33:00.000-08:00WGAer With Business Sense:Hmm. Okay, go to a bank,...WGAer With Business Sense:<BR/><BR/>Hmm. Okay, go to a bank, or really, any venture capitalist, or Google, and tell them you want 100K to write a script for a tv pilot, that will have a one in five chance of bring produced. Explain to them that if it is produced, they'll be on the hook for another two million in production costs. And then tell them that once they've spent that two million, it has a one in four chance of making it on the air, in which case they are on the hook for about $40 million to produce a season of television.<BR/><BR/>And then tell them that their chances of the show lasting long enough for them not to lose almost half of that money (since the network licensing fee, is the 1 in 20 chance that it will syndicate.<BR/><BR/>Good luck getting that money. VCs and banks and new media conglomerates like Yahoo / Google won't put up with the economic inefficencies and risks that are part of the culture here and keep everyone employed.<BR/><BR/>So yes, I do feel sorry for the studios. And I feel sorry for everyone who works for them too, because internet distribution is a much bigger threat to all of us than an opportunity.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean the WGA should accept whatever the AMPTP feels like offering. It's just something to think about when you're trying to decide what a fair or acceptable deal is. A world where WB is just a brand is a nightmare world for writers, because there's no way that Yahoo or banks or whatever will maintain levels of employment anywhere near what we have today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-69263824630450816422007-12-02T20:13:00.000-08:002007-12-02T20:13:00.000-08:00Anonymous,I feel close to you now, and wish you ha...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I feel close to you now, and wish you had a better handle than "anonymous."<BR/><BR/>But at any rate, it has been interesting probing these issues with you. You are level-headed and seem willing to at least DISCUSS the difficulties of the new business models from the companies point of view without being ridiculous and pretending on the one hand there's no money to be made, and on the other hand going on MSNBC and bragging about the billions you'll be making.<BR/><BR/>I still feel like your arguments are generally focused around the idea of somehow defending the companies re: the internet, along the lines of somehow feeling sorry for them because their cushy monopoly of distribution is coming to an end.<BR/><BR/>To that I sort of have to say, um, well...boo hoo.<BR/><BR/>If they would stop dicking around with this strike, settle on a number (far less than the current numbers, at least on the network/TV side) and be able to preserve their relationships with artists, with agencies, with advertisers and with the very idea that, say, "Warner Brothers" means anything in the new media wild west, well, that's would would serve them best.<BR/><BR/>Because the reality is, Warner Brothers means nothing five years from now. It's just an olde timey logo you remember from when you were a kid.<BR/><BR/>Because the reality is, when they no longer have a monopoly on theatrical distribution, or personal ownership of films you watched theatrically, or series television (because it is all distributed through the internet) all "Warner Brothers" is...is a bank. With a cute olde timey logo.<BR/><BR/>And there are lots of banks. And the artists will prefer the banks that didn't have them walking circles in the driveway of:<BR/><BR/>Warner Brothers.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's been fun negotiating with you, Anonymous. It is my hope that discussions this substantive are happening in the negotiation room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-82620313128233745532007-12-02T15:15:00.000-08:002007-12-02T15:15:00.000-08:00meanwhile, re that Herskovits article, before you ...meanwhile, re that Herskovits article, before you take him too seriously, actually watch 'Quarterlife.' Since he and Zwick self-produced that for myspace, they were presumably free from the meddling influence of all these executives who are supposedly ruining shows. And yet, somehow, the show, um, kinda sticks. Just something else to think about...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-43684032386319061942007-12-02T15:08:00.000-08:002007-12-02T15:08:00.000-08:00WGA Writer With Business Sense:But the issue about...WGA Writer With Business Sense:<BR/><BR/>But the issue about online advertising being harder to monopolize than network TV *isn't* contingent on Google starting up Google Studios. It's just contingent on Google being Google, and Facebook being Facebook, and so forth. A lot of product categories are already pulling out $ from television buys to buy more internet advertising. On the internet, networks are competing for ad dollars not just with each other but with massive juggernauts like Google, Yahoo, Drudge, etc., regardless of whether those companies decide to enter into the filmed entertainment business or not.<BR/><BR/>Re: television, maybe there are too many executives but that's not what drives up costs. Say Disney has 100 TV executives (which it doesn't) and they made an average of 200K a year (which they don't). Fire 50% of them, you save $10 million yearly. Big whoop. That's about the budget of three episodes of 'Pushing Daisies' or 'Lost' or 'Friday Night Lights' or 'Bionic Woman' or any number of failed shows. The costs problems are, unfortunately, in the product itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-89740682342316557082007-12-02T14:57:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:57:00.000-08:00Anonymous,Respectfully, I disagree. Google may st...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Respectfully, I disagree. Google may start a network and compete with programing, and that would be something to worry about for the networks but hey, if they think they're good at what they do they'll survive that the way they survived cable.<BR/><BR/>No contract will mitigate the open marketplace of competition, nor should it. The companies have enjoyed the monopoly of distribution for a long time, but they will soon enjoy it no more. No deal they can get from the unions will prevent that from happening.<BR/><BR/>The companies will have more competition in an all Internet distribution model, to be sure, but they'll be doing it with a reduced residual structure, so that seems fair.<BR/><BR/>They may loose out to Google Studios (if and when such a company forms), but again, what they get from a protracted strike won't ensure them winning in that scenario.<BR/><BR/>I humbly suggest that they cut costs by getting rid of the ever thickening layers of so-called "creative executives" who have made network TV the worst it's ever been. I agree with Marshall Herskovitz on that one.<BR/><BR/>Whoever wins in the all-internet distribution model will be whomever has the best relationships with the best creatives and produces the best product. Just like now. It really is a meritocracy. If you think that there are an infinite number of people who do what we do, and do it well...well, then you haven't been watching youtube.<BR/><BR/>Advertisers want to be part of good content. Viewers want good content. Good content always wins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-22137125818511598012007-12-02T14:55:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:55:00.000-08:00which also, by the way, why your eboo analogy isn'...which also, by the way, why your eboo analogy isn't really relevant-- books aren't ad supported. If they were, and the ad revenues of traditional books were getting mauled by everyone buying ebooks instead, then you wouldn't see the royalty structure you describe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-22205742449677413122007-12-02T14:53:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:53:00.000-08:00Correction: I mean 'it's bad news for the network ...Correction: I mean 'it's bad news for the network that a popular show CANNOT derive enough rerun broadcast viewership to get a decent rerun ad revenue.' Not 'can.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-87848710405188813122007-12-02T14:51:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:51:00.000-08:00or, forget about the nightmare situation, of all r...or, forget about the nightmare situation, of all reruns getting streamed instead of rerun-- take the example everyone's been using, 'Lost.' Well, the fact that 'Lost' only did 1.5 in broadcast reruns and got yanked in favor of streaming / iTunes isn't just bad news for the writers whose residuals are affected, it's bad news for the network that a popular show can derive enough rerun broadcast viewership to get a decent rerun ad revenue. It means an episode of 'Lost' has significantly less value than it would otherwise, even once you factor iTunes downloads and whatever incidental streaming revenue there is (see above in this thread about how there is is basically no CPM income for streaming, since that adspace is thrown into broadcast deals to prevent them from collapsing.) And it's bad news for the studio, too, because that impacts license fee negotiations. Basically, it's bad for everyone, not good for the studio/network and bad for the writer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-66373912981857949952007-12-02T14:43:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:43:00.000-08:00"Thank you for the correction. However, your numbe..."Thank you for the correction. However, your number isn't entirely correct either, because if these internet residuals replace network residuals (as we have seen they will surely do) and the Internet residuals, even in a very good deal for the unions are less than the network residuals currently (as we all agree they will be, we just can't agree by how much) the cost actually becomes:<BR/><BR/>A savings."<BR/><BR/>Well, sure, if you assume that after this transition to streaming the networks retain 100% of the current $5 billion prime time ad market. But I think that's awfully unlikely-- if broadcast TV shuts down, a big chunk (most) of that ad revenue will go to the googles and facebooks of the world, not, say. abc.com. So calling a discounted residual rate a 'savings' in the context of completely ravaged revenues is kind of misleading, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-33947709542796926962007-12-02T14:34:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:34:00.000-08:00Hey Anonymous,Thank you for the correction. Howev...Hey Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the correction. However, your number isn't entirely correct either, because if these internet residuals replace network residuals (as we have seen they will surely do) and the Internet residuals, even in a very good deal for the unions are less than the network residuals currently (as we all agree they will be, we just can't agree by how much) the cost actually becomes:<BR/><BR/>A savings. To the companies when all content comes through the Internet, as no one is disputing that it will, as it already DOES in countries like Germany.<BR/><BR/>Even in the interim, as with shows like "Lost" which immediately do their repeats on the web, it represents a cost savings, even if they agree to exactly the amount the WGA is asking for (and what her sister unions will ask for). <BR/><BR/>So actually, it still makes no sense to have the guaranteed lost revenue of an extended strike (and no one is disputing there is lost revenue) which will never offset the gains that could be made by making a fair deal and ending it.<BR/><BR/>Even the unions best deal still means, in the end, the companies save money.<BR/><BR/>Unless the strike goes on and on.<BR/><BR/>But I appreciate your correction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-26967851126139724842007-12-02T14:06:00.000-08:002007-12-02T14:06:00.000-08:00WGA Writer With Business Sense:Re the above: "Even...WGA Writer With Business Sense:<BR/><BR/>Re the above: "<BR/>Even if the fifty million becomes 150 million a year when the actors and directors recieve the same amount (split between the companies)"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Wrong- via pattern bargaining, $50 million = just under $500 million, not $150 million. 1x DGA, 3x SAG, the rest IATSE and other assorted health funds. Whatever your take on the issue, you have to keep your numbers straight, especially if you purport in your nickname to have 'business sense'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-53403778781411724052007-12-02T13:45:00.000-08:002007-12-02T13:45:00.000-08:00NOTE: The above comment was from me, WGA Writer Wi...NOTE: The above comment was from me, WGA Writer With Business Sense.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why my nickname didn't print.<BR/><BR/>The Internet is tricky, but I still think there's money to be made off of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-87068742466742351942007-12-02T13:44:00.000-08:002007-12-02T13:44:00.000-08:00I am told that HarperCollins and Time Warner ebook...I am told that HarperCollins and Time Warner ebook contracts are in line with the Random House model. Actually, there were some early ebook contracts that were actually TOO generous to the writers, they offered a 50/50 split on cover price. <BR/><BR/>The early common wisdom was that ebooks were a lark, but now, with Amazon's Kindle coming out, publishers are seeing that there is a certain segment of the reading public that wants ebooks. So they have, with astonishing fairness, revised the contracts to allow writers to share in their benefit of reduced delivery costs with a 25% royalty instead of a 15% royalty for physical books, but which will still allow the publishers a healthy profit if ebooks become the preferred method of distribution, as some are saying they will.<BR/><BR/>This is what happens in a reasonable business. <BR/><BR/>Publishers would never throw their industry into chaos, potentially destroy their business models (as the AMPTP companies may do with network advertisers and the upfront way of selling ad time) all to avoid paying a measly 50 million a year. <BR/><BR/>Even if the fifty million becomes 150 million a year when the actors and directors recieve the same amount (split between the companies) it still is a drop in the bucket and not worth this strife, the bad PR, or the extra scrutiny the CEO's are exposing themselves to with the FCC.<BR/><BR/>Gavin Palone is wrong, Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone don't want to dig in for a year because they don't want the glare of attention this strike has shone on their public promises of massive Internet profit, and they look like bizarre penny-pinching fools if they are willing to lose potential billions in network ad dollars all to avoid paying 50 million (or even 150 million between all the creative unions).<BR/><BR/>That's like, gas money for their company jets. That's nothing.<BR/><BR/>You don't "union bust" unions that have beloved movie stars as members. That may be elitist, but in the world of the moguls (who are elitist), they don't want movie stars mad at them, they want to be able to invite them to their parties so they can impress their friends.<BR/><BR/>If they didn't want that, as Nikki Finke points out, they'd be in the business of making toothpaste, not movies and television.<BR/><BR/>Hey Rupert, you OWN HarperCollins, why don't you take a tip from your own company and be done with this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-67899049541151924712007-12-02T10:20:00.000-08:002007-12-02T10:20:00.000-08:00anon 9:04 said:"If I go to McDonalds, and the work...anon 9:04 said:<BR/>"If I go to McDonalds, and the workers are striking because of poor wages, bad conditions and I can't get my Big Mac - it's not my problem - that's between the workers and management. Someone should be there to give me my food. Same as in this case - if I am paying for cable, someone should be creating those shows, whether it's the writers or new writers that are replaced. Someone else's working conditions are not my problem."<BR/><BR/>If you give your money to a company to give you a product and they aren't treating their workers right and service stops, it is your problem. YOU choose where to put your money and if you're morally bankrupt enough that you don't mind giving your money to people who are unfair then go ahead. But don't get upset when those workers decide to leave because they respect themselves enough NOT to be exploited. <BR/><BR/>Keep up the fight writers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-25240041080256495382007-12-02T08:19:00.000-08:002007-12-02T08:19:00.000-08:00I used to work for a CBS affiliate. During primeti...I used to work for a CBS affiliate. During primetime programming (8pm-11pm Eastern), between 60 to 90 seconds of time per half hour was for local commercials. During half hour shows, stations typically get a break between acts 1 and 2. During hour long shows, after act 2 and after act 3.<BR/><BR/>Like I said above, the local breaks are 60-90 seconds each. On top of that, my station (small market) <I>paid</I> CBS to be an affiliate. We mainly made our money off local shows and sports events (both CBS and syndicated).<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to mention this, since there was discussion above about local affiliate's ad time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-15241718169507850942007-12-02T02:43:00.000-08:002007-12-02T02:43:00.000-08:00to WGA Writer With Business Sense:Hey, thanks for ...to WGA Writer With Business Sense:<BR/><BR/>Hey, thanks for the quick footwork on the e-book query! Still, Random House is owned by Bertelsmann. I'd be curious to know what HarperCollins and Time Warner are doing. But you're right, there's less to spin there about who's writing what for which purpose. And when a publishing house prints a book in a new format, say from hardcover to paperback, or from paperback to mass market, no one dares call it a "promotion" to avoid paying royalties.<BR/><BR/>Fight on! "Civilians" behind you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-5403558227267231762007-12-01T23:06:00.000-08:002007-12-01T23:06:00.000-08:00WGA Writer With Business Sense, That is really goo...WGA Writer With Business Sense, <BR/><BR/>That is really good info about e-books. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-42969591360240568222007-12-01T22:58:00.000-08:002007-12-01T22:58:00.000-08:00To the person who asked the very good question abo...To the person who asked the very good question about what is the royalty relationship on e-books in relation to physical books, I have some answers for you.<BR/><BR/>Standard author royalty per book is 15% of the saless price, from the first book sold. Because most authors recieve an "advance" on royalties to actually write the book, the advance must first be "earned out" and then the author gets royalty payments after enough books are sold beyond what the author was paid in the advance.<BR/><BR/>As to e-books, Random House, as an example, is actually paying a 25% royalty on e-books, because their reasoning is that since the books are transmitted digitally, it actually reduces their expenses enormously.<BR/><BR/>Isn't it interesting to note that there are businesses where the CEO's took a look at the efficiency of the Internet delivery model and actually decided to share that efficiency with the people who create the content that starts it all?<BR/><BR/>But the book business has an easier time admitting that without authors, there are no books.<BR/><BR/>And yet, the same is true for Hollywood. Except there are also actors, directors and crew people, all of whom recieve the benefit of residuals, and without whom there would be no movies or TV.<BR/><BR/>There has never, to my knowledge, been an "author's strike." That's because strikes are always the result of bad management. The media conglomerates own some of these book companies. They could learn a lot from how their book divisions deal with the talent that creates what they sell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-55828019933176901122007-12-01T21:56:00.000-08:002007-12-01T21:56:00.000-08:00klaatu -i wasn't talking about redistribution at a...klaatu -<BR/><BR/>i wasn't talking about redistribution at all.<BR/><BR/>you are pointing to Lost and 24 as two shows that don't get rerun on their own networks. <BR/><BR/>you seem to be making the point that the internet is cannibalizing the network rerun. <BR/><BR/>i'm merely stating that even if the internet wasn't available for distributing these particular shows, they would not be great candidates for rerun on abc or fox because of the serial nature of the show.<BR/><BR/>In other words, writers for these shows wouldn't be get any residuals for a rerun on abc or fox anyway...<BR/><BR/>don't get me wrong, i think your math is solid and helps point us down the road of what the real residual ought to be -- and that's significantly higher than $250!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-59101990227767895072007-12-01T21:52:00.000-08:002007-12-01T21:52:00.000-08:00Klaatu: Re Disney Channel, I've never dealt with t...Klaatu: Re Disney Channel, I've never dealt with them, so I honestly don't know what their streaming income is. It wouldn't shock me if a lot of their streaming adspace ends up getting bundled with ABC Family or morning cartoons on ABC or something-- bundling often crosses networks like that-- but I can't say for sure.<BR/><BR/>Though obviously, yes, any way you cut it, streaming ads on shows that don't have ads when they're broadcast certainly increases the value of those shows. If I repped the show runner of 'Hannah Montana' I would certainly be taking notice.<BR/><BR/>But anyway, I'd think you'd agree that ads on streams of ad-free broadcasts is an unusual situation (unique to Disney Channel, I think) and not the normative one for whatever gets negotiated in this deal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-8835378998972272082007-12-01T21:33:00.000-08:002007-12-01T21:33:00.000-08:00lol. Okay, how about this:"Frasier ran for 11 seas...lol. Okay, how about this:<BR/><BR/>"Frasier ran for 11 seasons and made $1.5 billion in revenues, yet ended up $200 million in the red – according to Paramount’s accounts."<BR/><BR/>http://www.thebusiness.co.uk/trading-floor/265432/hollywood-accounting.thtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2462026865900537983.post-20166803164447353312007-12-01T21:24:00.000-08:002007-12-01T21:24:00.000-08:00The bit about Fox claiming The Simpsons never made...The bit about Fox claiming The Simpsons never made a profit is getting old and tiresome. More WGA propoganda people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com