From screenwriter Brian Nelson (HARD CANDY, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT) --
The other day I had a conversation with a friend of mine who works in Craft Services. It was an unsettling talk. While this friend has been quite supportive of me all through the strike, during this talk he kept raising points that felt more like what people on the other side would say. "Well, it'll take a long time to undo all the damage ... the moment there was a DGA deal, why didn't the WGA just jump on that? ... It seemed like they were a lot more willing to talk to the DGA than to you guys, and I wonder why." I took a while and patiently responded to all these points, but it struck me that every time I'd respond, he didn't really acknowledge it but came back with another bone to pick.
What it brought home to me was that while my friend was definitely on our side because he felt that the corporate bosses were out to screw us all, he still was very wary of the WGA. Now that the WGA didn't need him so overtly on our side, he felt freer to express a lot of the frustration that BTL people must still feel.
Even though the strike is over, many of our sisters and brothers below the line aren't working yet. The relief that much of the town feels at working again can't be allowed to obscure this fact. My friend was right: it's indisputably true that a lot of work will be needed to make up for the hardships that people across all unions have endured.
When you're out of work, naturally any party that feels like it might have contributed to the problem remains suspect. But the difference between the WGA and the AMPTP is that we can and will maintain a dialogue with our BTL colleagues.
That dialogue can take the form of the benefits still being staged to strengthen the Industry Support Fund. And that dialogue can take the form of lobbying for the underpricing bill currently in the California State Senate -- which helps all unions by making sure that our work isn't traded between corporate subsidiaries at less than its fair market value.
But just as importantly, that dialogue needs to take the form of simple honest exchanges about what's happened and what's still happening in this town. The success of everyone's next negotiation will depend in large part on how we all view the last few months, and how well we maintain the lines of communication newly created between motion picture artisans used to laboring in isolation and sometimes mistrust of each other.
If we are truly championing the idea of a United Hollywood, then we need to be alive to the simmering resentments that may bubble up from other trades now that solidarity may not feel like the watchword of our every hour.
Thanks for listening --
Brian Nelson
3/04/2008
Moving Forward: The Need for Post-Strike Dialogue with Other Unions
2/26/2008
The SAG Negotiations: Why George Clooney, Tom Hanks and Others May Have Exercised a Faulty Strategy
I like George Clooney and I like Tom Hanks. Who doesn't? From their screen personas to their amiable chats with David Letterman. They seem like nice guys and appear committed to good works and deeds, from Clooney's work on behalf of Sudanese refugees to Hanks' paying homage to our military veterans.
However, I'm concerned about their outspoken efforts to head off a SAG strike. Not because it would obviously be preferable to avoid a work stoppage so soon after the three and a half-month WGA industrial action, but because what they appear to be doing works against the very potential for which the Screen Actors Guild was originally created.
It's all well and good to make statements of a general kind regarding the need for the conflicting parties (the AMPTP and SAG) to be bargaining at the negotiating table, but the methods these well-intentioned actors have employed seem to be of a hurrying design that, by their very nature, take the air out of the balloon of solidarity and play right into the hands of the AMPTP.
2/21/2008
Editorial from a Dolphin
Comedy Writer and Animal Internet Entrepreneur Billiam Coronel brings our attention to this supportive editorial from Mylo, a dolphin. Recently posted at animalinternet.com.
I Only Jump Thru Hoops ‘Cause A Writer Said To
Congratulations to the WGA. As a member of the Guild of Aquatic Performers Local 223, I am thrilled our sister union was able to reach an agreement with the Hollywood studios.
For the past 2 years I’ve been a performer in Sea World’s DOLPHIN EXTRAVAGANZA. (I’m the one who circles the tank twice then splashes the audience as the announcer says “Sorry folks! Sometimes the dolphins get sloppy.”) I’m a skilled actor, yes, but I’m only as good as the writing. Memorable characters like the one I’m lucky enough to portray here don’t suddenly materialize. They are painstakingly written by union writers.
Would circling the tank 3 times have added more drama? What about the announcer calling dolphins sloppy? Wouldn’t suggesting that make me unlikable, working against the show’s Dolphin As Everyman subtext? These are not easy questions. Yet they are exactly the type of story decisions made each and every day by guild writers. My highly refined acting skills bring characters to life but first you need the characters. Without writing you have no show.
Want proof? Take a look at the shark tank. They’re all just swimming around in random patterns like one big reality show. Who wants to watch THAT for 45 minutes? There’s no story! I’ll bet my dorsal fin no one’s ever gonna write Sea World saying, “Watching hammerheads randomly swim around in your shark tank was the best part of my vacation.”
Luckily the writers made their deal in time to save the summer season. (Rumor is the producers always intended to make a deal by mid February in order to save the Oscars and Shamu’s new summer show BELIEVE.) Hopefully SAG will be able to piggyback on the terms of the writers’ deal but if they too are forced to strike they can rest assured that my brothers and sisters in the Guild of Aquatic Performers Local 223 will support them too.
Because when it comes right down to it, we’re all in the same tank.
2/20/2008
ROBERT J. ELISBERG'S SALUTE TO STRIKE CAPTAINS
It's not officially over yet, of course. There still is the matter of approving the contract. It's a 10-day process, a blink by strike standards, but long enough. Arguments of all views will be made, we do know that -- these are writers after all, they argue views the way fish get wet. In a matter of days, though, it should all be done. But just the mere thought forces a person to look at what got us here -- regardless of where "here" is at the moment. And for me, one thought leaps out.
The strike captains.
Throughout this process, I have been in awe of the strike captains. To be sure there have been others who have been inexpressibly impressive and deserved the height of appreciation, notably those taking the slings and bludgeons. But I still reserve my awe for the strike captains.
Read the full article here.
2/18/2008
Howard Michael Gould: Cleaning Up the Rep of the Dirty Thirty
In the interest of full disclosure: I am fairly certain that I coined the term "dirty thirty." -JA
ON UNITY, DEMONOLOGY, AND THE LEGEND OF THE DIRTY THIRTY
by Howard Michael Gould
We have in the Guild our own demonology, mostly rooted in the fractious Eighties, with its legacies of the Union Blues, the hated home video rate, the DGA which settled too easily, and the devastating five-month strike of 1988 whose only triumph was that for nearly two decades both sides went to great lengths to avoid another one.
So as this year’s strike wore on, and as members tried to read the tea leaves and speculate on the negotiations (or lack thereof), helped little by a leadership and Negotiating Committee necessarily constrained in its candor, demons were invoked, analogs assumed, fears raised, anger stoked. Much of this was probably unavoidable. But as this all winds down and the first draft of history is being written, some clarifications are in order, toward understanding who we are as a Guild, what we accomplished and how we did it, and how much we have to build on going forward.
A good number of our members approached this round with a certain fatalism, a belief that no matter what we did, the DGA was going to make a deal first, and that we’d get the DGA’s deal. It was assumed, too, that the DGA -- historically strike-averse and willing to settle for less -- would take “a bad deal.” Of course, we on the Negotiating Committee and Board would tell members on the picket lines that we wouldn’t have to take their deal if we didn’t like it. That was indeed true, but everyone knew that the strike would get immeasurably tougher if the DGA settled first.
In retrospect it’s clear that, unless we were willing to settle for a mere extension of the last contract, accepting the DVD rate on electronic sell-through and leaving all other new media issues tabled for another three years, the AMPTP was never going to negotiate seriously with us before they made a deal with the directors.
That put the DGA in a tough position. They could take the kind of basic no-frills extension we were offered (perhaps with a most favored nations agreement which assured them new media jurisdiction and residuals comparable to ours, once we settled). Or, they could do the harder thing, negotiate more aggressively than they’ve traditionally done, and try to land a deal good enough to provide an acceptable template for our own. This latter choice would be highly complicated by the dysfunctional relationship between the two Guilds. They had to be asking themselves, how much would the writers really want, or need, to settle? Our Pattern of Demands, of course, was a high ask, and didn’t provide much of a clue. Moreover, mistrust between the two leaderships precluded the WGA’s confiding in the DGA with any kind of acceptable “bottom line.”
Nonetheless, the DGA stepped up to the moment, used the power of our strike as leverage, bargained hard, and landed a better deal than we expected.
It can’t be emphasized enough that this year, the traditional, anticipated pattern was turned on its head.
This year, we didn’t get the DGA deal. This year, the DGA got our deal.
All would be better if the relationship between the Guilds were healthier, and this should be a primary area of attention over the next few years. For starters, we owe them a big, public thank you, which we’ve yet to give them. They owe us one, too.
Anyhow, two days after the terms of the DGA deal were announced, the WGAw members of the Negotiating Committee met informally at John Bowman’s house, and agreed that we were moving into the endgame. There were still some things we’d need to negotiate beyond what the DGA had attained, but it was now clear to us that our strike had been a great success.
But we chose not to talk about that. Whether because some of our leaders truly thought they had a shot at getting a lot more out of the studios, or whether they thought that any positive talk would undermine our chances of getting even the crucial smaller points we needed, or whether merely because of (understandably) bruised egos, the official word on the DGA deal was no word at all.
And in our deafening silence, the Guild began to polarize.
The more militant, weaned on the stories of past DGA sell-outs, assumed this to be another one. At the same time, the more strike-weary, hungry for a way out, wanted us to embrace the deal without delay. And our membership’s two edges began to get angry at one another. You could feel it on websites like WriterAction, and you could feel it on the picket lines.
John Wells’s widely read internet piece in praise of the deal became one of the lightning rods for the polarization. About this, a couple of things need to be said. First, critics should compare Wells’s written comments about various deal points with John Bowman’s at the Shrine on Saturday; we on the inside didn’t love everything in the deal as much as Wells seemed to, but in truth we were satisfied with the great bulk of it, and just didn’t feel like we could say that yet.
Second, I spoke to Wells the day his e-mail hit the internet, and he explained to me why he supported the DGA deal as a basis for ours, and why he’d been willing to make that support public. I’ll leave it to John to say more about all this himself, but it should be known that he was acting on principle and in what he deeply believed to be the best interests of writers.
(In a sort of parallel, those same things can and should be said about Board member Phil Alden Robinson, who, with the clock on salvaging the TV season ticking down, wrote a tough, militant piece for United Hollywood, scaring the bejeezus out of writers desperately hoping that a settlement was close at hand. Like John, Phil explained his motives to me the next day. I think that when more is known, both of these men will be widely appreciated for their contributions to this negotiation, and for their courage and willingness to brave personal vilification in the interest of bringing writers the best deal possible. Both of these men deserve to be regarded as heroes of the Guild.)
The other lightening rod for polarization was the rampant rumor that, even before the DGA announced its deal, thirty A-list feature writers and showrunners had threatened to leave the Guild unless we accepted whatever the DGA negotiated. Again, this played into the post-Eighties demonology: now our generation had its own dreaded Union Blues, selfishly determined to leave us screwed on the internet, just as we’d been screwed on VHS and DVD in the bad old days.
Only this time, it wasn’t true.
Because I’d come onto the Negotiating Committee as a rare, self-described “moderate,” and so retained some credibility with critics of leadership and of the strike, I’d fallen into a role as sort of a liason to them, someone who could credibly make the case to them for the need to strike, and who could, when appropriate, voice their point of view internally as well. Speaking from that vantage, I can say that the “thirty A-listers” rumor above was off base in three significant ways.
First, and most important, it wasn’t anything like the Union Blues of 1985: the “dissidents” of 2008 weren’t organized, and refrained until the end not only from public criticism, but from any private petitioning of leadership, for fear that even that would leak out and undermine the negotiation.
Second, there were far, far more than thirty. If we’re counting writers who, after the DGA deal was announced, were angry at the thought that we might still blow up the TV season and wait for SAG to join up with us, then I heard personally from over one hundred.
Third, the people I heard from were not, for the most part, “A-listers.” They were mostly writers at points in their careers where they were making (and sacrificing) a lot of money, but usually without the long histories of high earnings which gave them the wherewithal to withstand a lengthy strike.
It’s been too little talked about that while in some ways the strike appealed to our democracy and egalitarianism -- we were all equal on the picket line -- in other, crucial ways, the strike was not egalitarian at all: the real costs of the strike were not borne equally. Not even close.
Some writers have been fortunate enough in their careers that three months without paychecks wouldn’t cause a material change in lifestyle.
For others -- remember, over half the active, current members of the Guild are without WGA covered work at any given moment, and that doesn’t even count post-current or caucus members -- the last three months of unemployment won’t be much different from the next three.
But for some writers in the middle, this strike threatened their homes and changed the ways their families would have to operate -- real costs, hard costs. It’s a painful irony that, even as we struck for middle class writers of the future, it was the middle class writers of the present who got clobbered hardest on their behalf.
And for all the many things we did well during this strike, it’s been a grievous failure of ours not to have acknowledged that, publicly and often. We’ve rightly celebrated the people who worked for the strike, but we haven’t done nearly the same for the people who paid for the strike.
That recognition was absent Saturday night at the Shrine, and it’s been absent all along, and it’s inexcusable.
Which brings us back to one meeting in January, and the group which came to be called the “Dirty Thirty.”
In mid-January, at my own request, fellow Neg Comm member Robert King and I went to the home of a writer to talk with about three dozen members whom I’d heard were deeply unhappy with the strike and the leadership. My primary hope was to keep them from doing anything public which would undermine the Guild’s negotiating strength. My secondary hope was that Robert and I could provide a channel for them within the system, and to make sure they were heard, and felt heard.
A bunch of those writers had been force majeured out of their deals that very afternoon. And listening to the way we had all been talking to the membership, it was not unreasonable for them to fear the possibility that what was, at that point, a ten-week strike could turn into eight months, at which time SAG would join us and the real strike would begin. These writers were hurting already, and they were afraid, and they were angry.
It wasn’t the easiest afternoon for Robert and me. But in the end, it was successful. They now had a way of communicating with the Guild, and they didn’t take their grievances public.
Which is, ultimately, the point. Because any discussion about “dissidents” in the strike of 2007-08 really ought to begin and end with this remarkable truth: when given the opportunity to be heard inside the Guild rather than outside, they chose that route, in almost all instances. They wanted to influence the process, they wanted us to reach a settlement, but they wanted to make that influence felt in a way which would not compromise the Guild’s bargaining position.
Personally, I think the reason that was true this year, unlike 1985 or 1988, is that the cause was so just, so clearly important, that the few in the most extreme opposition to leadership realized that they weren’t going to find much traction among even relatively conservative members, who might under other circumstances speak out against a strike.
And this, by the way, was the deepest meaning of Patric Verrone’s fine battle-cry, “We’re all in this together.”
When you’re dealing with a large Guild of free-thinkers like ours, “unity” can’t be a matter of raising a small tent and telling everyone to stand under it. It has to be about building a big tent, and finding room inside for all, from the writers who advocated the DGA deal before anyone had even heard it, to the writers who’ll vote no on the contract now because they feel we should have stayed out longer and demanded more.
I’ll confess that when I was asked to join the Negotiating Committee, I had doubts about our ability or even willingness to build that big tent, and to let everyone be heard, to “listen” as well as to “educate.” In the end, though, I think we did it damned well. And the happy result was the deal that we needed.
SAG played a role, and so did the DGA. Militants played a role, and so did conservatives. Strike captains played a role, and so did the middle-class, working writers who contributed perhaps more than anyone before they even came to the picket lines. We were indeed all in it together.
Now, in the aftermath, let no one create false demons, or stories which suggest divisions like those which compromised our Guild in the past.
This time, we were better than that.
Harlan Ellison Reacts to the Proposed WGA Contract
In recent days, a spirited response to the WGA contract, purportedly by WGA member and science fiction legend Harlan Ellison, has been making its way around the Internet. In a phone conversation this morning, Mr. Ellison confirmed he wrote it. "Yes, I got a little angry," he chuckled. "A friend said, 'If Ellison wants to convince people, he should speak more kindly. You catch more flies with honey.' To which I responded, 'I'm not in the fly-catching business, I'm in the writing better than anybody in the fucking world business.'" Ellison was surprised to hear that his thoughts on the deal were being reposted and forwarded around the Internet. "I'm not a big fan of the Internet." In the interest of airing diverse (and colorfully worded) opinions, we bring it to you here. -JA
And I voted NO on accepting this deal.
My reasons are good, and they are plentiful; Patric Verrone will be saddened by what I am about to say; long-time friends will shake their heads; but this I say without equivocation…
THEY BEAT US LIKE A YELLOW DOG. IT IS A SHIT DEAL. We finally got a timorous generation that has never had to strike, to get their asses out there, and we had to put up with the usual cowardly spineless babbling horse's asses who kept mumbling "lessgo bac'ta work" over and over, as if it would make them one iota a better writer. But after months on the line, and them finally bouncing that pus-sucking dipthong Nick Counter, we rushed headlong into a shabby, scabrous, underfed shovelfulla shit clutched to the affections of toss-in-the-towel summer soldiers trembling before the Awe of the Alliance.
My Guild did what it did in 1988. It trembled and sold us out. It gave away the EXACT co-terminus expiration date with SAG for some bullshit short-line substitute; it got us no more control of our words; it sneak-abandoned the animator and reality beanfield hands before anyone even forced it on them; it made nice so no one would think we were meanies; it let the Alliance play us like the village idiot. The WGAw folded like a Texaco Road Map from back in the day.
And I am ashamed of this Guild, as I was when Shavelson was the prexy, and we wasted our efforts and lost out on technology that we had to strike for THIS time. 17 days of streaming tv!!!????? Geezus, you bleating wimps, why not just turn over your old granny for gang-rape?
You deserve all the opprobrium you get. While this nutty festschrift of demented pleasure at being allowed to go back to work in the rice paddy is filling your cowardly hearts with joy and relief that the grips and the staff at the Ivy and street sweepers won't be saying nasty shit behind your back, remember this:
You are their bitches. They outslugged you, outthought you, outmaneuvered you; and in the end you ripped off your pants, painted yer asses blue, and said yes sir, may I have another.
Please excuse my temerity. I'm just a sad old man who has fallen among Quislings, Turncoats, Hacks and Cowards.
I must go now to whoops. My gorge has become buoyant.
Respectfully, Yr. Pal, Harlan Ellison
Photo: Chris Cuffaro via HarlanEllison.com
2/11/2008
Basic Common Cents
There was a green envelope in the mail Friday. A good one. Good enough to take away a little of the sting. But after my husband and I rejoiced for a moment, we realized how much larger that check would’ve been if the show that I now proudly work on hadn’t been aired on basic cable. Which made me start thinking again about how I felt every time I turned in the same 55 pages that my colleagues do on a network show, only to be given 2/3 of money they get for theirs. Believe me, it’s certainly the same amount of work. Sometimes more. But somehow it counts less.
I understand things like business models and eyeballs and ad rates and pie pieces – all terms, by the way, the congloms are using in our current negotiations about new media – but that doesn’t make me feel any better about the fact that because I love my show and want to stay on it, I have to make less than I would somewhere else.
Creatively, there is no more “stigma” about working in cable. It’s not a place where talent goes to die, it’s a place where it can be reborn, rejuvenated, discovered. Old, young, we’re all doing it. And the cable nets are some of the most profitable divisions of their corporations. Mostly because they pay less for what they get. Are you going to tell me that The Closer or Monk or Battlestar Gallactica aren’t as good (or better) than most of the things on “real” TV these days? Seen any awards shows lately?
I’m not bringing this up now to complain. What’s done is done and I have to live by those rules. Which is why what I’m experiencing on cable right now, 20-odd years after the deal was negotiated, suddenly feels so relevant. And I’m hoping it can be used as a cautionary tale for what’s to become of us in new media. Toeholds are crucial right now. We’ve got to get our collective foot in the door. But the most important thing we can do is remind our leadership to keep revisiting the gains they are trying to achieve for us this time around. Revisit them three years from now. Six years from now. Nine years from now. And remind ourselves that it’s okay to do so.
I think we’re all forward thinking enough to realize that transparency, the ability to access important financial information from the companies that our negotiators are trying hard to work into this current contract, is the key to a fair and equitable future for us in new media. But it’s just the opening of the door. Our fight for fairness must continue long after we go back to work. Now don’t go calling me strike-happy. Call me negotiationally inclined. I just keep looking at my green envelope, wondering what would have been inside of it if the WGA leadership over the past 20 years had been more negotiationally inclined as well.
Sometimes peace is born from struggle. And sometimes resentment is born from compliance. There is nothing wrong with wanting a fair share of something that you have helped build. And there’s nothing wrong with revisiting a contract every three years, especially when there is a changing marketplace involved. Not making any gains for the sake of peace is the same as sealing up a pot of water and turning the flame on low. Eventually something’s gonna blow. (Like the size of my check, for example.)
This is what we should all be trying to instill in younger writers, the ability to take their livelihoods into their own hands. To stand up and believe in themselves and what they do instead of taking the easy offer just so the boat doesn’t get rocked. To live in an era of fair, not fear. And I hope that the legacy we leave for them in new media will be better than the one I am living with in basic cable (and DVD) today. That legacy starts with this contract, but doesn’t end here. I’m not afraid of the future. It’s the past I wish I could change.
2/09/2008
Ad-Supported Streaming: Point/Counterpoint
ONLINE STREAMING TERMS: PRO
Statement by Christopher Kubasik
Don't Be Down on the Deal Because of the Window for Ad-Supported Streaming
Some people see the streaming as “just like DVDs” and so payment should begin right away. And others see the streaming as just a new delivery of system of real time content (like TV). My guess is that this difference in perspective is really where the dispute lies. We’re arguing over which metaphor/model to use for streaming.
I side with those who see streaming as a whole new delivery system, and, as a result, I think having a window in which no residuals are paid is fair and reasonable. Here's why.
While the big bucks (and the obsession) is often about the money that a movie makes the first week or two (or a TV show makes on its first run), the real money -- and I mean, the real, real money -- is in libraries.
The music industry didn't fall apart because of MP3 players. It fell apart because the music industry was producing albums that had 2 good songs and and 12 lame ones -- and the consumers said, "Okay... well, I don't want the 12 lame ones, just the two good ones." The music industry didn't catch on, Steve Jobs did, and there we go. Because it wasn't about illegal downloads. It was about people getting the music they wanted. Once it was more convenient to just pay .99 cents a pop instead of pirating, people started paying.
As for film and TV content, yes, opening box office is great, and so are great ratings. But the truth is that this idea that studios and networks control WHEN we watch something is over. Just over. People want to watch when and where it is convenient for them to watch. And today's technology allows them to do exactly that. Now, the media company's are either going to meet that need, or piracy will continue to grow.
Digital media will offer what I call "perpetual syndication" -- all of MGM and NBC and who-all-else's libraries will be there all the time. It's no longer a matter of filling air time (which is only a limited number of slots) but of an infinite number of shows being available all the time.
I just watched Season One of "The Wire" this past week. (Which was fucking awesome.) I put off watching it, even though I'd seen a few episodes and had been wholly impressed, because I wanted to have the whole thing ready to go for my pleasure.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine last night, asking if he owned Season Two on DVD. He said no, but added the moment I got it to tell him so we could watch it together. So, YEARS after this thing aired, we're going to be watching hours and hours of TV.
And that's the way it's going to go.
There's going to be money coming in for years and years and years off of content. (My own view is that the compelling and niche stuff has the best chance in this model, where as the vanilla fluff of network -- um, won't... but that's another discussion.)
So the issue is how long is the initial window. (You'll note I'm not calling it a Promotional Window -- which is grotesque in its imprecision and assumes that the Internet is some fair-haired stepchild of TV and not simply another means of distribution -- which it is.)
So, that's the issue. Not whether there SHOULD be a window, but how long. We don't get paid for the first airing of TV. We don't get paid when movies play at a theater. Why? The companies own the content. They funded the show. Staffed it. Handled business matters, took the financial risk. Our residuals are based on CONTINUED interest in a piece of content. And that is when we start getting paid for reuse -- after the negotiated length of the window ends.
Since we're going to be building off of previous models (because that's how things work) the truth is there's going to be a window where the people who own the content get to do what they want with it. Should it be one week? Two weeks? Three?
That's simply a fight -- that's a negotiation. We do the best we can to make it short. The media companies do they best we can to make it long. A month would clearly be too long. Should it be one week? Two? That has to be decided at the table. But at some point there's going to be a window. Just like there's currently a window for TV and film distribution.
Christopher Kubasik was the Head Writer for "Stranger Adventures" which received three Emmy nominations for Broadband content. He is currently writing an online anthology series for Stage 9.
-----
ONLINE STREAMING TERMS: CON
Statement by Kristen Stavola
Two Percent of Nothing is Nothing
Before we head into these Saturday meetings, there are some concepts and viewing trends that we should all be familiar with where streaming media is concerned. We’ve given up the present for the future in these negotiations, so we owe it to ourselves and future content creators to get this right, even if only a little bit right.
The Initial Streaming window is a terribly dangerous precedent to set.
Here’s why. Think about the things that really matter in this industry:
*OPENING NIGHT BOX OFFICE
*PRIME TIME FIRST RUN RATINGS
*FIRST WEEKS’ RECORD SALES (and downloads)
Before long we will add the first week of online streaming to that list. I’ll try to make this as simple as possible.
WHO DOESN’T LOVE TiVo?
If you own a DVR/TiVo — how long do you wait to watch an episode of something you recorded? Same day? 3-5 days? 7 days at most? Well, that means you’re viewing habits are consistent with the rest of the DVR viewing public. You want to see your recorded episode before the next one airs. Research backs this up. Get in touch with the folks at Neilsen. ComScore. HitWise. Gartner. Harris Interactive. Forrester. You will be hard pressed to even find much research on viewing patterns beyond the 7 day window, I know I was. [Dig through the links of information I’ve attached below.]
ONLINE COPY CATS
Online viewers are comprised mostly of the lost broadcast audience. No one is even disputing this. At least no one I’m talking to or reading. Nevertheless, Internet streaming IS REUSE; this has already been established. The primary market for material created for Broadcast use is via broadcast/cable. So, we apply the DVR viewing trend to online viewing. If you are going to watch an episode, it’s typically something you missed and you want to catch it within the first week it’s broadcast, right? (esp. "appointment programming" like LOST!)
You try to catch it from work. Or you try to fit it in on the weekend. But you definitely want to fit it in while it’s still topical, before the next episode, etc. And, once again, you are consistent with the rest of the viewing public. And the numbers for online viewing of TV and feature films are expected to soar in the next several years. Again, something that no one is disputing. Check here to see traffic trends for the season premiere of LOST. Note the spikes and valleys.
AVAILABLE ON DVD NEXT TUESDAY
Have you noticed that the only show that seems to have an archive available of more than one season is LOST? That’s because the streaming episodes are pulled so that some value is retained when they are packaged as DVD box sets you are obligated to buy.
WE GAVE UP DVDS TO AVOID A STRIKE AND TO POSITION OURSEVES FOR A BRIGHTER FUTURE IN NEW MEDIA, GUYS!
That future ain’t lookin’ too bright right now. Adams Research wrote: “... DVD renting and purchasing are such ingrained habits... that we expect downloads will not have a major negative impact in the near term."
I’ve spoken exhaustively this week to data analysts, ad execs and most importantly web producers presently working with studios/networks. These viewing patterns were right on the money. I was assured that by the time your streaming media has been available online for a matter of DAYS, it is no longer receiving the promotion it received upon launch. It is that promotion which results in views.
This email was originally written before my knowledge of the 13-26 WEEK “first use” window for original online content. There isn’t much time to speak to this in detail. I ran this window by a web entrepreneur with 3 name brand technology/internet start ups on his resume. “You will lose nearly 90% of the property's value in that window. Just look at LAZY SUNDAY — a piece of entertainment content that created a 1.3 billion dollar company(YouTube). I’m not saying people made money. It’s an example of the kind of traffic a good piece of entertainment content can generate in a 30 DAY window. No one cares about it now, but in its first 10 days, seven million people checked it out. Why would you guys give up that much real estate so easily and quickly?”
Think about it. Why are we?
DISTRIBUTORS’ GROSS
Two percent distributor’s gross in the third year of the new contract? Initial streaming window? I hope by now you’ve realized that the 2% (the AMPTP has forced upon us) is meaningless. The big traffic numbers have already come inside of the promotional, Residual free zone -- and we’re left with 2% of the stragglers.
Don’t be fooled because my LAZY SUNDAY example above was a 3 min clip and not an entire episode of a broadcast series. Your episode will only get promoted from prime real estate like a network homepage for 1-5 days— TOPS!
Traffic is about promotion and virality. You need to hit that first 100k- 200k viewers in the first 1-3 days if something is to catch on virally with regards to original content. Think of that Sarah Silverman/Matt Damon video just last week! Its audience was on the decline within 3 days. However, its viewers online eclipsed Kimmel’s nightly ratings in 2-3 DAYS! Again, these are examples of how traffic views content. Something was promoting this content -- probably an email from your Striking writer pals. If there is no promotion -- viewers have to dig for your content -- and those numbers are not very sexy!
I’m pretty darn confident that the WGA’s research confirms all of the above. I’m fairly certain we will be told that Internet streaming and DVR viewing still only add up to the same size audience that traditionally watch the broadcasts.
That no one expects erosion of network reruns any time soon. . .
We may even be told that because of the erosion of traditional broadcast viewing audience there is no ad-based money being made by the media congloms on streaming media — that they’re giving away streaming media to advertisers to make up the difference! C'mon! I just spoke to three web producers who are making more money PROMOTING our content in the first 3 days then we'll see in the first three YEARS of this contract. I’ve listed many links to research at the bottom of this email, use them. By 2011, in-stream advertising revenue is expected to reach $3.89 billion dollars and revenue for downloads will contribute $850 million according to the Yankee Group.
We all know Neilsen ratings are less and less accurate. But that doesn’t mean the Companies aren’t aware of online traffic to sites, when it happens and for how long a viewer is engaged. What ads they sit through, when they tune out etc. Not to mention this is all quickly moving in the direction of sponsorship-driven co-branding.
And you better hold your hats because the number of sites that offer revenue sharing models (YouTube, Break, MetaCafe,Vio, Revver) will be on the rise this year and those deals are going to be about placement on their homepages in the first 1-7 days. If you think the episode of SAMANTHA WHO that debuted online 24 days ago is going to be getting any promotion from ABC/DISNEY...
Ask yourselves the following when you are presented with explanations for why you are giving up the most important piece of our online future...
WHAT DOES ANY OF IT HAVE TO DO WITH AN INITIAL RESIDUALS-FREE STREAMING WINDOW?! HAVEN’T WE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT STREAMING ON THE INTERNET IS REUSE?
Because once we give them this promotional window... There ain’t no getting it back! We’re setting precedent on Internet jurisdiction. VHS/DVDs anyone? Not only has the 4 cents never been revisited, it wasn’t even on the table for discussion! Why should anyone believe the promotional window goes away in 2010 just because Nick Counter goes away?!
A question was posed to me in email the other day by a Neg Com member: “What do you think the dollar value is between a 7-day window and a 14-day window? And how much extra time on strike do you think that's worth for this membership?”
I’m still not sure about the answers to those questions. It’s not easy. Never said it was. Yet, fighting for digital rights in the future while saddled with these windows that are based on an eroding business model is going to be even more impossible in the future. Just ask your favorite musician! I feel for our leadership, truly. I’m not a hardliner. I was prepared to take a sucky deal because I want this strike over as much as the next person. I need to get back to work...
But TWO PERCENT OF NOTHING IS NOTHING!
Think about it. Then show up tonight.
----
"Bewkes also signaled he will stress pushing Time Warner's entertainment content onto digital properties. Bewkes said Time Warner -- and most in the industry overall -- need to be "a bit more revolutionary than evolutionary" in digital initiatives, that all linear TV networks should be available on demand via broadband and TV sets, and that TW will make its own networks available on-demand "aggressively" to "show the industry the benefits." -- Nikki Finke, DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com
"Video has hit a tipping point, much the way audio did a few years ago," said Michael Gartenberg, research director at the New York-based firm Jupiter Research. "Now we have access to good, meaningful content that's viable, as opposed to stuff as proof of concept."
----
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/2-trillion-in-global-entertainment-media-spending-by-2011-763/
http://www.webtvwire.com/video-advertising-opportunities-being-expanded-by-use-of-transcoding-technologies/
http://www.tns-mi.com/news/01072008.htm
http://www.emarketer.com/SiteSearch.aspx?arg=DVR+viewing&src=search_go_welcome
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1005914&src=article_head_sitesearch
http://www.juiceanalytics.com/writing/2007/07/tv-ratings-and-online-audiences/
http://www.keynote.com/benchmark/issues/2007winterspring/article_streaming_1.html
http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:concept/1211/id=100045
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=847
http://web-advertising.suite101.com/article.cfm/online_advertising_trends
http://www.choicestream.com/videosurveyresults/ChoiceStream_Survey-ViewerTrends-TV_OnlineVideo2007.pdf
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/
Kristen Stavola is a WGA member with a background in New media,
as well as film development and production. She very much wants to
get back to work!
The Initial Streaming Window
Based on blog comments and conversations I've had, many members seem to think that the so-called "Initial Streaming Window" is just another way for the Companies to screw the Writers. It isn't. Not in principle, anyway.
In principle, it's a way for the Companies to capture some of the audience that would have watched the show when it aired if they weren't working, exercising or changing diapers. It's a way to acknowledge that the erosion of network audiences is due, at least in part, to the viewer's desire to control when they watch a show. And whether a viewer does this by recording the show on Tivo (a use for which we don't seek an extra payment) or watching it online in the Initial Streaming Window, the principle that Companies should not pay writers twice for a show's initial audience is a reasonable one.
Some members I've spoken with believe that the Companies will create elaborate schemes to evade this residual. They imagine the Companies streaming shows for 17 days, yanking them until they've been rung dry in the DVD market, and then putting them back online only after 99% of their value has been sucked away. Being married to a show creator and having worked on the business side of a TV company (Fox TV Studios), I have a disgusted admiration for how the Companies shamelessly and acrobatically manipulate the numbers. But I doubt they're going to manipulate the distribution of online content in this way for one simple reason: the audience won't let them.
On the internet, audiences want what they want, when they want, where they want. There is no easy way to accommodate this new reality in a residual framework built for a world in which the Companies told the audiences when and where they could watch a show. Audiences want and will increasingly demand to decide this for themselves. Ultimately, television shows will be online forever from the day they first air on TV.
Under the terms of this deal (as I understand them), the WGA has established the principle that its members will be paid a percentage of distributor's gross for the overwhelming majority of viewers who watch a show in its second window. It is a point Nick Counter vowed we would not win. And it's a testament to our strength as a union that we achieved it.
For this and other reasons, I support the deal and our leadership's authority to continue representing us in this negotiation, including their authority to make a decision to end the strike with or without a vote.
But a vote is better, and I hope the leadership gives the membership that opportunity.
-- Tom Smuts
UH Founders Advocate A Vote Before Decision is Made About Lifting The Strike
Emotions are flying fast and furious around this issue: do we hold a ratification vote before we lift the strike? Or do we go back to work as quickly as Monday, and hold the vote afterwards?
To get our position up here as quickly and accurately as possible, we decided to do separate grafs signed by each of us, and combine them into one post.
We're all coming at this from different perspectives and differing opinions of the deal itself -- some of us support it, some of us don't -- but we're all saying the same thing about the vote.
We need to have one, before the strike is lifted.
Oh, except for Ian.
From John Aboud and Laeta Kalogridis:
Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!
It really pissed us both off when we read in today's NYT that late night producers are presumptuously acting like everyone will be back on Monday. Despite the fact that we’re satisfied with the deal, we hate the implication that somehow our decisions have been hijacked by the companies. Eisner finally and irrevocably etched his name in the Book of Douche with his statements. It makes us feel like pawns when the past three months have been about us asserting our rights. That's NOT the way to end a strike.
A 48 hour’ notice vote is doable according to the WGA Constitution, Article VII, Section 2b. That section provides for a 48 hours’ notice membership meeting that can only deal specifically with strike-related issues. A ratification vote is OBVIOUSLY a strike-related issue. The provision clearly exists in the Constitution for just these kinds of situations.
Notification won’t be perfect – even with email and phone banking, some people won’t get the message. But that would happen with the 10-day vote as well. The 48 hour vote isn’t the perfect solution. But it’s the best one in this situation.
The problem with a 10-day ratification vote is that waiting 10 days to go back to work would harm many tv shows and the last gasp hope of any kind of pilot season. Going back to work before the ratification would solve that problem; but it creates a new, worse one, which is that we all return to work before the new contract is ratified.
People who’ve worked selflessly and tirelessly for the leverage that got us this contract deserve a chance to be heard in a democratic vote. We think the 48 hour vote is the best way to balance our right to be heard with the need to get the town back to work as quickly and responsibly as possible.
Reasonable people will disagree on this contract, but we all deserve a say.
From David Latt:
I am going to vote in favor of the deal and I want the strike to be over as soon as possible. I'd even be in favor of letting the Board end the strike on Sunday. BUT, I think not letting the membership vote on the deal before the strike is ended would have terrible consequences for Guild solidarity.
To deny to the members who have worked so hard and long for this strike to not get the chance to vote up-or-down on the deal would be a bad decision. There's a lot of frustration and anger out there in email-land and we'll hear about it tonight at the meeting that the deal isn't good enough.
Personally, I believe we have negotiated a very good deal--with this contextual proviso--given what the AMPTP wanted us to get. Is the deal a fair and equitable valuation of our contribution to their businesses? No. Could we get more if we did something different? What would that be? The only real power we have to get an improvement of the deal is to stay out on strike. We only gain more clout once SAG begins its negotiations and that doesn't happen for at least 4 months. Our leverage doesn't increase during that time, so we'd have to keep on picketing and wait. That seems counter-intuitive and destructive in the extreme.
In my opinion this negotation is Step 1 in a multi-step, on-going process to redefine the entertainment business at the same time we hold onto what we've won in the past.
I would encourage everyone to attend tonight's meeting. I know it's Saturday night (I had to cancel a long-planned dinner) and we've been at the strike long enough to be tired of the whole thing, but this is the end-game and that's as important as how we started.
For those of you who want the strike to end and, after you analyze the deal points, you are convinced that's the right thing to do, you need to attend the meeting so your voice is heard. If you read the deal and decide that we haven't won enough and the deal should be rejected, you need to attend as well.
From Kate Purdy:
I also think a 48 vote is the best option. It gives us 4 days to look over the contract and consider before we cast our ballots (Today -Tuesday).
While I'm satisfied with the contract -- understanding it has gains, and some weaknesses -- I believe our leadership when they say that they fought tooth and nail, and can assure us they left nothing on the negotiating table. However, I also think the membership wants and should have the right to ratify it, or not.
To me, that's a sign of a mobilized union - people demanding the right to have their voice heard. I think it's a tremendous indication of our strength and commitment to our guild.
From Ian Deitchman:
We've come a long, long way, haven't we? And we owe that to our solidarity, to everybody who walked the lines and to our leadership.
I'll be honest, we got a lot more in this deal than I ever thought was possible. I'm one of those who's been labeled both a "moderate" and a "dissenter" during this strike. Of course, what does that really mean? It means that when I was invited to recent outreach meetings I implored leadership to take advantage of our moment of greatest leverage, but to not go past the tipping point (i.e. the Oscars and losing the next TV season). I said the same in private e-mails when my opinion was asked for.
Well, I'm happy to say Patric, David and John used that leverage and got us a deal of which we can all feel proud. Certainly not a perfect deal, but a deal with real, substantive victories. Part of achieving that deal called for a good-faith agreement - the companies would make some concessions provided that our guys would do their best to end the strike in time to save the Oscars and the next TV season (something that benefits everybody, by the way).
But now, many of leadership's most ardent backers are claiming that they're being railroaded. That they're going to be cut out of the democratic process if the strike is lifted before we vote. First of all, consitutionally the Board has the right to lift the strike whenever it pleases. But more importantly, why should we suddenly start distrusting our leaders NOW? Are these same people who angrily villified dissenting voices critical of leadership during the strike now crying disenfranchisement? Really?
The deal is not perfect. It was NEVER going to be perfect. We don't live in a perfect world. Would we all love to take ten days for a ratification vote before lifting the strike? Of course. But the PRACTICAL REALITY is that our leadership made a good faith deal that we should honor and getting back to work as soon as possible is the best thing for everyone in this industry. Every day that we hold things up over process is a day that the writers keep people out of work, not the corporations. Our negotiators are recommending a deal that they say is the best we're going to get right now. If they haven't earned our trust at this point, when will they ever?
Let's allow our board to do the job we elected them to do. If membership supports the deal - and by all signs they will and many already do - then the Board should be able to lift the strike Sunday night at their discretion. Personally, they've EARNED my trust.
From Jeffrey Berman:
We need to end this in a way that recognizes the incredible unity and diversity of what we've built. Agree with the deal, don't agree with it, either way: we need to vote to know for sure.
It's a disservice to all the members who can't be at Saturday's meeting to call for some informal measure of member opinion. It's not enough to "take the temperature," -- we need to take the vote.
Every member had a say in this before we went on strike, when we voted for a strike authorization. Every member should have a say in this before we end it.
Robert Elisberg: Deal Summary at First Glance
This was written by WGA member and HuffPo journalist Robert Elisberg.
I’ve been asked to send in a few thoughts under the mighty UH Deadline. Though a disclaimer is not really necessary, you’re getting one anyway. This is on a cursory look at a summary, written under deadline. Not only might your mileage vary…mine might, as well.
Overall, I think there are some extremely good things in terms of precedent, and some important improvements over the DGA deal, but just unfortunately it lacks enough in some serious ways that there will be much more divisiveness than I'm sure the leadership would prefer. But I don't think it's a bad offer.
We’ll get to the 17-day free window in a moment.
First, though, the big thing that leaps out to me is the cap on that third-year 2% of distributor gross for current series, which sort of defeats the purpose of distributors gross. But – it doesn’t strike me nearly as problematic a cap as a flat-fee cap. Though it works out to $1,600 for hour-longs, that's not a flat figure but rather based on an "imputed value" of distributor gross being $80,000. While I'm realistically wary about the AMPTP ever adjusting figures, this is much different from the 1984 home video deal, which had an ethereal "when the industry grows" proviso that could easily get danced around, and has been for a quarter of a century. This deal today on streaming has an actual figure of value assigned -- $80,000. I would think that this "imputed value" can therefore be adjusted in future contracts much, much more easily, especially since it's based on distributors gross, which is easier to police than dark, hidden minutae. If it becomes clear that the value is far-exceeding that $80,000 value (as I suspect it will eventually), that's easier to discover and address than in the past – then a Guild might have stronger bullets to use. Not perfect, and yes, it's a cap. But it's a cap (for only one year) that has a ceiling which seems much more realistic to address and raise than previously. Whatever its faults, and it does have faults, it is significantly better compared to the DGA deal.
Now the free window. I would have much-wanted to see the free window tightened from the DGA deal, and it wasn't. However, I not only understand the need for some window (since that’s how many people watch shows first-run today), but I'm not convinced that series will only run in that free period. If the network discovers that people watch rerun streaming at any time (and I suspect people will does so – after all, they re-watch an episode of "Seinfeld," "Cheers" or "Law & Order" 50 times), then networks will keep streaming them as long as they make money from them. That's why I think we mostly have to keep a vigilant eye on that $80,000 "inputed value" capped ceiling for three years from now. The other semi-related question is that if networks keep streaming shows beyond the window, even in perpetuity, will that lower the value to networks of syndicating their shows? If so, they'd have to balance what they make from streaming compared to what they make selling shows into syndication.
Also, based on no research but my own observation and pure guess, I think for at least the next few years, networks won't be dropping TV reruns much because the marketplace isn't there quite yet to justify it for them. (I think most Internet watching these days is first-run -- kids won't watch a show first-run on TV, but catch it on the Internet.) Whether this window can be adjusted in the next contract is another matter, of course. Keep in mind, even without the Internet, networks have been cutting back on TV reruns in recent years. I don't say this to justify or defend anything, just to look at the reality.
The "double the DVD rate" for downloading only kicks in after 100,000 units of a TV show and 50,000 units of a feature are sold, and my understanding is that those thresholds today are never met. So, that works out today to being worth zero. Not good. However, in the future, as people move to downloading and away from DVDs, that's another question, and it's likely that that might be the case. In which case this is an important precedent to establish.
While at first glance I'd liked to have seen the budget threshold for Internet-covered productions lowered from what the DGA deal had, I took a second glance and noticed what I think is an important gain: having any new Internet project be covered as long as a WGA writer is involved.
Separated rights and New Media writing minimums are good. Important things to get, though not the hot button issues as those above.
Again, to be clear, I'm not arguing that there are no problematic issues – there absolutely are. Just that (from what little I can see from the summary, and at a quick glance), I think there are good cases that can be made for the full deal. The precedences being set are important, and the holes appear like they can be fairly policed – at least more-fairly policed than holes in the past. Who knows, of course. It requires vigilance.
For all the things I’d like to see improved, I think the case made that this is the best offer we’ll get for several months – with no guarantees of big improvements – is valid. I wrote a piece of Huffery last month that there are several critical signposts for the companies in February and predicted therefore that that’s when they’d want to settle. That appears to be the case – and if February passes with no deal, so do those signposts. In which case, the companies have little need to settle. So, I do think (at quick glance) that it’s a flawed, but good contract worth accepting now, at the risk of future hell.
-- Robert Elisberg
2/08/2008
It's the Bottom of the 9th, the Bases Are Loaded...
Personally, whenever I'm finalizing my own deal on a new project, I'm usually feeling pissed off that I didn't get everything I wanted, and I fantasize, "Fuck it, I'll just walk away. I don't need this shitty job". To close the deal and get back to work, it usually takes my wife, agent, and lawyer to talk me back to my senses.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the "take the deal no matter what" point of view. I'm arguing against being overly emotional as we talk about the details of the deal before the meeting Saturday. I suppose one purpose of a public forum is to allow participants to blow off steam. But the group therapy part of the event isn't what we're really there for.
We need to understand what was negotiated and why. These meetings, to me, are an opportunity to have clarity about those details. We still have to ratify the deal, so if we don't like what we hear, then we'll have a chance to vote to continue the strike.
I'm a Strike Captain at Fox and we've been polling our teams. Some of the Captains have reported that a majority of their teams feel that if the deal isn't right, the strike should continue. But those feelings are in the abstract and come from a place of anxiety. Will those members feel the same way after they've heard the specifics of the deal? We'll see.
Anyway, I think my 2 cents are up, but I think it would be a helluva lot better at this moment to close out the strike in a way that will strengthen our relationships with one another, rather than to create new rifts. We are going to be back at the table in 3 years and it'd be better to have a unified membership when we're facing another difficult contract about the same issues. The AMPTP will be unified. So should we.
2/06/2008
From Joss Whedon: Do Not Adjust Your Mindset
Dear Writers,
I have good news. I have lots of good news. In fact, I have way too much good news.
The strike is almost over. A resolution is days away. Weeks. Friday. Valentine's day. Two weeks exactly from whenever my manager/agent/lawyer told me. Yes, after talking to writers and actors all over town, I'm happy to report that the strike is going to end every single day until March. Huzzah! All of this entirely reliable information means that at last the dream of the writing community has been realized: the Oscars will be saved.
Let's step back.
The Oscars seem to be the point of focus for a lot of this speculation. That either they must be preserved, or that the studios feel they must be preserved, and therefore this terrible struggle will end. There is an argument to be made for wanting the show to go on: it showcases the artists with whom we are bonded (there's no award for Best Hiding of Net Profits), and it provides employment and revenue for thousands in the community that has been hit so hard by this action. Having said that, it's a f%$#ing awards show. It's a vanity fair. It's a blip. We're fighting (fighting, remember?) for the future of our union, our profession, our art. If that fight carries us through the Holy Night when Oscar was born, that's just too bad.
And the studios? Well, the Oscars provide advertising revenue and a boost for the films that win. But the studios have shown impressive resolve in ignoring short-term losses in order to destroy us. I don't hear any knees knocking in the Ivory Towers over that night of programming. Hey, I wish I did. I wish, like a lot of people, I could hear anything from in there besides that weird clicking sound Predator makes.
I ask you all to remember: the studios caused an industry-wide shutdown. They made a childishly amateurish show of pretending to negotiate, then retreated into their lairs (yes, they have lairs) to starve us out. They emerged just before Christmas to raise our hopes, then left in a premeditated huff. They Force Majoured with gay abandon, cutting deals and 'trimming the fat' (I've met a couple of 'the fat' on the picket lines. Nice guys.) and made every selfish, counter-intuitively destructive move in the Bully's Bible. They met with the DGA and resolved quickly, as expected.
We have been advised to tone down the anti-studio rhetoric now that a deal might be progressing. Our negotiators have the specific task of forgetting the past and dealing only with the numbers before them. Their ability to do that impresses me greatly, but I maintain that it's their job to treat the studios like business partners and it's our job to remember who they really are. The studios are inefficient, power-hungry, thieving corporate giants who have made the life of the working writer harder from decade to decade. They are run by men so out of touch with basic humanity that they would see Rome burn before they would think about the concept of fair compensation. I maintain that they have never revealed their true agenda in the causing and handling of this strike, and to expect them to now is cock-eyed optimism of the most dangerous kind.
I have heard people both in and out of the industry say, "But that's enough now, right?" I have seen the thing I fear most: that whatever their agenda, they are beating us down. With hope. With rumors. With Time. The mindset seems to be shifting to one of relief and even unspoken gratitude for their return, instead of flaming indignation that they ever (illegally, do you recall?) left the table in the first place. It's the mindset of the victim. The lethargy of limb that strikes the fighter as he unconsciously lets himself lose. The studio strategists have worked this scenario as carefully as they have everything else. It is so crucial that we outside of the talks remember that, and let them know we do.
This is not over. Nor is it close. Until the moment it is over, it can never be close. Because if we see the finish line we will flag and they are absolutely counting on us to do that. In the room, reason. On the streets, on the net, I say reason is for the 'moderates'. Remember what they've done. Remember what they're trying to take from us. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT.
I have been mugged an embarrassing number of times, even for a New Yorker. I've been yelled at and chased, beaten down and kicked, threatened with a gun and the only mugger who still hurts my gut is the one who made me shake his hand. Until there is a deal – the right deal, not the DGA deal – held out, let's keep our hands in our pockets or on our signs. Let's not be victims. Let's never.
In solidarity,
Joss Whedon
2/05/2008
Charlie Craig: Cautious Optimism
The following is from "Eureka" showrunner Charlie Craig's blog "My Second Strike".
I’m sticking by my prediction of us going back to work sometime the week after next, but I caution that is based on optimism, a trait I have little experience with.
One thing’s for sure: in the scenario I just laid out, the shit’s going to hit the fan faster than anyone realizes. The whole hyphenate thing is going to come back. Take me and my show as an example: I obviously won’t open the writers room until a vote’s been taken and the results reported and the strike officially called off… but what about producing duties? If the Guild in the process of calling for a vote and everyone is filled with (again that word) optimism, you know damn well I’m going to start getting calls from Vancouver Production for estimates of when we might be able to go to camera, when they might get scripts, etc. And think about people in the Pilot whirlpool: they’re probably ALREADY back at work, “producing” not writing.
The flood gates will ease open, I guess that’s what I’m saying. There won’t be an immediate flood, just a rising of the waters. In the end, of course, people will still drown.
Unless this is all bullshit and the “deal” falls apart.
Then the actors go on strike. And I sell my house a few years earlier than I had originally planned.
In the spirit of Charlie's boundless optimism, again we strongly advise everyone: take a breath. THE DEAL'S NOT DONE. Things are still being hammered out, contract language is still being drafted.
The best deal comes from staying strong -- and staying out -- in this very crucial time.
Bargaining 101
This was submitted by John Jabaley, UH contributor, location manager, and member of Teamster Local 399.
On one side of the table is me, all of 25 years old and determined to get a good deal for my employers. On the other side is a man who owns several properties that the show I’m managing wants to use. A private alley. A closed bank. A hallway leading to the fire escape over the alley. And the store where we’re sitting, which was run by his parents, has been closed for 15 years and preserved as a shrine to his late father. Things still cost cost 39 cents in this time capsule.
I’m on a low budget show, and I’m the whole department. I don’t have time to find another location. I need this one. I come in at $900, knowing he won’t accept it, but just to establish a low framework. He acts like he doesn’t hear the offer and we keep on talking about insurance and logistics and ethnic food. I know he heard me but he’s ignoring it, hoping I’ll up it before he says a word. I let the $900 sit on the table. Close to an hour goes by. We’ve cleared up everything except the money. He’s got a schedule to keep now and I’ve kept him long enough. He asks if I’m going to make an offer. I tell him I did, and he doesn’t say anything. He just looks at me. I can’t figure out if he’s insulted or interested. If he counters at $5000 I’ll have no choice but to walk away.
He comes back at $3000, and my heartbeat is about to give me away. We’re in a range I can maneuver in. “There’s no way I can do three thousand.” Maybe the next show I bring can pay that much, but this is low budget. It just isn’t there. I can pay 1200. He asks "What about 2500?" I can’t!
I’ve only got one more increment, and I have to save it. I stall, I switch back to food, the Mississippi delta, fried catfish- it turns out he grew up in Leland, Ms. He’s got to go at 5 and it’s 4:30. If my offer is too low he’s liable to get fed up and kick me out. I have to wait.
There’s an old clock on the wall. It’s wrong, but it’s loud, and every second and a half or so it ticks. He says he supposes he could accept 2000, and I pretend to consider it. Do some audible fake math, really trying to find a way to get him 2000, but I can’t. What about 1500?
“Fifteen hundred, forget about it.” That’s his mother over his shoulder, hidden in the shadows because we’re dealing over a small table lit by a bulb hanging on a string. Really. A bus picks her up every week and takes her to Vegas. She plays silver dollar slots. She’s been quiet up to now.
I realize she’s going to get all the money on this deal, and I need to find out how much she’s willing to take. I say 1500 again, and she says again “Fifteen hundred, forget about it.” I say I know it isn’t much, but it’s it what we have. She can take it or leave it. “Fifteen hundred, forget about it.” Ok, so 1500 is out.
If I come back at 1750 I know they’re going to insist on 2000, I can just tell. So I apologize for wasting their time. I tell them how much I enjoyed talking to them. And I ask if there is anyone else they can recommend who might have some similar property, and be in need of 1500 dollars. It’s quiet again, except for the clock, and the sun outside the window is going away. It’s getting cold. Seconds and a half tick away. They offer 1600.00, and we shake on the deal.
I had two things in my favor that day: A woman with silver dollars in her eyes and a loud clock. What I didn’t have was someone from my production company barging in and demanding that I hurry up and settle.
The WGA has two things in its favor too: Content, and a four handed clock with one hand on the Oscars, another on pilot season, one on the back 9, and a hand on the 2009 releases. Let the negotiators handle it. They know what they're doing.
John
Hope and Strategy: How to Handle the Rest of This Week
"As the lawyers work overtime to hammer out the details, scenarios are emerging that could -- underline could -- bring an end to the WGA strike by as early as next week.The LA Times ("Guild board favors deal, with caution") reports that the WGA board is "holding off on giving its blessing [to any deal] until it sees the exact language in the contract." And Nikki Finke ("Strike Status Report") writes,
Insiders are strongly warning that many aspects remain to be ironed out in the contract being drafted between the Writers Guild of America and Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers, and that the process could be derailed by even a seemingly small dispute over contract language."
"[T]here are genuine concerns that the negotiating committee and the board may not approve the deal, even though Verrone, Young and Bowman are behind it. (Though the votes do not have to be unanimous.) There are also genuine concerns that the WGA membership may not approve the deal -- like what happened during the 1960 strike."So, yeah. Strike's not over. How can we get there? It all comes down to contract language.
All of the above media accounts are based on off-the-record information. U.H. has collected very reliable info, some shaken loose with the assistance of alcohol, but we will not report it lest we risk even the appearance of breaking the ongoing news blackout. Unlike other media outlets, the security guard at WGA headquarters greets this one as, "Oh, hi. You again."
Until actual contract points are announced in preparation for Saturday's membership meeting, we should not draw any conclusions about where we stand. Clearly, there are leaks going on. But leaks serve the AMPTP more than the writers. It's in the AMPTP's interest to have everyone thinking it's safe to tune out. (On Sunday, my 93-year-old grandfather told me, "So! I hear the strike's over!") If the writers aren't paying attention or maintaining strength, the AMPTP's lawyers will attempt to water down the contract language from whatever the CEOs agreed to in principle.
There's no conspiracy behind this, it's simply the culture of Hollywood business affairs. Lawyers for the conglomerates score points by whittling down deal points. (That’s why I never start working w/o a signed and executed longform contract. -LK.)
The spin the AMPTP hopes to spread is nicely represented in this illustration whipped up by WGA supporter and graphics genius Rubberpoultry during yesterday's U.H. Live broadcast:
After everything that workers in the industry have sacrificed, it would be catastrophic to see a possible conclusion to this strike derailed by a membership that's no longer paying attention or overaggressive factions trying to rush a delicate undertaking. Of the latter possibility, Nikki writes: "[N]ow is the time for everyone to back off. That's right, BACK OFF. And to let the WGA leadership talk to its board and also its membership without outside interference." Allow me to second that. I'd prefer not to be writing a post like this again in six months.
Now's the time to stay strong, show our solidarity and stay focused. So far, so good: Over 1,330 picketers took to the lines Monday. Let's keep it going.
2/03/2008
Gelbart and Russnow: Be Skeptical of the Rumors and the Media
We will try to bring you the full text of his message. (I'd transcribe it, but I'm too busy partying because the strike's totally over.)
On the same topic, Michael Russnow's latest has hit the HuffPo:
The press, in reporting on presumptions and generalities is acting irresponsibly, and we should sit back and hope for the best. We should make no noises to interrupt the deliberations, because to do so might impel the WGA Leadership to take a deal that it might have bettered were the AMPTP not to have heard too much passion -- read that hunger -- from a Membership whose fortitude they perceive is crumbling.Also, here's my favorite report of the night: Nikki Finke writes that she's received lots of email claiming that Peter Chernin of Fox said "the strike is over" while at the Super Bowl. Which immediately makes me picture a catering dude standing behind the chafing dish of wings in the Fox skybox, madly thumbing away at his Blackberry.
UPDATE: Here's the transcript of Larry Gelbart's message:
This is Larry Gelbart. In all my decades as a member of the WGA I’ve learned a few lessons about strikes and negotiations, the most important being that it’s never over ’til it’s over, no matter how much the lady singer might weigh. As fellow and sister members of the Guild, you know how important the issues are for all of our futures, and for those to whom we will one day hand our pens. Over the coming days you will be getting calls asking you to join in to continue with the picketing. I ask you to set aside all the rumors, all the second-guessing, I ask you to set these aside and pick up a picket sign instead. I cannot stress how vital it is for all of us to show our commitment to our leadership during this current round of negotiations. Thank you.
John August: Big Monday Picket Is Important
For any writer — WGA or otherwise — tomorrow would seem an especially important day to be on the picket lines. If the strike is ending, it’s your last chance to be part of the picket line. If it’s not ending, then a big showing on Monday will be important for the media who show up to cover the presumed resolution.We couldn't agree more. Let's a get out there in force all this week.
And in the same post, August reveals that, spurred on by the strike, he's making the leap to original online content.
The decision to do the project — I’ll tell you more when it’s done — really crystallized after Indie Day at Paramount. It was there I felt a change of memes. The message from writers to the studios had been, “Come back, baby. We can work this out.” But after the second time negotiations fell apart, the message became, “Maybe we should see other people.”And John August is far from alone. There's a creative reinvention of the business going on that United Hollywood will cover once the WGA strike is over.
I decided to start seeing other people.
The project is financed outside the studio system, with some of that much-fabled internet money. It has actors you recognize, and it probably could be a TV show — but it won’t.
But it's not over yet. Stay tuned...
LA Times Reports on Progress In Negotiations
It has some of the most detailed information to date on how the informal talks have gone so far. When we compare it to what our off-the-record sources are saying, it appears to be fairly accurate.
We'd like to highlight the following parts:
Who did the negotiating?
David Young, Patric Verrone and John Bowman on the WGA side, and Peter Chernin and Bob Iger on the companies' side. From the Times:
That stood in contrast to previous sessions with the writers in which top media executives weren't at the bargaining table and were led instead by Nick Counter, president of the producers association, and labor relations executives from the major studios.
Is the deal done?
No. As we mentioned in an earlier post, details are still being hammered out, and contract language is key. Until that language is drafted, nothing can be considered to be truly "done." To be as clear as possible: Things that are agreed to in the room aren't "real" until we have at least a serious start on contract language, and even the most optimistic estimates say that process will take a week.
Attorneys from the studios and the guild were meeting over the weekend to discuss contract language for the proposed agreement, which would need to be ratified by the union's 10,500 members. Even before a vote by members, the strike would probably be called off if board members strongly endorse the deal.
There are some issues that have yet to be resolved, including defining what qualifies as promotion on the Internet. The debate centers on the extent to which networks can run video clips and other materials on their websites to promote TV programs before paying writers.
Is this deal a carbon copy of the DGA deal?
No. It appears to use the DGA deal as a template, with key adjustments for writers.
On Friday, however, studios offered some key concessions to ease those concerns [that the DGA deal was inadequate on streaming and Internet-first jurisdiction] and keep the talks on track. Those included more favorable pay terms for streaming than those offered to directors. Studios also offered "separated rights" provisions for shows created for the Web, ensuring, for example, that writers would receive extra compensation and credit for online shows that spawn TV pilots, two people close to the talks said.
What happens now?
Verrone, Bowman and Young are expected to present a summary of the deal points to the Board on Monday.
Then, over the course of next week, the contract language will be drafted, to protect/assure everyone's understanding of the deal points insofar as possible.
By Friday at the earliest, depending on how well the drafting goes, there could be a preliminary contract with all the most important areas covered. Despite the LA Times' assertion that contract will be "final," that seems to be an imprecise use of the word.
A final contract could be presented to the Writers Guild of America board as early as Friday, according to three people close to the talks who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential.
As Mark Evanier has pointed out, "final" wasn't reached in the 1988 strike until well after everyone had gone back to work.
Does this mean it's over?
Not yet. The only leverage writers have to make sure the deal points agreed to in the room actually end up in the contract, is to stay strong and united until the contract language is drafted. And not to be alarmists, but keep in mind who's in charge of that on the companies' side:
Having done the heavy lifting, Chernin and Iger will now step back and rely on labor relations executives to formalize contract language this week.
These "labor relations executives" are some of the same folks who stalled negotiations with the WGA for months. Iger and Chernin had to step in themselves -- both with the DGA and with the WGA -- to get anything substantive accomplished. And we've learned from off-the-record sources that while the DGA contract language was being drafted, there were at least two occasions when the DGA's understanding of the agreement differed from the labor relations executives, and a CEO had to personally intervene to keep the process on track.
We desperately hope that, in this case, that won't happen. There's too much at stake for the knee-jerk legal norms of Hollywood to kick in, in which it's the job of Business Affairs to try and whittle down the deal in the contract stage while claiming "but that's not our understanding of what our bosses said." (This is a more common experience among screenwriters than TV writers, because TV contracts tend to have more uniformity. There's no "boilerplate" to use in an historic negotiation like this, so we can expect the drafting to take a little time.)
We hope the drafting will go smoothly. But we have to be prepared that it might not.
And all of the above assumes that when the deal points are released and the contract language drafted, that the membership at large will ratify it. Each of us has a vote, and we must decide for ourselves if we can live with what this deal delivers for the next three years.
We'll see it soon. And then we'll all decide.
2/02/2008
It's Not Over 'Til It's Over -- And It Isn't Over
... it's a fine, even prudent idea to not get one's hopes too high. It is a not uncommon negotiating technique to get the other side into the mindset that the deal is done, and then to throw in a last second demand. In past WGA-AMPTP contracts, negotiating has even continued after the deal was made and ratified. Weeks, even months after the '81, '85 and '88 strikes were settled and work resumed, reps from the studio side were still arguing over what had been agreed to, insisting that their notes said we'd agreed to X when we were certain we'd consented to Y. And even when we all agree on what we all agreed upon, we can't always agree on the interpretation of some clauses and codicils.
And Alfredo Barrios' piece, The Strike Is A Lawyers' Game, is something we should all reread right now -- especially the latter part of the essay, where he talks about how to get Nick Counter out of the equation -- and many of his predictions have come startlingly true. An excerpt:
And by taking the fight to them, I mean, maintaining picket lines at the studios at peak levels, relentlessly picketing locations, continuing to put out creative videos that entertain and inform people about the strike, denying waivers to award shows and picketing those shows, seeking alternative ways to put out creative work on the Internet for pay, etc.
Playing this kind of offense serves a couple of purposes. First, when a CEO drives through the studio gates, or hears about how a location shoot was impacted by picketing (like for example, when an actor leaves the set or a day has been added to the schedule), or sees how his untenable bargaining positions are being ripped apart on websites, or is told about how his award show is falling apart, or reads how Google is about to form a competing entertainment powerhouse, it all collectively begins to call into question the promise that Counter made – i.e., that we would crumble. It’s a daily reminder that we are not losing our resolve. It makes him worry. His expectations aren’t being met. Things are uncertain again. And it begins to chip away at Counter’s credibility as the guy who could resolve the strike with minimal inconvenience to the studio CEOs.
This last point is important. Why? Because the way you win is by taking the lawyer out of the equation. Deny him the promise that he made to his client – i.e., that he would add value by battering all of us down. Once the CEOs begin to believe that we’ll stick to our guns until we get a fair and equitable deal, that’s when we’ve won. That’s when the CEOs and their CFOs will step in and begin to deal directly with us. Why not Counter? Because his job wasn’t to deal with real and fair numbers; it was to screw us. Once he fails at that, it’s time for others to step in. Trust me, it happens.
He went on to make some predictions about the DGA negotiations:
As the upcoming DGA talks proceed, I predict that Counter will try to ram a really bad deal down the director’s throats. And he may succeed, given the makeup of that union’s membership and their historic appeasement of studios during labor talks. I suspect that whatever deal is reached will be slightly better than what was offered us (it certainly couldn’t be worse) and will be wielded like a stick to beat us into taking it as well. The DGA leadership will certainly have every incentive to spin it as a huge win for them and the industry. How could they not? It costs the studios nothing to take this approach. If we don’t take the same deal, they’re back to dealing with us, and the DGA is the only loser.
As for acting like “nicer” and “more accommodating” guys and gals… Well, let me just say that in all of my years as a corporate lawyer, “nice” and “accommodating” adversaries who never stuck to their guns and didn’t bring the fight to us never got better deals. They only get worse ones. So don’t buy into the our-leadership’s-too-militant line of argument. They’re not. They’re being appropriately tough. Trust me, you wouldn’t want it any other way.
Now it’s up to the rest of us to hang tough with them.
Serious progress has been made, we're told, and we're all waiting to see what it is. But we should all take a breath, and remember: it's not done yet.
