2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
(Keep refreshing for the latest…) I was told last night by a top Hollywood CEO that the moguls had decided to allow AMPTP to put on the negotiating table a sweetened deal at Talks Day #4 today. “The producers are trying to put something on the table tomorrow [Thursday] that will jaw this loose. It will include streaming and EST [electronic sell-through] and all the rest,” the source said specifically.
The problem is I can’t confirm yet that the AMPTP has indeed bettered its offer today. (For a full report on the talks so far see my Day #3, Day#2, and Day #1.) But this is the sweetened proposal everyone has been talking about since before this new round of talks resumed. The really key issue is a better formula for ESTs, something that back on Sunday November 4th, the WGA negotiators had been led to believe was coming during that session so they dropped their DVD residual demands. Only to put them back on the table when the ESTs proposal never happened.
Until now, “the producers have not moved one inch on ESTs. It’s never been addressed,” the mogul I talked to confirmed last night.
On the TV issue of streaming, I’m told that the moguls’ initial 9-month waiting period will be shrunk to 6 weeks. True, that’s not the 3 days that the WGA is seeking, but it smacks of a compromise. (At least it’s not entirely the “when we stop making money we’ll give you money” thinking that’s been driving the WGA so nuts.) Now, some WGA toppers are telling me this is exactly what the moguls were proposing back on November 4th. But others say the streaming proposal that Sunday was so un-fleshed out that they didn’t know what the window being offered was. I do know that at the time I was reporting those tick-tock negotiations, the AMPTP side told me their streaming proposal was for the first season of a TV series to be free, and then at the start of the second season the writers would start receiving residuals for the first season, etc. Six weeks sounds a lot better than that.
But the CEOs are still standing firm on the issue of not sharing ad revenue with the writers even though those streaming shows are embedded with commmercials because “we don’t even give that to Dick Wolf on broadcast.”
I’ve gotta say, if this sweetened offer doesn’t materialize today… (Expletive deleted.)
I’ve been trying to get a handle these past few days on what the moguls are thinking while the strike and these talks continue. Not just the obvious force majeure issues, the Directors Guild’s soon-to-happen negotiations, the inevitable difficulty of the Screen Actors Guild’s bargaining, down the line. But the thinking right now. Sure, there’s a lot of senseless spin out there (just read today’s The New York Times to see a ludicrous example of that). But in the end what only matters is what’s on the bargaining table.
As far as the ESTs issue, the light at the end of the tunnel may lie with Ken Ziffren. That’s right, the entertainment uberlawyer who helped solve the 1988 writers strike and is now representing the Directors Guild Of America in what will soon be their negotiations with the moguls. Ziffren is telling agents that he has “a solution to New Media” that includes the all-important ESTs but is still “working on it”. One of the fears is that, if Ziffren shares it with the WGA negotiators, and they reject it, then the whole initiative may implode. On the other hand, if the WGA side accepts it, then the problem could be solved.
- Talks Day #3 ‘Stalemated’
- Talks Day #2 Still Friendly But Unproductive; “Game Of Chicken”
- Talks Day #1 Productive; “Reasonableness Ruled The Day”
- Dare We Hope A Deal Has Been Struck…?
- Talks Restarted At Agent Bryan Lourd’s Home After Weeks Of Quiet Backchannel
- LET’S STRIKE A DEAL! Both Sides Agree To Go Back Into Talks
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Well, it’s something. Thanks, Nikki!
C’mon guys, let’s get it together NOW!
problem is the writers were negotiating in good faith and AMPTP are sharks vis a vis numbers
AMPTP did the typical inflation of demands, for example the waiting period (9 months!!!) so they could look reasonable when they shrank it down to 6 weeks (still absurd) which is what they wanted to begin with
it’s a tired bad faith negotiating tactic that attorneys pull in litigation all the time
writers should stand by their guns on many of these issues because the quantities they put on the table were the straightforward reasonable ones off the bat.
AMPTP counted on writers being soft targets and has been caught off guard that WGA isn’t being as much of a pushover as calculated.
stay strong WGA
WGA won’t fold on this one. There’s too much solidarity. If the moguls think this incremental approach is going to get them what they want, they’re sorely mistaken.
I don’t understand the whole six-week thing, anyway. The shelf-life of streaming video is not six weeks long in the first place.
I’d be interested to see what the numbers for DVD sales are in the first six weeks of release. I bet it’s something like 90%, which means, yes, the AMPTP are again trying to fuck writers in the ass. What I want to know is where’s the proverbial first kiss?
Fuckrag writer
I’m a moderate and that 6 week bs is, well, bs.
Repeat viewership can happen on the same day with literally the click of a button
Look at Theatre/Studio ticket sales. Studios collect almost 100% of the ticket sales in the first 4 weeks and then slowly, as time wears on, the ticket sale percentage fattens to the theatres’ side. But the system favors the studios who come in, make the bulk of the box office in the first two weeks, and then replace this box office hit with another one.
They are trying to apply the same model to writers accept writers don’t have candy sales to fall back on.
Yep, sounds like the first phase bs lowball offer strategy many expected. They have a complete plan layed out…
March Offer, June 08 Offer, etc.
This is only their 1st offer and it sounds lame as hell.
Maybe it IS time to play serious hardball and kick their asses into digital obscurity. Paul Allen, Google, there is an unprecedented opportunity here.
I hope in five years the headlines read, 2007, the year petty Studio tactics bargained away their future by driving talent to new digital platform Partners.
I also hope this kind of treatment allows for them to LOSE their shot at consolidation with the pending FCC bill in Washington.
I also hope the Guilds ban together and launch a Major lawsuit against them for depriving Guild members of properly earned residuals by intentionally using false and illegal accounting practices.
This is the Gandhi moment.
First the mock you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Stay strong and say no. The other guys think they didn’t, but they just blinked.
Public sentiment is totally on the WGA’s side. And politicians (ie senators) can smell public opinion like whores to a diamond. I really believe that a few senators are already trying to figure out how to insert themselves (ie hearings) and haul the moguls into that committee chamber. “Under oath, Mr. Murdoch, how much money did Fox gross last year. Don’t bother trying to answer, just let us examine your books….”
We can get it all. We will get it all.
Then we win.
Still so obnoxiously, arrogantly, and mind-numbingly greedy. After SIX WEEKS, they will graciously give us a tiny fraction of the income we’re generating for them. Aren’t they generous?
Perspective is a funny thing. It’s so easy to see this as progress, and a “victory” for the writer. But the truth is, a few cents on the dollar – a full month and a half after all the water cooler talk about any given episode has long since moved on to the NEXT FIVE EPISODES that have aired since! – is still an insulting slap in the face.
The streaming issue will also affect the movie business, because the Studios are already doing free, streaming ad-supported deals with a number of platforms – such as Joost. Advertising will be a significant revenue generator for online in the long terms, and one that will play a greater role in the online movie distribution value chain in the 3 year timeframe.
As a crew member affected by this strike, this offer (if as advertised) sounds reasonable. The residual for first airing on broadcast should, quite frankly, cover the first period of streaming (if this irks you, bump up the first airing residual a bit). You could argue 3 days or 2 weeks or any other arbitrary length would be more reasonable, but this would be arbitrary nonetheless. Six weeks seems a bit long, but not totally unreasonable — certainly good enough for the first contract to include it. (Hey, ya gotta leave SOMETHING to negotiate on the next contract).
Streaming beyond this period picks up a residual. Sounds reasonable.
I’m not saying the Writers should cave — I’m saying this deal is not caving.
Let’s get a deal done and get Hollywood back to work.
“Less talk. Make it happen.”
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Max Bell is right. The shelf life is usually three to five weeks. In my experience, FOX usually pulls episodes of “24″ from its MySpace site three weeks after it first airs on the network. ABC reportely does the same though its video player is complete crap in some cases (though that could improve with XP Service Pack 3), and NBC usually does 5 weeks for full episodes. Yup you writers are getting screwed and you better drop the three day demand and say that all streaming should be treated like overall broadcasting.
“Still so obnoxiously, arrogantly, and mind-numbingly greedy.”
Hate to tell you guys, but so is the WGA. It’s all about the moneymoneymoneymoney. You say you want what’s fair, but really how that translates is that you want more.
Really? The studios are being obnoxious? They may be arrogant and greedy, but I think the WGA is by far more obnoxious and self-centered.
Get back to work so everybody else who works in the industry can get back to their jobs during the holidays.
Well, that’s kind of the issue about internet streaming and residuals that I don’t think the WGA is taking seriously. If ‘water cooler’ type viewing is drawn away from broadcasts and happens instead on the internet, it seems reasonable to consider that that kind of streaming is a primary market, rather than a secondary market, in which case it’s covered by the upfront payments we get, not the residuals. I don’t get a residual check when an episode I write runs for the first time on broadcast. If some portion of the audience skips the broadcast and catches up within the week via an online stream, I’m not sure I’m morally due a residual for that, either.
I would support a one-week free window. And I’m a TV-employed WGA member, and yes, I realize that will mean not-huge residual checks. It makes sense philosophically, and it will help sustain the scripted television business while broadcast viewership continues to plunge dramatically, largely because people would rather watch stuff on their own time online. This may mean, yes, lower residuals overall if broadcast reruns, for which we get very healthy-sized check (I just got one in the mail for 20K) dry out. But that eventuality is also going to mean less revenue for the entire industry, and this whole town may have to face that.
Also, sully1971, remember pattern bargaining means we aren’t just asking for “a few cents on the dollar.” Once you factor in the other guilds and the IATSE health funds, you need to multiply the WGA rate by 9.5. So, if we get what we’re asking for, 2.5% of gross, then studios are giving about 22% of gross to the various unions. Is 22% of gross really “a few cents on the dollar?”
Still, for TV there might be a compromise that’s not six weeks. Maybe you just say one week for all shows that have been on the air for 14+ episodes and then, all shows that have only aired the pilot + 12 episodes can be whored out for the networks gain. It creates a financial incentive for networks not to cancel shows so quickly and it gives the writers a chance to build something and get to a compromised deal.
These networks which now own the shows do risk a lot with new shows, and if they don’t have a hit on their hands, where do they go? New shows should get every possible promotional possibility available to the networks, and if that means streaming the first 13 is for promotion only and the nets get all the revenue from imbedded ads, maybe that’s a compromise worth doing (or even just the first 6 episodes).
I’m just so glad none of you are on the WGA NegCom. “Get it all.” “Win it all.”
Absurd. In a negotiation, you don’t get it all, you don’t win it all. You end up with a compromise.
To be clear, I am not saying the “6 week” model is a good offer or a bad offer. I am saying that this is a negotiation and it’s only the fourth day.
My sources also indicated that the AMPTP had absolutely no EST offer on Nov. 4th. Two members of the AMPTP did not believe the WGA would strike or that the membership would support a strike. Therefore they had not approved any sort of proposal to put forth on Nov 4th.
Any current proposal, is actually the first real proposal from the AMPTP.
So… I’m an interested bystander. I’m not a mogul and I’m not a writer. And, to me, the six-week proposal doesn’t feel like BS. I think 1-2 weeks would make more sense, but the key question for me is: “What rights are the studios paying for when they pay a writer to write an episode, and what is not covered by that initial payment?”
For a TV show, it seems to me that they’re paying for the right to ‘broadcast’ it, but that the term ‘broadcast’ could reasonably be defined as broadcast via the Internet as well as via TV.
And in an on-demand world, we basically come down to the question of ‘what is a rerun’ — I don’t personally know enough about the contracts yet, but I would assume that just as there’s no residual when ABC broadcasts a first-run episode of Grey’s on Thursday at 9pm, there’s also no residual when they rebroadcast it the next day at 8pm. I would further assume (though I don’t know the specifics) that there is a residual when that episode is rebroadcast three months later because it’s January and they want to save new episodes for sweeps. (And I’d love to know whether and how the writers get paid when I watch CSI for free four weeks after broadcast on my cable system’s video-on-demand setup.)
If that is the case, then wouldn’t it be reasonable for the same to apply to streaming? You got paid to write the episode; for that, you gave the studios certain rights. What those rights are is a matter of negotiation, either in individual contracts or in the master WGA/AMPTP contract — you could choose, for instance, to be paid a little more in order to give the studio the right to stream (without further compensation) for six weeks instead of two. (Two weeks seems to be the most reasonable ‘default’ for me, but I’m just one person. Three days is definitely too short, six weeks is probably too long.) You could even negotiate a form of TV-rerun residual that incorporated the same streaming rights as the original — the networks could well go for that so that they continue to have content to stream in January and other TV wasteland months, and it would (presumably!) be a significantly higher residual than you’re getting now.
If the moguls were proposing to give you zilch on EST for the first six weeks, that would be unfair. But this is streaming we’re talking about, which is basically the same as ‘on-demand’ TV. I guess I don’t see that it’s so entirely unreasonable for them to propose that your compensation for writing an episode of TV includes the right to stream it and broadcast it on TV for a period of time. (Probably an equal period of time for both.) The length of that period of time is a matter of negotiation, but any reasonable answer is likely to be a single-digit number of weeks. And if you want to be paid more for including a few weeks of streaming rights, raise your per-episode scale.
So (to quote Darren Star) I couldn’t help but wonder: why is all that an ‘insulting slap in the face’ as one commenter put it? Am I missing something other than the breakdown of trust between writers and moguls?
The real issue here is not an attempt by writers to get MORE money via the Internet, but the fear that Internet reuse will replace all other reuse (reruns, forign, DVDs, etc.). And it will. So, if there are no residuals on Internet reuse, then there are no residuals at all. A big rollback in salaries.
And, as far as residuals go, the big one, is the first primetime, network rerun. That residual is about half a script fee. They get smaller after that, down to almost nothing.
So, if writers were told that first big residual were protected, they would feel a big sense of relief. It’s already disappeared for some shows, even hits. “Lost” never reruns, but it is online by the morning after the first broadcast.
So, here’s my proposal — a reasonable one, I think:
That big (half script fee) residual is payable on first reuse — internet or TV. And in exchange for paying it, the studio gets one primetime rerun AND one-month of ad-supported streaming. That way writers are assured the most significant residual, and the studios get more than they get now for the same money. Everybody wins. And since the studios are paying for the second run, they should use it. Somewhere, sometime. It can even be on one of their cable sisters (second window) if they don’t want to rerun it on network.
After that. Use some version of the existing TV rerun formula. With something like each 30-days of streaming equal to a national rerun.
For pay downloads (iTunes, etc.), pay based on 80% instead of 20%, since the manufacturing and distribution costs are so low. It will still only be pennies per download.
And for DVDs. Whatever. Keep it where it is. Maybe double it for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, since the studios can charge a little more and/or sell people movies and TV shows they’ve already bought before in some other format. Beyond that? Who cares. It’ll all be delivered electronically soon enough.
Alistair, great post. In answer to your question about current broadcast residuals, you get paid for anything after the initial broadcast. So if your Grey’s episode gets rerun four days after the first broadcast, you get paid for that. You get a first rerun check, which is the same amount whether the first rerun is four days or four months later. Pretty nice check, actually. Same for cable reruns of CSI (though the cable formula is a little different and the payments aren’t as big.)
The underlying issue, as I see it, is that broadcast reruns are basically an inefficient, blunt delivery device for getting the content to everyone who wants to see it. A lot of people catch the first airing, but some of them miss it and see the second or third or fourth rerun. Internet streaming / downloads are ultra-efficient. Every single person who wants the content gets it, whenever they want. This is great for the consumer, but not so great for the creator of the content (by which I mean both the studio and the writer), because that efficiency ultimately means less ad space to sell. (And I just don’t think that there’ll ever be, say, fifteen million people willing to pay $1.99 to watch an episode of television they used to get for free, so I suspect that paid downloads are not going to be huge part of the market.)
God of War, what would you consider a non-greedy move on the WGA’s part? Taking what they’re offered by the studios and S’ingTFU? Do you know what kind of repercussion a passive act like that would have on EVERYONE who works in the business?
I feel badly for crew members and BTL folks who are out of work, but this is far from the first strike in the history of the industry and it won’t be the last. This is a union biz from the top down and anyone who takes a job in this business should know that strikes and shutdowns come with the territory. It sucks, but it’s true.
Bryan Lourd has too much pride to let these talks crumble under his watch. It would look like he couldn’t get it done. It’s in his best interest to mediate a settlement that will appease both sides. No one’s ever going to be 100% content. I hope it happens quickly, otherwise it’s shaping up to be a pretty miserable holiday season.
re: Kit Sargent 1;57
problem is the writers didn’t play the hackneyed negotiation game but started out of the gate with reasonable terms
they should’ve said no window, to allow room to negotiate up to a few days window
in this digital age, and with the bombardment of so much stuff online, the shelf life of any entertainment or information is eye-blinkingly fast