Paramount & Dreamworks Animation Open Cannes: Sacha … 
Cannes: Hot Film Titles For U.S. Buyers 
Bill Block’s QED Gets Cash Infusion From Media … 
Aaron Sorkin To Script ‘Steve Jobs,’ Based On … 
Warner Bros Tops $1B At Global Box Office 
Waterstone Enlists Chris Pine And Pals For Indie Comedy … 
Jimmy Kimmel Skewers ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox & The … 
Steve Jobs Biopic Starring Ashton Kutcher To Cannes: … 
Alexander Payne Wants Bruce Dern And Will Forte To … 
Amy Adams In Talks To Venture Into ‘Dark 
ABC’s ‘Mistresses’ Summer-Bound, … 
Alec Baldwin And James Toback Team On Cannes Docu … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: No Howard Stern Surge For ‘America’s … 
CBS Films Acquires ‘Ends Of The Earth’ At 
Student Academy Award Winners Announced 
Can Cannes Make A Major Mark On The Oscar Race Two Years In … 
Single-Camera Comedy Mayhem: ABC, NBC & Fox To Clash … 
2012-13 ABC Schedule: Comedy Block On Friday, … 
2012-13 New Series Leads: Strong Year For Black Actors, … 
Rebekah Brooks First Person To Be Charged In News Corp … 
David Yates Confirms His Exit From ‘Your Voice In My … 
(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 ...
Now that Ziffren’s maybe involved, it’s going to be resolved
It comes down to two things…first, what the capable and intelligent Kit says…it’s a negotiation, and second…the simplest fact, or what I considier the “truth” of this for writers. After the Studios best summer in history…and with the internet already generating $$$$ what do we want? We want what we had with broadcast television…if we write a good enough show that you can play it over and over and make money…ANYWHERE…that shouldn’t mean a CUT IN PAY. Why are studios so intent on trying to keep us from paying our rent? What’s the victory in that?
I am increasingly less interested in what the formula is…like so many writers, I just want to know that in a period of enormous profits, astronomical salaries for studio heads and executives and legions of new and money-making markets, no one is going to seriously consider an offer where we end up making LESS MONEY for generating more profit.
You’re all rich on the backs of what we wrote. Now don’t expect us to give you even more than we have already.
I don’t understand where this idea that a first time re-run is FREE came from. That’s just not the case. Say you’re a model, and your product is your face and body and the photo product that comes from that. Upon running your image in each magazine or format, you get a payment EVERYTIME for the use of your product. It is the same in Film and TV. This is what is meant by RE-USE. Residuals are re-use payments and they start from the very first re-use.
I stand by the original bottom line of 2.5% for every re-use no matter what the format and 0.6% DVD. Do not lose the game. The game is maintaining the current residual rate. Anything less is an erosion and crime against your peers who are currently climbing the ranks.
I agree with PJ@12:49P. I’m glad there are negotiators at the table, but I believe the rank and file can’t afford to lose this battle. It’s up to the “plebe” writers when it comes to ratification, and I think anything less than the original rates transferred to the internet rips off our next generation of talent.
Alistair,
The initial, fixed payment is for creation. Secondary, varied payments (i.e. residuals) are for use of that creation. Together they equal a writer’s “salary.”
Stop telling WGA members what YOU think WE should do.
Thank GOD none of the dolts on this thread are in the negotiating room.
You’re giving everyone douche-chills.
if, indeed, this is the real deal from amptp, we writers will look like fools — and worse — if we don’t take it.
Kit Sargent,
Not only are you named after a fantastic classic TV character dame, you make tons of sense. I only hope that you are a show runner or some other influential individual as you are a real voice of reason.
The studios have realized that their bluff didn’t work, now the writers need to get over the victim thing. It’s a negotiation. It was a joke before,the companies made a bold move, got shot down, fine, but now the real work begins.
No one will come away “happy” or “victorious.” That’s the nature of negotiation.
For the first time EVER advertisers are contemplating asking for actual MONEY back, not just “make-goods” on the eyeballs that haven’t been delivered.
The so-called stockpiling of movie scripts didn’t really work as big pictures are shutting down.
Network advertising represents 45 BILLION dollars in annual revenue to the companies. If the advertisers start actually asking for cash back, that will have a huge impact. The studios feel pain.
The town is almost shut down for TV. All creatives are feeling pain, the teamsters are feeling pain, fine, we get it, we’ve had our shock and awe and now everyone is hurting.
So, now, the pain is being felt by all which means everyone has to get down to the hard work of hammering out a deal no one will love.
Or the business as we know it may be destroyed beyond repair.
No one wants that. No one. Please let’s let cooler heads prevail. Let’s be thankful that a skilled negotiator of show business deals is helping out with mediation. Let’s dial down the rhetoric and leave out terms like “hardball” or “have some balls” or really anything that involves balls.
Let’s leave balls out of it. Let’s be sober-minded and just get down to the task at hand.
No deal will be struck until the full force of the force majure can take place…the studios are cleaning house …but the sad news is this…lots of new game shows, equal or better ratings, a tenth of the cost…do the math
Picketingwriter: Studios may have had the “best summer in history” movie-wise (though actually it depends on what metrics you are using), but prime time scripted TV, which is what the issues we’re at strike over are mostly about, is a business in pretty serious trouble. Very few first, second or third-season shows recouping their deficits (and this is putting aside shady studio accounting). Those that are, facing a much dimmer syndication market than the hits of yesteryear. Reality and game show hits delivering MUCH better profit margins than scripted shows without any deficit risk at all.
So, it’s a little more complicated than you suggest.
Klaatu- your proposal is really smart. Around the first week of the strike, I had a conversation with a WGA NegComm member and suggested something around the same lines (guaranteeing the first rerun check and including some streaming rights in it.) The response was, basically, ‘interesting idea, but it would have to come from the other side, because we wouldn’t want to put it on the table and look weak.’
So, my hope is, a month later, these sorts of creative solutions are being considered.
I am WGA. Can I just say a couple things:
1. This six-week bullshit is absurd and there is no way the WGA membership will accept it.
and
2. The distinction made in online delivery (digital sell through vs. online download is not based in *ANYTHING* except trying to extend the concepts of TV broadcast and DVD to a digital world.
Streaming vs. downloading is arbitrary. To download you have to “stream” data to the home computer. To “stream” you are effectively downloading. The only distinction is whether it’s being viewed “now” or “later” or both. Which all depends on the consumer’s ability to do so.
I’m seriously worried these negotiations are swirling around flawed, analog, archaic models which will be shattered within a few months of the agreement.
IT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE BETWEEN ONLINE “STREAMING” AND “DOWNLOAD”. THEY ARE TECHNICALLY THE SAME THING.
The companies will take advantage of this once a deal is made.
I think a free week of streaming is okay, so people can catch up and still tune in for the new episode (of a serialized show let’s say.) After that, they can pay for it, a small price, and the studio and creators of the work can share in the profit (with the creative side getting a tiny piece.)
But as in a few years the entire library of a studio’s tv shows and movies will be available to stream — with ads — over your tv (with its amazing net connection) the writers need to get a piece of this. This is the new syndication market. A free week for an eternity of payment for streamed viewings seems reasonable to me.
re: Mike — November 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm and
Alistair — November 29, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Re: reruns in the first week after initial airing and sometimes the run of the same episode in a small time frame on another network (i.e. a cable partner) will NOT count as a rerun in terms of paying the writer, but is called “promotional,” even if additional advertising dollars are generated.
Jennifer G., TV writer
@Tom 3:23, if the networks start glutting up the schedule with all reality/game shows, it’ll be the best thing to happen to writers. People will get so saturated with these programs, the pendulum will swing and scripted tv will be in greater demand than ever.
Even “reality” tv producers are not thrilled with the new over saturation by studios because they know it will create a backlash against their genre.
Can you say short term thinking? (“you do the math” went out about 5 years ago)
excerpted from AP:
“You could imagine a future that has so much reality that the nation clamors for scripted content because it seems so fresh and new after all the reality content they’ve seen,” he said.
Marc Berman, analyst for Media Week Online, notes that reality has been part of broadcast TV since the start — “Candid Camera” was born in 1948. “The Real World” got the new-wave party going in 1992, with the genre exploding in 2000 when ABC launched (and then overdosed on) “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” and CBS struck “Survivor” gold.
Alternative TV is more entrenched than ever.
“We opened the fall season with the most nonscripted programming ever seen in the history of television,” Berman said. It’s cheaper to produce and “a lot of it works, so why not do it?”
But “if the strike continues with no end in sight, and there’s more and more reality, viewers will get fed up with it,” he predicted.
Langley, who also produces the new series “Jail” for MyNetworkTV, already is disheartened. He argues that while “Cops” was a groundbreaker that brought an arthouse-style documentary program to network TV, most reality shows are simply dressed-up contests.
“It’s all game shows,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s `Survivor’ or `The Biggest Loser’ or `The Bachelor’ or `Amazing Race.’”
And more is not better, according to Langley.
“You’re going to get a lot of bad reality shows as a consequence of the strike. … It encourages all kinds of dilution of my franchise,” he said.
yeah, an internet download looks great (sarcasm) on my 108″ screen. if the world started replacing their plasmas and lcds for computer monitors id believe your bullshit. you guys are idiots.
Hey self-proclaimed “WGA Writer with Business Sense,”
Not that my MBA means anything, but if the business as we know it is “destroyed beyond repair,” it won’t be because writers refused to come back under terms we consider fair, but because acceptable contract terms were never offered.
I for one will not ratify another “compromise” between a good wage and a poor one. Not this time.
Writer @3:51,
When people say “streaming”, they generally mean free, ad-supported downloads (i.e. nbc.com). When they say “downloads”, they generally mean pay/purchase downloads (i.e. iTunes).
The terms aren’t perfect, but that’s generally how they are being used.
Reality shows are more profitable in the short term. They are generaly cheaper to produce and license fees are greater than production costs.
But a hit scripted show is generally more profitable than a hit reality show, because they rerun and syndicate and stream and sell online and sell on DVD and sell internationally much better. If a show is not a hit though, it can lose money because often the cost or production exceeds the license fee.
However, many reality shows can’t be piloted. They need to shoot an entire cycle on an island or on a house or on the farm where farmer wants a wife, before they know if anyone wants to watch it. When they get cancelled immediately, which is happening more and more as new reality ideas suck, they can actually lose a lot of money.
reality bites, an HD download will look great on your TV.
reality bites @ 3:58 PM:
Actually, you’re the idiot.
See there’s this thing called Internet2. It will allow data rates that equal a DVD in about 7 seconds.
I’d tell you more, but it might hurt your head to have to do all that thinking.
Writer, if you’re going to be so angry about the proposal, at least know the difference between the 2 things. The difference between “streaming” and “download,” as they’re being referred to in these negotiations, is this:
Streaming is when someone watches a movie/show online for free, and ads are inserted it. Like right now when you watch a show on a network’s website. Download is when someone pays to own a download of the movie/show, and there are no ads in them. Many people think in the future, streaming will be similar to broadcast tv (your tv “streams” the show, with advertising, and downloading will be like buying the show on dvd.
If a real estate agent tried to sell you a parcel of land on Mars at a great price, was rebuffed, then came back with a “terrific deal” on a parcel of land in the middle of the Mohave, would that, in your opinion, “smack of a comprimise”?
“an HD download will look great on your TV.”
yeah im going to wait the 3 days to download 30 gigs. NOT!
Whatever the negotiation result, all I see when I look at network television is a dying business. Each year viewing declines. Internet usage for scripted shows will not attract the ad revenue broadcasting does. Belt tightening should have gone further by the networks years ago but methods and practices are still wasteful in a way that wouldn’t be tolerated in most businesses.
Small old style nets WB and UPN failed and replacement CW doesn’t look like it will ever get off the ground. That’s less writers being paid. The more economically run Univision often has higher ratings than the CW. That’s less well paying work for writers. Where have all the syndicated scripted shows gone?
The only bright spot is more cable companies are producing scripted shows but they will never have the ad money the networks made and subscriptions have probably already peaked.
umm Captain,
you think my cable company is going to let me have all that bandwidth required for my 35 bucks a month and cut them out of the other 200 i pay for all the channels? yeah you are a bright one.