Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
CNN Hits 20-Year Weekday Primetime Low 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
Best Buy Shares Up Pre-Market As Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Will ‘Paperboy’ Heat Domestic Buying At Cannes? … 
Millennium Films Buys Spec Thriller ‘Playing … 
Will ‘American Idol’s’ Jessica Sanchez … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
CBS’ ‘Rules Of Engagement’ Renewed For … 
Facebook Shares Fall Below Offering Price Even As Market … 
UTA Signs ‘Intouchables’ Star Omar Sy 
SAG’s National Executive Director David White has been telling everyone what rotten financial shape the Guild is in — despite $27 million in reserves — to the point that he’s firing 36 employees and promising a hiring freeze. So you would think that the union would be on an austerity budget. But noooooooooooooo. Instead, I’ve just learned tonight that SAG has retained one of the priciest flackeries, The Saylor Company (begun by ex-LA Times senior business editor and ex-Sitrick & Company flack Mark Saylor) to develop a PR campaign that will persuade members to ratify the SAG-AMPTP tentative contract. His other clients paying through the nose have included the governments of Dubai and Ethiopia, and indicted Broadcom guy Henry Nicholas. The firm claims it’s “known for handling high-stakes communications and top-level media relations. The firm’s professionals have advised major corporations, governments and high-profile individuals when the circumstances are complex and decisions are critical. Our clients count on us to map out strategies quickly and execute plans that deliver results.”
I’ve confirmed that Saylor has been working for SAG secretly for the past month. Don’t get me wrong: Mark Saylor is very good at his job. ”The staff at SAG have spent the last year arguing against this contract. Now they have to argue for this contract,” an insider tells me tonight in defense of Saylor’s hiring. “Wouldn’t you want to bring in a fresh set of eyes in thinking through communications strategy?”
But this follows SAG’s recent hiring a 6-figure second banana mouthpiece to assist Pam Greenwalt in communications (even though she very ably handled the office by herself for years). To be fair, SAG’s previous leadership hired Sitrick & Company’s ex-LA Times senior business editor Jim Bates at what was described to me at the time as a pro bono modest rate to help part-time with the PR war that the Guild was facing mano a mano against the AMPTP during last summer’s negotiations stalemate. But that was run past the SAG National Board. I’m told that by contrast the hiring of The Saylor Company was not brought to the attention of the National Board like it should have been during the recent two full days of meetings. Then again, the current SAG leadership isn’t known for its transparency.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Good idea, Working actor #274- I too will be forwarding an email to all my fellow actors encouraging them to vote no! I may not be getting paid for it but I think a good grassroots effort is in order….
David
It was 10 THOUSAND – not 1 THOUSAND, and of those 10k who voted? – 87% voted to “keep working for a better contract.
Get it right.
SAG paying big bucks to some PR Hack is just part of the Hollywood-Welfare-Stimulus-Package-Pass-thru…
(3.) The National Board has the final exclusive authority with regard to the following matters, except that the National Board may delegate that final authority at its discretion:
(c) approving budget additions in excess of $50,000 except that the N.E.C. may authorize any necessary budget addition if the Board of Directors cannot do so in a timely fashion;
Again.
I’m selling two apples. One apple, from American Farm TRAders, sells for 50 cents. The other, from Swell Acres Growers, sells for 60 cents, because after fighting the good fight, they were able to secure a provision in their exchange agreement that requires the buyer to fork over another 10 cents six months down the line. 50 cents and 60 cents.
What buyer on Earth would pay 60 cents when he or she can get the same apple for 50 cents!!!!
You can’t fight the logic. It’s over.
And if there’s anybody who’s still confused about ‘favored nations’? It doesn’t exist in the AFTRA deal as regards to New Media. Do your homework.
I firmly believe there is still stuff we have to fight for, but not now. That ship sailed when AFTRA made it’s deal. But, once we’re merged, I will be the first person on the strike line, if need be. Until then–futile.
I was mortified by the PR blitz the shove the merger up our asses, rather than allow us to think for ourselves. Even if I had liked the “devil of the details” in the proposed merger, I was so *appalled* and felt so railroaded into voting “yes,” I might have voted no just to express my disgust.
I hope this horrendous expenditure of SAG funds backfires the same way the “barrage” for the AFTRA/SAG merger arguably did.
Really creepy.
Todd Waring: “I firmly believe there is still stuff we have to fight for, but not now.”
Wimpy: “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
I would like to ask Bill Charlton, just how many Major Role performers are there out of the 120,000 members of Screen Actors Guild, who would benifit by this contract being voted up? How may of the 120,000 members would be devastated by the loss of residuals if this contract passed?
we need a massive NO! rally!
hollywood division members should stand up by themselves and show their unity!
they won’t do it so therefore the crooks who have stolen the guild laugh all the way to the bank!
the weekday lunchtime rallies were cute, but there were never more than 100 and most not big names.
the media gave then a wink and a nod but nothing serious.
until the membership grows a backbone and stands together the crooks win!
@ Todd Waring
HAHAHAHA! YOu are so clever! Quick question:
Does your hypothetical buyer get to use, reuse and resell the apple over and over even re-packaging your apples with other apples, using your name, your tale…
Oh fuck it. YOu just can’t fix stupid.
It’s still OUR union. We have the power to vote this egregiously bad contract down. We are the members and we don’t have to cave to the bullying demands of the AMPTP. If you want to retain some semblance of your residual structure in the future…vote NO! This is NOT a hard choice, folks. In the twenty-five years I’ve been a SAG member, this is the easiest choice I’ve ever had to make. Honestly….
Good things rarely need a PR firm.
I keep trying to find the words that will convince everyone of the indisputable, irrefutable, irresistible fact that we have everything to gain by voting “No,” on this killer contract that employers themselves told us; they would use to eliminate Residuals. AFTRA has agreed to that, so if you want to work under a shitty contract with No Residuals; you have the AFTRA Contract. You don’t need SAG to concede that. Go work under that contract. We have everything to gain by not accepting this proposal. We have our superior SAG Contracts to protect as long as we can hold onto them. The Big Kahuna Contracts that give us a ton of leverage; is our Motion Picture Feature Film Contracts. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers; cannot produce their most lucrative, prosperous, desirable product; Motion Picture Feature Films; until they make a deal with us. They are afraid of being shut down in the midst of a gigantically budgeted, tent-pole blockbuster; and their insurance companies will not guarantee their completion, until they have a deal with us. That gives us a lot of strength for as long as it lasts; and I guarantee that our holding power will last longer than theirs, and that, that their Multi-National Conglomerate CEO’s, Stockholders, Investors and Public Opinion; will allow their pea-shooter, bean counter negotiators; to piss around, while the biggest, most successful part of their business is being shut down. And speaking of Opinion; how about the Opinion piece in the LA Times, one of the most pro management rags around anywhere, with this paragraph amongst others;
“SAG hard-liners argued that any sacrifices made today in new media would come to haunt them once the Internet becomes the dominant form of distribution. Their position is supported by SAG’s experience with the studios on cable TV, VHS and DVD — low initial residuals never gave way to larger shares.”
That was in the Tuesday April 21st edition.
Next time I’ll get into the insanity of why we would help the AMPTP, create Non-Union Production, to compete with the Low Budget Agreements, that we created successfully to compete with a Non-Union Production Labor Pool; and we do roughly 2000 such Low Budgets a year under the budget line; that this contract would allow them to go Non-Union with
$67 Million lost ain’t shit compared to what all the roll overs will cost us. It’s peanuts.
And yes Virginia, we do have a solution. We are not the party of “NO.” It’s just “NO,” to this deal. We have a great alternative to offer. Kill this deal and we’ll give you the Bible on the New Deal. In fact, I was a corporate officer in a company called New Deal Pictures, that employed the model until a partner tragically died. The Model’s been used in many other individual cases. We at SAG, had at one time started negotiations for such a Model with the IPA, the Independent Producers Association. The DGA and WGA, were in on some of the meetings. It’s time to revive it.
And please don’t give me that Sam Freed ‘Sunset Story.’ What are they telling us? The first three times the AMPTP lied and cheated us on Cable, on VHS, on DVD; they were just kidding? This time they’re really real, they’re really gonna’ be good guys this time. This time!!!!
Dear Hank Yablonski,
It doesn’t matter what the buyer does with the product. It matters which contract the producer uses.
If SAG has a ‘better’ contract, but nobody uses it because they can go next door and use AFTRA; then it doesn’t matter if we hold out for everything we want in our deal, because it will sit on the shelf and collect dust.
Just look at all the new TV contracts AFTRA scooped up.
It doesn’t get much plainer than that.
*****
Dear Zachery,
Nice argument. Think much?
Dear Bill Charlton,
I wish it were as simple as “contract good” or “contract bad.”
It isn’t.
My comment about the possible further deterioration of SAG revenues if the new contract is ratified was made in the context of why I voted to approve the FY2010 budget. A budget that included the staff reduction. A budget that projected an even further deterioration in revenues.
As I said, laying people off is the most difficult thing a manager has to do and we got confirmation of that at the board meeting. It sucks. The board members that bothered to show up had to think hard and seriously about endorsing that budget. And listen, I am sure, deep in David White’s heart, he was hoping someone would come up with a way to avoid having to lay anyone off. But it didn’t happen.
The revenue for FY2010 was budgeted to deteriorate by 7%. That is a pretty standard number to use in a recession. I was concerned that it was too optimistic. This is the worst economy any of us have ever experienced. And there is no predicting how much further it may deteriorate. My question to David in the meeting was simple, “Do you think you are done (cutting jobs and services)?”
I wasn’t baiting him. I am worried. I’ve been through a few recessions and my experience tells me that when you think you’ve cut costs as much as possible, circumstances will force you to cut more. Still you hope and pray it won’t happen.
But I had to vote. It wasn’t a blog post or a SAG website video. It was a vote that would have immediate consequences to some people who were working everyday for the benefit of members. I admit I wasn’t considering how I might benefit from any nominal increases in major role premiums. My main concern was that the 7% discount might devolve to 10% or 12% or 20%.
The “good” news was that the FY 2009 budget underestimated the revenue shortfall by 3% through 6 months as presented to the board. Some of that has been made up in the intervening months, but Doug Allen, before he was summarily dismissed, had already cut $5.6 million in expenses and frozen hiring. That doesn’t make him a hero. It’s what he had to do and he did it; but it doesn’t leave much room for error or under-estimation of revenue going forward. FY 2010, if worse than projected, will result in more layoffs. And, as I said, layoffs suck.
Ratification or rejection are the possibilities and BOTH results trigger scenarios that could deteriorate revenues beyond 7%. You might just as well ask me how I could presume voting down the contract results in a protracted strike. What might my math be for that? Or am I basing it on assumptions regarding a positive strike authorization, or facts? I do know that the Made for New Media terms are unlikely to ameliorate any revenue shortfall because 1) there will be no residuals and 2) “scale” in Made for New Media is minimum wage. Add to that the under $25k non-union space that will contribute nothing and we are left to hope the nominal increases you mention will save the day. No one is going down that road and I would be derelict to do so even if I was a UFSer given the possible real scenarios. The projection is 7%. I voted to approve and I’ll cross my fingers.
The point of my post was really the lack of transparency in the hiring of The Saylor Company and the ramifications of it on the remainder of the FY2009 Budget and the FY2010 Budget going forward. I understand how you might have defaulted to the conclusion that it was an argument against ratification. I’ve got more and better ones than just the New Media terms, though. The negotiation and the National Board Majority machinations color just about everything these days and it’s hard to disengage from the self-involved and misguided politics. Believe me, I know how hard it is, but I’m trying. Especially when it comes to issues of transparency and the integrity of my vote.
The spin over the budget and past budgets is inaccurate. SAG is not in financial trouble and there is no basis to any declaration of mismanagement or over-hiring or whatever. That shit is political and irrelevant. The budget going forward needs scrupulous oversight. Not because one might have some opinion or other about David White or UFS or the National Board Majority or MF or Alan Rosenberg or Doug Allen; but because there is a decided lack of certainty and confidence in the world economy and no guarantees the TV/Theatrical contract vote will have any positive impact however it resolves.
The fact is, and you should take some solace in this, the budget vote did not follow factional lines. At least not where MF was concerned. Several aligned with MF voted to approve based on the information presented. No one from the National Board Majority broke ranks of course, but it might happen someday over something…maybe.
We can and should, however, demand full disclosure and strict adherence to the rules of governance and internal procedures. The elected board and SAG employees, are answerable to membership no matter how inconvenient, unwieldy, or routine the matter might seem. And now more than ever. Mr. White has since made assurances that there is no financial impact to his decision to change PR firms. I hope that’s true and desperately want to take him at his word; but it shouldn’t have taken a fucking blog article to find out about it. There are mechanisms and procedures internally that could have avoided this whole issue had they been followed. Anyone of us could have helped to put this fire out if the transaction had been transparent from the start. Simple as that.
The ‘sunset clause’ has never been in writing before.
The transparency has never been in writing before.
That’s the difference.
And unlike Cable, VHS, and DVD, they’ve had a couple years already to try out some models and nobody’s making any real money yet. And corporations have throw millions at trying to find a way. It’s going to take a couple more years before anything works big-time in the internet, if at all.
The next negotiations start in less then two years.
Hey Zachery,
Ever go to the movies? That’s what’s going to be ‘sitting on the shelves gathering dust:’ all the movies they don’t have enough faith in to spend the money it costs to attract an audience; while the 200 they have scripts, money and cast for; sit waiting at the ‘starting gate’ until they can get a deal with us. That’s what’s called power and this is for all the marbles.
You know, we’ve been here before; us little rag-tag dissidents. We beat their big bad machine with two ill conceived Mergers, that would have had us buried already; we defeated a Financial Interest scheme engineered by SAG powers to be at the time, the AMPTP, the ATA, AFTRA; and we succeeded to implement Global Rule One, with the entire Globe against us. C’mon Ye of so little faith. Save your Union. Worst case, we go down fighting and work as indentured slaves under an AFTRA Contract. That’s another thing; if we win, we can begin to bring all actors under one contract, the superior contract, the SAG contract, by referendum, by litigation, lobbying, by whatever means available to free men and women in the United Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Labor
I don’t understand the fear about a better contract. Let’s say Todd Waring is right: SAG gets a better deal than AFTRA.
Then, according to Waring, all the TV shows go AFTRA. Actors who work the AFTRA contract will be working the crappy contract that WAS offered to SAG. Dollar for dollar, no residual for no residual, the TV actors will get exactly what they would get if we had accepted this crappy deal being offered to SAG membership now.
So where’s the loss to the actor? It’s the same contract.
Then, three years from now when Waring believes there will be a merger. If that’s true the base contract we all negotiate from will be the better SAG contract. SAG/AFTRA as one have a better foundation to negotiate from if there is a merger.
In the meantime, SAG actors in film have benefited for three years from the residuals and gains which there is no question will not and cannot be produced under the AFTRA agreement. And the actors who worked in SAG TV shows filmed prior to this AFTRA primetime TV switcheroo will for these next three years benefit from the better SAG contract we win and the residuals for their previously filmed reruns.
I mean no insult to Mr. Waring, but gains for SAG actors in terms of residuals for all the pre 2009 TV shows in future re-runs is substantial. And in addition Film work will pay a living wage. How is it you discount that Mr. Waring?
If SAG membership accepts this offer there is no difference to the actor whether he works the SAG or AFTRA contract–except that the AFTRA pension and health fund is failing.
Those who work in Film or who have re-runs on the air of SAG shows filmed before say, May of June 2009, will lose a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money.
When you go through the details of the offer that AFTRA agreed, there is no good and valid reason to accept that deal.
There are plenty of threats, name-calling and finger-pointing, there is a lot of emotional tyranny and the sky is falling down simplistic “logic” about plumbers and flushing toilets aimed at actors mostly but there is not a good single reason to accept the deal on the table.
What does that remind you of? It reminds me of George Bush and all his toadies selling the Iraq Invasion and 3 page trillion dollar bail-out plans. All a lot of bullshit.
The merits of this deal do not stand up, not on their own. Period. I’m voting no and laughing at the inevitable PR spin campaign as if it were coming from Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.
Like one of my first acting teachers said, “It’s all on the page – the rest is bullshit.” In this recycled AFTRA deal, the bullshit is on the page.
Dave –
“50,000 are going to vote no?”
Wake up Dave, I have the list here it’s 50000 strong. No kidding, want it? Send me your email.
(Gilda Radner) Todd!
Two Words “Todd!”
FEATURE. FILMS.
SAG. NOT AFTRA – SAG.
TV?
yeah, 64 pilots – you know how many will get on the air? 20? MAYBE? You know how many of those will be actual honest-to-God hits?
2. MAYBE.
Let’s at least TRY to be honest about how much leverage SAG still has if 41 members of the National Board can get through puberty and start making some adult decisions.
First of all, Clancy, thank you very much for your very well laid out reasoned post and lucidity. I appreciated your forthrightness, and I would agree re oversight and it should transcend any and all political tacts. Though I tend to disagree with you politically, I admire your thought and debate.
Made for New Media is still an infant, and there is not all that much of it being done that is making any money. I think of it more like student films, where we have a contract that we give our work away for free. To hold out for a better deal strictly in the Made for New Media sideletter is useless, in my opinion.
Terence, what loss in residuals are you talking about In the contract? Usage is a different debate and a different story. But the contract provides for a net gain in residuals in traditional and an increase in Electronic sell through, like renting a movie through Netflix or from iTunes at twice the DVD rate.
The hate being spewed by several people on this site is truly sad. The commercial negs worked because actors of different thoughts were able to work toward compromise without calling each other names. This lack of respect just proves that many of you would rather destroy what we have than arrive through debate at a compromise.
And finally, Anne-Marie Johnson. It’s been reported in the blogs that SAG has spent over $100,000 defending itself against the lawsuit filed by you and Alan Rosenberg. The union with your assent spent, what $150,000 to try and defeat the AFTRA contract, and another $100,000 on what may of us feel was a push-poll, not a true referendum on what we thought. I also seem to remember that SAG hired a pr firm(Sitrick) to sell the membership with this poll. It’s okay when you do it, but not okay when someone else does?
I don’t see why there is such a fuss – or an attempt to make.
As 1VP Ms. Johnson noted SAG had hired a PR firm last year….and all that has happend was a change in vendor…nothing new, not an expense that wasn’t there before. We already had a PR firm hired by Doug Allen. and now Mr. White wishes to use a different company. For all we knoe, maybe the fees were cheaper.
After wading through the knee-jerk vitriol and the puerile name-calling, it seems to boil down to this: Since we all want the same thing (a contract that we can live under) would a strike be successful?
Some people think it will.
Despite the vertical integration that pits SAG against multinational conglomerations, whose bottom lines are barely effected by Hollywood doings,
Despite the fact that SAG has no strike fund and if recent financial revelations persist, it doesn’t look like there will be any time soon,
Despite the mounting foreclosures that show no sign of ending,
Despite the lost good will of the town we work in,
Despite the apparent lack of support from the WGA, DGA and the rest of the unions,
Despite all the signs pointing to the worst possible time for a strike,
Some people think that if we just hang together we’ll get a better deal that every producer will want to use, despite AFTRA’s cheaper deal.
I just disagree.
Bill C -
I think you missed the point here. David White – possibly with a wink from a handful of corporate appeasers – did an end-run around both top elected SAG officials Rosenberg and Johnson AND the national board. Obviously the corporate appeasers are in charge and they’re going to hire and fire and change PR firms and whatnot (and some of us may not be happy about some of that, but that’s another story), however, the union’s business should be conducted in the light of day and in the spirit of a democratic institution.
The manner in which this change occurred is anti-democratic. The firings are clearly politically-motivated, as SAG has significant reserves. In short, the corporate appeasers have shown their true colors in a variety of ways, and SAG members should keep this in mind as they consider their votes on the theatrical contract and in the upcoming elections.