This video has kicked up quite a fuss. See the update below:
SAG’s new leaders have issued a statement Thursday disputing this video referring to product integration that is posted on YouTube and linked at DHD. However, the video clearly presents the argument against product integration which SAG’s former leadership presented in their official guild statements about why they were were against it. See both sides below.
SAG’s new statement claims: “This video is incorrect and is an example of what a producer cannot do under the terms of the tentative agreement. The tentative agreement does not make any changes relating to ‘Product Integration.’ The contract rules on that point remain exactly the same. For example, if the producer of a television show or theatrical motion picture wants an actor in that production to perform in a commercial (other than a promo or trailer promoting the production itself), the Producer must bargain separately for that performance and must comply with the Commercials Contract if they want to employ a SAG member for that purpose. While Product Integration remains an area where we will continue working to secure greater protections in the future, the maker of this video is mistaken in his belief that this tentative agreement does anything to facilitate Product Integration or make it any more permissible than it ever has been under our contracts.”
However, product integration was a major battleground area for SAG’s previous leadership, and the official SAG website used to explain the issue thusly (and which is in keeping with what the video says):
Why shouldn’t actors just be flexible and endorse whatever products are slipped into their scripts?
Because product integration is really just unpaid commercial endorsement and could put an actor in conflict with his or her commercial work or personal convictions. An actor should be notified and have the right of consent and the ability to bargain for compensation.Shouldn’t You Have the Choice Whether or Not to Do a Commercial Within a Scripted TV Show or Movie?
Screen Actors Guild isn’t opposed to product integration, which helps pay production costs, but actors should have the right to agree to or decline a sales pitch within scripted programs, and they should get paid additional money when they do agree. As commercial actors know, product endorsement is an art in itself. Speaking lines that promote a product has added value that should be rewarded. Furthermore, repeatedly promoting products within shows and movies could easily diminish your value to advertisers in making actual paid commercials. And of course, you would never want to be in a situation that you can’t say no to products and companies you would otherwise never endorse. Producers need to find additional revenue sources, but actors need a reasonable mechanism to be fairly compensated. We also need a joint labor/management study to measure the ongoing impact of product integration.
Finally, George Clooney’s PR Rep Stan Rosenfield says: “Mr. Clooney’s support of a “yes” vote has been well documented.” But nowhere in this video does it say that Clooney is voting “no”. So why the hysteria?






That’s interesting. I wonder if Nespresso will tell Clooney that he won’t get a dime and that they can use his picture instead of his quirky self.
Maybe he’s gonna change his mind and vote no ? After all, he’s not even concerned by the basic agreement. He’s a triple A lister.
Brilliant!!! Hoisted on their own egotistical, self-serving petards.
This is the best illustration of the danger of this contract I’ve seen. Imagine using George’s picture or clips juxtaposed with headlines supporting Proposition 8. Or a photo of Forrest Gump in uniform under a headline reading “Don’t Ask – Don’t tell”
Of course it’s terrible for an actor or star, his/her reputation, and political or commercial crdibility. But just as bad is that the production company that would now own the rights to those images forever would have licensed those images for a fee. They would be paid by whoever wanted to use it. To promote hate, perhaps, or simply make a fool of the actor/star. They can ruin reputations and make money at it. Disgusting.
Anyone want to change their vote?
Interesting how he’s using Clooney’s image to sell his idea. Isn’t that what he’s voting against?
“Merger Already”
are you daft? he’s making a point. you’re an idiot.
great job, brother.
Absolutely brilliant!
Mr. Brown, I love your work, you are one of my favourite. I hope you all guys win this case. I am with you.
Creative and to the point!
Bravo!
Brilliant !
Now let’s see Tom Hanks, and Sally Field.
I’m not daft Denny and understood his point. I just didn’t think Clooney was one of the A listers who wanted to strike (though I could be mistaken). THAT was my only point you idiot.
Of course this isn’t a good contract. Its basically the same contract it was before. The only success any working actor can have is if this contract can go through and the two unions can somehow merge and renegotiate a better deal, TOGETHER.
Two pitbulls fighting over the same carcass. Only 1 will survive. And it looks like the SAG pitbull is the bleeding to death.
Mr. Brown,
You are an amazing actor and a strong pro-union voice.
Thank you for both.
No Clancy, I don’t want to change my vote. I still haven’t heard any SOLUTION from the “Vote No” side. Just scare tactics and defensive posturing.
Also, could you explain to me how the WGA and DGA lost their union “but don’t know it”, as you claimed in your ” Vote No” video?
Respectfully,
Chad Lowe
I don’t know what this guy is thinking, but he’s been fed a line of bull. He should have read the contract before he agreed to do this stunt. This is a last minute scramble by the ‘NO’ voters to misinform once again.
The deal that is in front of us now says that a producer cannot use anyone’s image for commercial use other than promoting the show he or she is in. There’s no change in the product placement language from last contract to this. This includes the New Media area as well.
It’s a complete fabrication and this guy should be ashamed of himself for getting duped.
This is more distraction from President George W. Rosenberg and crew. They can’t win on facts so they make crap up at the last minute to scare people. This is ‘WMD’s in Iraq’- a falsehood designed to play to the fears of the average person.
Terrible behavior!
What is and is not endorsement of a product?
If you wear clothing is that an endorsement. If so then the actors should refuse to wear clothing and do the shows naked.
How about watches and jewelery.
How about car, trucks, and motorcycles.
How about trains, and planes or hot air balloons?
What is not a product endorsement?
I could list everything an actor picks up and uses.
So Clint Eastwood can only sell .44 Magnums and Mel Gibson the Beretta 9mm. No other gun manufacturer would dare use them for anything else.
Lets list all the various foods and drinks that actors use. Coffee, soda’s, martinis, vodka’s etc. They eat hot dogs, hamburgers from various fast food joints, plus a lot of faux restaurant meals at realistic restaurants that most consumers could not afford etc.
The hysteria of this is mind boggling to me in the age of the DVR were I zap through the commercials and I can understand the producers losing money from ads that are not being watched. They might need to put a few products into the show or there would be no show and thus NO acting jobs.
I was talking with a friend about it and he made a good point. Since there is no right to the image and you can be used for anything without authorization, you could be promoting stuff for like the KKK, the NRA while you’re against gun proliferation of weapons, The chicken industry while you’re a vegan, Michael J Fox image could be used by the people against stem cell research while he’s adamantly for.
And as the Clooney’s PR just demonstrates, clooney cannot do anything about it since he is for the contract. He can’t demand the video be taken down. And that’s for a non profit message. What happens when his cutie face is used for profit….
To use someone’s photo at the top of the video and for you Nikki to allow the reader to initially believe it’s from Clooney is pretty dishonest.
I get the guy’s point but to sink so low is just another clue as to the honesty of the maker of said video.
Bullshit. Dishonest. Trying to confuse the members AGAIN.
There are times I see posts from MFers that start to make me think but then they do stuff like this that makes me think you just can’t trust these guys.
Pauly
Pauly -
Actually, since you listened to the piece, and since you see the guy’s point, there’s nothing dishonest about this video. He used George Clooney’s picture to illustrate a point, and George Clooney’s PR rep didn’t have a problem with it.
The “MFer” in question was doing exactly what the moguls would be able to do if we ratify this giant crap sandwich of an AMPTP offer – hand you the actor on-set blue pages at the last minute, shove a product into your hand and tell you to say the lines singing the praise of the product and use the product in-character. Never mind that they just totally threw you out of character because now you’re wondering what’s going to happen to that lucrative national spot you’ve got with a competitor’s product that’s up for renewal in a few weeks, or that commercial you just booked.
If you get the point, then you know you need to vote NO.
To MHeister
Sorry buddy, bullshit is bullshit. I hate it when someone tries to “sell me a load of crap and call it gold.” It’s because of things like this video and your post, that I say I wouldn’t trust you guys as far as I could throw you. I voted YES and after seeing this, I’m so f’n relieved that I did..
Pauly