Weinsteins Want Miramax Name Back 
'Saw 3D' vs 'Paranormal Activity 2' Battle … 
TV TUG OF WAR: It's Ellen vs Simon, And … 
Robert De Niro Returns To CAA From WME; Jane … 
Fox Wins Studio War For Robert Rodriguez' … 
Weinstein Co Gets "New Lease On Life"? 
Nicole Kidman Hires Angelina's Manager 
So What Are The Hot Films At Sundance? 
Huge $70M Settlement In TV Writers Age … 
TOLDJA! Momoa Chosen 'Conan' Barbarian 
Oscar Campaign Badmouthing Has Begun! 
SAG leadership sent this to members Tuesday night:
SAG CONTRACT 2008 REPORT
Number 1
April 22, 2008
SAG and the AMPTP have been meeting since negotiations began on April 15. Our proposals address many issues facing today’s middle-income actors. Below is information on this important topic.
Middle-Income Actors…Are You Feeling the Squeeze?
Most middle class actors are. One of our top priorities in our current TV/ Theatrical negotiations is the plight of middle-income actors. We’ve heard it over and over again,...you are not earning the same income that you did several years ago for the same work.
How things look for middle-income actors today
• The average annual TV/Theatrical earnings for middle-income actors is approximately $52,000 a year.
• When actors are employed, their overall compensation is decreasing.
• Inflation adjusted average session earnings are dropping.
• Average inflation adjusted residuals decreased 7% from 2003 to 2007.
• Changes in the broadcast business model mean fewer employment opportunities for actors.
• Fewer network reruns mean less residual payments for actors.
• Realty TV has taken a big bite out of your residuals, and initial compensation for actors.
• Under current contract terms, it takes a day player at least 38 days at scale to qualify for our Pension & Health Plan 1 health insurance.
• Major Role actors (featured, guests stars, etc.) have to work on FIVE half hour shows, with 1 network replay each, to qualify for Plan 1, and seven shows without reruns.
Here’s what we are asking for
1. Reasonable Increases in minimums for all categories of performers.
2. Reasonable Increases in Major Role Minimums.
Minimums have become maximums. The overwhelming majority of Major Role actors are not able to negotiate salaries. Their jobs are being offered at Major Role Minimum (“Top of Show”) as a take it or leave it proposition.
3. Protections and Compensation for Product Integration.
Actors are being forced to incorporate clumsy dialog and action in television series and motion pictures more and more each season. We are seeking reasonable solutions, which include compensation and pre-approval for performing product integration. This is not the soda can on the table anymore. It’s scripted and is an integral part of the story and plot development.
4. Increases in Money Breaks.
5. Improvements in Terms and Conditions for background Actors, Stunt Performers, Dancers and Singers.
Please note that the above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of our proposals. It is just intended to keep you informed of the highlights. We will keep you apprised of developments as the negotiation process continues. Check SAG 24/7 website at www.sag.org.
Loading ...
Did I read this right that actors want to have approval over what product placement they are involved in and also want a piece of the revenue from product placement? Jesus Harold and Mary are they actors or producers? “Clumsy dialog and action”…gee I thought that was all cleared up in the writer’s strike. Maybe these actors should be going out and making product placement deals themselves and selling it to the production. Everyone wants to be a Producer these days. What ever happened to Directing?
I don’t see how the AMPTP cannot accept these proposals as presented by SAG. If the AMPTP plays hardball on just one of them, that is the moral basis for a strike and the public will approve of that move.
Jessy S.
You are right and completely wrong! You are right that the proposals in this memo all just seem reasonable, primarily because the word REASONABLE is used instead of any actual figures. Therefore what you just read is NOT a proposal, but a PR letter sent out to rally the troops within SAG. A proposal would have actual figures representing what SAG is “proposing”. So clearly you have no idea about business negotiations, and suggesting that AMPTP must accept proposals which aren’t even proposals is ludacris. Furthermore, don’t believe for one second that the public is ready to accept another strike, I’m not even sold there is a enough support within SAG for another strike.
I can’t believe how deluded people are to be believe the “public” cares in the slightest about the plight of actors (or even the writers). The WORST thing that could happen for SAG would be for this memo to ever be seen by the public, who would laugh hysterically at the notion that 50k+ salaries for middle-wage actors (i.e. people who play pretend for a living) are horribly unjust. This is HIGHER than the median income of Americans. SAG has every right to fight for what they want, but it doesn’t mean it’s going to make sense to the outside world. Working actors have what is considered a “fantasy life” to the vast majority of the world, and the fact that they are paid better than your average office worker is seen as ludicrous. Perhaps if these thespians want to make more money, they should look for work that pays more, but rewards their look-at-me-egos less.
Also… Just happened to watch Harlan County USA last night. It’s SOOO funny to see these Hollywood rich-kid unions act like they are so mistreated and dramatize their lives to this extent, when in the grand scheme of things they have it made.
>> Did I read this right that actors want to have approval over what product placement they are involved in and also want a piece of the revenue from product placement? >>
It’s not that odd an idea. “If you’re going to use the show/movie/whatever to make a profit, you should share” is the basic idea behind royalties and residuals. If they use it to make money in new ways — be it DVD sales, online streaming, or whoring the production out to Coca-Cola, sharing the profit isn’t a bizarre notion.
Approval’s not that strange, either — the talent signed up to act in a movie or TV show, not to advertise cigarettes. What if they’re morally opposed to pushing the product (smokes, beer, Viagra, whatever) and would have turned down the job if they’d been told up front that there’d be a product placement deal with Camel? What if an actress has an exclusive contract as a Revlon shill, and the producers want to sell product placement rights to Maybelline — and have that actress deliver lines that violate her Revlon contract?
When you start putting ads into scripts after you’ve signed up the cast, you’re going to have potential problems, just as if you decide to add nudity to a script and don’t have contract clauses covering it.
Your position seems to be that actors are cattle, and if the producers want to put ads into the movies after the deal’s been signed, the actors have no choice. Not that odd that actors and their union don’t agree.
>> Everyone wants to be a Producer these days.>>
If the producers are the only ones allowed to get a share of new revenues, whether from product placement or the next Cool New Idea to cheapen the product and rake in some bucks — or to decide unilaterally what products the actors are going to shill for — I can understand why.
kdb
I would like to see an example of clumsy dialog or action involving a product placement. Most of the stuff I have noticed are common household items that any fool could use ie. a cell phone with the company label on it or an apple laptop computer that seem ubiquitous in many shows.Most of the time there is no mention of the item as they are props like a knife or gun in a cop show. I would think that these placements would be a boon to the actors in that they help defray production costs and allow the producers to make the shows at all. Given that the last strike clearly resulted in less new pilots being produced not more then any further labor action would cause even more employment being lost or transfered overseas.
The only problem might be if someone had and exclusive contract to promote a particular brand. If that were the case then clearly some compensation would be due but if everyday items are being used as props instead of a cereal box of Flakes they use a brand name instead so what. Just because a character eats **** Flakes on a show doesn’t mean the actor does. In many cases there are vegetarian actors that are eating “meat” on their show when most of the audience knows they don’t in real life. Just because its on the show doesn’t mean I will buy it.
ckn8 – You may be right that the “public” doesn’t “care” about the “plight of actors” per se, but they don’t care about the AMPTP either, for that matter. The public doesn’t care about janitors, either. Or coalminers. Everybody pretty much cares about their OWN dilemmas and issues – and that’s about it.
Now the one thing the public CAN be counted on is to weigh in on which SIDE it supports in a disagreement. And you can bet that the public will ALWAYS side with the creative talent over the studio suits. Why? Because the creative talent is who the public are fans of. The writers, actors, directors – THOSE are the people the public love. They could care less who greenlights movies and pushes papers around in executive boardrooms.
Additionally, the SAG memo does not ever refer to $50,000/year salaries as “unjust.” And you are BARELY right that this is higher than the American median income. In 2006, the American median income was $48,200, according to the 2007 US Census Bureau. If you think that most Americans are going to balk at anyone making $50,000/year, you must be living in the Appalachian mountains.
SAG is merely maintaining, quite TRUTHFULLY, that middle-income actors’ income is DROPPING. Which it is. And not only that, but along with dropping income comes a LOT of actors, as well as actors’ children, who are no longer eligible for healthcare because they are not qualifying anymore, due to salary compression. Guess what happens then? They go to the emergency room and then don’t pay their bills. And then, guess what? YOU pay higher health premiums and hospital bills to make up the difference.
So while you balk at SAG’s well-justified concerns about middle-income actors, I think that most people, including Joe Public, would concur that this is an issue faced by MOST Americans at this time — and would heartily give the thumbs up to ANYONE fighting against the raging climate of corporate greed that has overtaken this once-great country. People are sick of having their salaries compressed, losing their healthcare, having pensions done away with, etc. — all while people like Les Moonves make RECORD salaries. Literally more money than one person could hope to spend in three lifetimes.
So, ckn8, maybe you should keep your bitterness in check. I’m assuming you wouldn’t tell striking janitors to “go find work that pays better if you don’t like what you’re making,” would you? But it’s so easy — such a cop-out, weak argument — to say that to actors, just because you have envy issues. Middle-income actors are hardly asking for the moon. They only want what most Americans want today: The ability to feed their children, clothe them, and keep them healthy, while their employers are making record profits.
You couldn’t really be THAT cold-hearted, could you?
Or are you writing your posts from a cushy office at Warners, Sony or Universal?
>> I would like to see an example of clumsy dialog or action involving a product placement.
Would Tony Soprano saying his new Nissan has “sensors in the seat belts. Part of Nissan’s triple-safety philosophy” count?
Or the leads of WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU auditioning to be on a Procter & Gamble commercial — with the actual ad being broadcast at the end of the show?
Or this, from WHO’S HARRY CRUMB?:
John Candy: Cherry?
Jim Belushi: No fruit, thank you.
John Candy: Coke?
Jim Belushi: No, thank you.
John Candy: Mix ‘em together, ya got a Cherry Coke. Ah ha ha ha ha ha! A Cherry Coke, ha ha ha ha!
That’s years ago, but it’s pretty fucking clumsy dialogue. Paid for by Coke.
T-Mobile paid for REAL WORLD/ROAD RULES contestants to say “I just got a message on my T-Mobile.”
In AMERICAN DREAMS, the family entered a Campbell’s Soup contest and kept coming up with ad slogans for Campbell’s — because Campbell’s paid them to.
In the final episode of FRASIER, Pepperidge Farm paid for the exchange:
Niles: I brought you some of those cookies you like.
Frasier: Milanos! Oh, well, thank you.
In some cases, it’s at least appropriate to the character, but it’s product placement in the dialogue, not just the background. Sony paid to have the cast of MEDIUM talk about how great the movie “Memoirs of a Geisha” was three times in a single episode. Does Jodie Foster’s character in NIM’S ISLAND really need to mention Purell hand sanitizer and Progresso soup by name that often? Is it just for realism that a whole episode of THE OFFICE was set in a Chili’s, mentioning multiple menu items by name? Or have a character on ALIAS wake up from a year-long coma, head of in a car chase and think to compliment Victor Garber on his cool new Ford hybrid? She was in a coma for a year, she’s up to date on new cars?
The reason actors are complaining about it is because it’s happening more and more. It’s not just a box of corn flakes in the background — it’s having coma patients talk about new cars they shouldn’t know about, characters with Progresso soup fixations and contests to sell soup as part of the stories.
And I’m not a big fan of the “They get to make money anyway they like, you don’t share — but be grateful, because it allows them to make the show” argument. That’s always the argument for why they can’t share new profits, and in the long run, it’s never true.
Plus, if the only way you can afford to make a show is to set it in a Chili’s and have the characters talk about the great food there, maybe that show’s not worth making. If it is, though, it’s a commercial, and maybe the actors should be being paid the kind of money they’d get for doing a Chili’s commercial.
kdb
Supportive Actor…
I inferred that that salary of $52k was considered “unjust” because it’s the first among nine bullet points outlining the current state of compensation for actors that need to be improved, i.e. the second 5 points seeking to raise said compensation. Perhaps “unjust” was an unfair word choice. I’m sorry for that… however, the point remains. Furthermore, I don’t care that it’s only marginally higher than a typical American’s wage. The point is, it IS higher, even if LA and NYC are expensive cities.
There’s no bitterness really, but I guess what is hilarious about this situation is that there has been so much hand wringing DRAMA during these strikes. Nobody is fighting to eat or feed their children. If you have children that need to eat, you probably should suck it up and get a reliable regular job that promises a paycheck every two weeks. Acting might not be it. By it’s very nature, it’s NOT a reliable job. All I’m saying is if one of my friends was having trouble feeding his/her child because he’s not making enough acting, I’d question that friend’s gameplan more than I’d question Les Moonves’ salary.
Thanks for pointing out janitors. That’s exactly what I was saying with Harlan County (except obviously about miners). When the janitor strike happened a few years ago I was all for them. Because janitors get screwed. Royally. It’s a story that virtually anybody with a heart can get wrapped up in. I’m not arguing with the right of SAG to go on strike, I’m just pointing out that I doubt too many people will shed tears, even if there IS an evil corporation raking in the cash in the meantime. Miners generally have a successful time striking, because not everybody wants to go miles under the earth to dig for rocks with a chance of dying each time. But if an actor wants more than 50k I’m pretty sure you could go to and restaurant on 3rd street around 2pm and find plenty of out of work actors to sign up for scale. In fact, I bet there’d be a janitor or two that would be THRILLED to have that job.
ckn8: “I inferred that that salary of $52k was considered “unjust” because it’s the first among nine bullet points outlining the current state of compensation for actors that need to be improved, i.e. the second 5 points seeking to raise said compensation.”
Uh, duh…the median income of $52,000/year is mentioned FIRST in order to get the whole picture in perspective — so everyone understands just exactly WHO they’re talking about when they say “middle-income actor.” It’s a DEFINITION. That’s all. Usually definitions are alluded to when first making a presentation so everyone understands what is being referred to. Oy.
ckn8: “Perhaps “unjust” was an unfair word choice. I’m sorry for that… however, the point remains. Furthermore, I don’t care that it’s only marginally higher than a typical American’s wage. The point is, it IS higher, even if LA and NYC are expensive cities.”
Oh. Okay. So if the average earning for middle-income actors was $47,000/year, then you would have had no problem? ::rolls eyes:: And the fact is that the majority of SAG actors DO live in NYC and LA. If you think $52,000/year is a fortune in those cities, you really MUST be living in the Appalachians.
ckn8: “There’s no bitterness really, but I guess what is hilarious about this situation is that there has been so much hand wringing DRAMA during these strikes. Nobody is fighting to eat or feed their children.”
Really?? Ironically, you are completely missing SAG’s point. YES. This is about people who have historically been able to feed their children based upon a certain number of weeks’ work as an actor — and now, due to salary compression and corporate greed, it’s getting more and more difficult to do that. And clothe them. And educate them. And take them to the doctor.
ckn8: “If you have children that need to eat, you probably should suck it up and get a reliable regular job that promises a paycheck every two weeks. Acting might not be it. By it’s very nature, it’s NOT a reliable job. All I’m saying is if one of my friends was having trouble feeding his/her child because he’s not making enough acting, I’d question that friend’s gameplan more than I’d question Les Moonves’ salary.”
Wow. I’m…speechless. You mean, we should go tell a 50-year-old actor who has been ACTING his entire life and making a middle-class living at it, that suddenly, because of the culture of corporate greed’s salary compression and squeezing workers’ health benefits, he should just waltz down the street and start a new career as a transplant surgeon? Oh, silly me. He should just get a job at Burger King and shut up, right? But you’ll still be the first one complaining about him when he takes his kids to the emergency room because he doesn’t have health insurance, won’t you? He’ll be the thorn in your side who is causing YOUR health insurance rates to rise, right?
It’s kind of like those losers who worked for Enron. You remember them, right? No — they weren’t loser actors like middle-income SAG members who are sucking the system dry. Don’t worry. They were REAL people who worked a REAL job. I think they even received paychecks ONCE a week — not just twice a week!!! Wow, wow, wow!! Only….whoopsie!!! The “real job” they had with “real” income didn’t turn out so well for them, did it? So, you see, none of this has ANYTHING to do with what’s a “real” job and what isn’t. But your consciousness is much too low for you to see that, I think.
ckn8: “Thanks for pointing out janitors. That’s exactly what I was saying with Harlan County (except obviously about miners). When the janitor strike happened a few years ago I was all for them. Because janitors get screwed. Royally.”
Ah. I see. So it’s only the people whose problems YOU deem worthy who have validation. Ah. I see. Why don’t you create a list for all of us, ckn8, on who is worthy of fair salaries for their line of work, and what those salaries should be. Be sure to post it so the entire world will know who should be supported and who should not be supported.
ckn8: “I’m not arguing with the right of SAG to go on strike, I’m just pointing out that I doubt too many people will shed tears, even if there IS an evil corporation raking in the cash in the meantime. Miners generally have a successful time striking, because not everybody wants to go miles under the earth to dig for rocks with a chance of dying each time.”
SAG is not asking anybody to shed tears. I don’t remember reading that. That’s something that YOU are purporting.
ckn8: “But if an actor wants more than 50k…”
What is your reading comprehension level? I’m just curious. The whole point of the SAG memo is about actor salaries DECREASING and being COMPRESSED over the past several years. Getting LESS money for the SAME work. I would imagine that even a janitor would have a problem with that scenario — as I would imagine you would be, ckn8, even while sitting in your office overlooking the studio.
ckn8: “I’m pretty sure you could go to and restaurant on 3rd street around 2pm and find plenty of out of work actors to sign up for scale.”
Of course you could. The question is: Would the studio approve them for the role? Would the director want to hire them? Would they be able to hold their own in a scene with George Clooney or Meryl Streep? Oh, I know, I know. It’s just acting — ANYBODY can do it, right? And to think that kooky Meryl Streep actually paid a fortune to study drama at Yale for all those years. Boy, she must be a real idiot to have wasted her parents’ money like that, huh? I’m sure George Clooney and Brad Pitt are BIG advocates of their directors just running down the street and grabbing any parking attendant to work in a scene with them. Why do we need middle-income actors?????
ckn8: “In fact, I bet there’d be a janitor or two that would be THRILLED to have that job.”
And I’ll bet there are at least a dozen janitors in this city who could, and would, run the AMPTP with much more wisdom, intelligence and compassion than the studio heads you so passionately defend.
I can see your point on some things but not others. Families do discuss car safety which I believe was when Tony S. gave the car to his newly minted son driving. Now if Nissan paid for it fine I/m sure it helped pay the casts salaries.
The Campbell soup campaign in American Dreams was a real event that the family at that time might have participated in. Didn’t Campbell’s also have a similar writing contest to coincide with the America Dreams storyline. They also promoted American Bandstand and various singers and their music which I assume you object to as well.
So the Office guys went to Chili’s. So you never go to a restaurant with your friends and or working colleagues and discuss the menu and what you like. They are putting in real life places and objects.
The movie “Fool’s Rush In” used Gray’s Papya hot dogs as a prop that was put in a believable manner as the character missed NY. I have no idea whether they paid for that or not. Based on the objections you are making I guess they should just fictionalize everything so no one in the audience will know what they are talking about. Invent non existent museums in Paris and say the Iron tower instead of the Eifel Tower so as not to promote tourism to France. Make up fictitious products that the audience just laughs at because they are ridiculous. My friends and I often find it funny when you see some object that everyone knows should be a brand but is some moronic fictional name.
As for cookies that are Milanos in Frasier they also used numerous specialty cheeses, caviar etc for the characters to eat. Given that Frasier and Niles were picky and snobbish about their gourmet foods the cookies fit the characters. I hear all the time that movies and shows are going for realism well that includes products that people use whether its a mobile phone or a coke to drink. If they get paid to use them good.
They didn’t go to Chili’s because they wanted to put in real places and things. They went to Chili’s because they were paid to advertise it. It’s unlikely that had they not done that, THE OFFICE would have been cancelled for lack of funding, so it wasn’t a desperation move to keep the ability to pay people, it was a profit-making move.
Nor did THE SOPRANOS need that check from the car company to pay actor salaries — they were a major financial success. They did it for the profit.
It’s not unreasonable to share that profit, just as they share a tiny fraction of what they get when they sell DVDs.
>> Based on the objections you are making I guess they should just fictionalize everything so no one in the audience will know what they are talking about.>>
No, not what anyone said at all.
The SAG isn’t asking them to stop this, they’re asking that actors participate in profits generated by their work.
It’s good that you’re glad producers get paid to insert products in their shows, sometimes writing whole episodes to focus on paid commercial placement. The SAG would like actors to share in that revenue stream. This shouldn’t be hard to comprehend.
kdb
Will the producers and writers, who made the actors into stars, be sharing in the profits of endorsement deals the actor makes on the side because the producer and writer made them a star?
Excellent examples of product placement Kurt.
Didn’t the Office guys also go to Benihana? They brought back a couple of Asian girls as I recall, and Michael gave one of them a bicycle.
Here’s another one. On Seventh Heaven – starring my good buddy Stephen Collins! – the kids had an extended conversation about how they like to eat their Oreo cookies. Does this kind of advertising work? Did I just mention Oreo cookies again? and again??? This particular bit of shillery was the launching point for a discussion about product integration on KCRW’s The Business.
Oh, and Alias, OMFG! They shot a long car chase in which Sydney and some other character are chasing the bad guys in a Ford Focus SVT, and she actually tells the other character at the beginning of the chase to get into the Focus. She names the car. Because, you know, when the fate of the free world is on the line, you always remember to refer to the car you’re jumping into by model name. The bad guys BTW were also driving a Ford. In the middle of the frakking chase, Sydney blurts out a line about how well the car handles.
Now after all that, how’s Jennifer Garner supposed to get a gig shilling for Chrysler???
More to the point, is the actor being hired to be a character in a scripted program, or to perform a commercial advertisement for a product??? Even with the middle income day players and guest stars, once that character reads the line, “Forget Pepsi. I want a Coke you moron”, and a can of Coke magically appears in their hand in a sitcom or drama, it’s available all over the Internets, and said actor may be up for a Pepsi commercial the next day. It’s hard to argue to the Pepsi execs, “That wasn’t me asking for the Coke. That was my character, Dwight Schrute’s cousin Dabney Schrute”. So, yeah, it’s important. For financial reasons.
1. I actually like product placement (unless it is really sticks out). I’d rather have someone drinking a Coke than a can of wierd looking cola. I love that the office went to Chilis. I can relate to that experience.
2. The public is not going to support the actors like they did the writers. Yes, I’m sure there are these mid level actors who need more money. But the public will see Brad Pitt on strike. Not the 57k actors.
Debi – exactly what does that mean, “they are not going to support the actors”??? Are they going to throw tomatoes at them? Are they going to never, ever go to the movies again? (Yeah, right.) I always chuckle when people say “the public isn’t going to support you! Nyah, nyah, nyah!” Because I don’t believe the public is going to support, or NOT support, the actors. The public is going to do what it always does — go to work, go to the grocery store, etc. The public doesn’t care one way or the other. It’s such a non-issue.
As I maintained with ckn8, however, I think when presented with the actual FACTS and ISSUES — if you sat someone down and gave them a detailed list of what middle-income actors are dealing with — anyone in the “public” would definitely side with the middle-income actor over the zillionaire studio head ANY day of the week. People in this country are VERY over the corporate mentality that has strangled this country for the past 10-15 years. But on a purely gut level, the public won’t have any opinion at all on an actors strike.
And lastly, I give the public a LOT more credit than you do. I don’t think the public is made up of idiots, as you imply. I think most people are intelligent enough to differentiate between Brad Pitt and middle-income actors. I hardly think the public is made up of morons who wouldn’t know the difference.
AND — did you read the SAG memo? I’m just curious. I seemed to read that the issue was DECREASING income of mid-level actors. Not “wanting more money.” Semantics, yes — but a very important distinction that seems to escape you. It’s a little mind-boggling. Perhaps you are projecting your own comprehension ability on to the public at large???
>> Will the producers and writers, who made the actors into stars, be sharing in the profits of endorsement deals the actor makes on the side because the producer and writer made them a star? >>
I think they key words you’re inserting there and hoping people won’t notice are “on the side.”
Not to mention the assumption that producers and writers benefit actors, but there’s no concordant benefit that goes the other way.
I’d assume that the SAG members that helped make his career what it is don’t feel they need a piece when Martin Scorcese makes an American Express commercial, and Scorcese probably doesn’t want a piece of Pacino or Foster’s endorsement money.
But the stuff that’s not “on the side” is different, since the actors are actually doing the shilling the producers took money for. As I suspect you know, or you wouldn’t have felt the need to put “on the side” in there.
And I’d rather see a can of soda with an actual brand name than not, too, but as the SAG letter above notes, that’s not what they’re talking about.
kdb