'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
Tonight SAG distributed this email to members tonight about the status of the contrat negotiations with the AMPTP. It's interesting to note that today, August 15th, was the deadline set by the AMPTP for SAG to ratify the June 30th TV/Theatrical proposal in order or the deal to be retroactive to July 1st. I was expecting some sort of announcement all day from the AMPTP about this -- but nothing. As the SAG email explained, "This is a standard response by management in labor negotiations. They hope this threat will stampede our membership to take a bad deal. The risk that actors may not receive increases retroactively is more than offset by the long-term damage that would result from a premature deal that eliminates residuals for work done for new media and reused on new media, or from allowing signatory producers to produce non-union." Here's the email in its entiety:
August 15, 2008
CONTRACT 2008 UPDATE
Discussions Continue
SAG negotiators and industry representatives continue to have informal discussions regarding a successor TV/Theatrical agreement. It is not at all unusual for both parties in large negotiations like ours to meet in smaller more manageable groups to talk about remaining outstanding issues in an effort to reach accord. SAG and AMPTP full committees (which combined number over 100 people) will meet face-to-face again when we have reached a deal and shake hands across the table. We are all hopeful that will happen soon.Your negotiating team remains committed to opposing the AMPTP’s proposals to produce original made for new media productions non-union, with no residuals.
The SAG national board of directors unanimously endorsed these core principles in its motion on July 26:
“It is a core principle of Screen Actors Guild—
"That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any SAG agreement and;
"That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”
We believe that the majority of the other issues have been resolved. Screen Actors Guild has made significant compromises to reach tentative agreement on the resolved issues. We also believe that what we are asking for, to close the gap and make this deal, is extremely reasonable and addresses the actual needs of actors and their families in these times of technological advances and economic challenges.
Your national negotiating committee met on Wednesday, August 13 for an update from the president and national executive director regarding informal meetings and discussions with the industry, and to discuss SAG’s options and next steps.
Expired Contract Still in Effect
Despite what you may read on some blogs, the expired TV/Theatrical contract remains in effect. You should continue auditioning and accepting employment under the expired agreement. If you or your agent have any questions, or believe the terms and conditions of the contract are being violated, please call the national contract department at (323) 549-6818. We will take action to protect your rights.
Signed SAG Guaranteed Completion Contracts (GCC) Soar to over 600
To date, 658 projects have been signed by non-AMPTP producers (AMPTP producers are not eligible to sign GCCs). The GCC agreements incorporate the terms of the current SAG theatrical agreement, and terms of any agreement reached by SAG and the AMPTP retroactively, thus allowing companies not affiliated with the AMPTP to begin motion pictures without the fear of interruption by a work stoppage. The total number of SAG covered feature films in 2007, not including ultra low budget and student films, was 1,296. Using that number as a baseline, over half the potential number of films this year have the green light to continue shooting to completion under SAG GCC agreements, no matter what happens in contract negotiations. Remember, these are NOT WAIVERS, but actual contracts.August 15 AMPTP “Deadline”
The AMPTP has stated that SAG must ratify the AMPTP’s June 30 proposal by August 15 for the deal to be retroactive, threatening not to agree to apply economic improvements in the new TV/Theatrical contract when the deal is done, retroactively to July 1, 2008. This is a standard response by management in labor negotiations. They hope this threat will stampede our membership to take a bad deal. The risk that actors may not receive increases retroactively is more than offset by the long-term damage that would result from a premature deal that eliminates residuals for work done for new media and reused on new media, or from allowing signatory producers to produce non-union.
Loading ...
“The risk that actors may not receive increases retroactively is more than offset by the long-term damage that would result from a premature deal”. Agreed. The passing of August 15 is a nonevent. The next contract is for 3 years and forms the baseline for future contracts.
The risk that the Allens may destroy this union is not offset by the limited advantages that may result from holding out for a few more pennies. The passing of August 15 may be a nonevent for a bunch of non working carhops in the Valley, but for those of us stuck with the old deal waiting for the Allens is ridiculous.
Get those ballots out here now, please! It’s so past time to dump these losers.
Straight question. What if there is no new contract offered?
Sam, if the AMPTP contract offer were withdrawn, I believe SAG would have no recourse but to strike.
But there’s always a contract offer, even if it’s just a wish list of rollbacks.
Check out Nikki’s piece about the WB offering scads of original new content online. The WB move is yet another piece of evidence verifying what Justine Bateman and other savvy observers have been screaming from the rooftops since last year – the moguls are in the process of moving all of their content distribution to the Internet, which is why they’re pushing so hard for deal points with SAG such as lower made-for-New-Media residuals and the low-budget New Media non-union exemption.
Even before bargaining down on a number of important points, SAG’s initial offer was fairly reasonable. We can have a contract signed and sent to SAG’s membership tomorrow…. if the moguls decide to play fair in New Media. The major studios and television networks are holding out specifically because they want a repeat of the VHS/DVD debacle for New Media. Unlike VHS/DVD situation, SAG risks sliding into irrelevancy right next to producers’ lapdog AFTRA if it capitulates on New Media.
We must stand strong to keep all principal acting work in the union.
Hey Working,
If it’s just a few pennies, why won’t they pay it? From what I’ve read, there is a lot more at stake than just a few pennies.
Not everyone that believes a real deal for the future needs to be achieved is a carhop in the valley.
I suggest you read the list of actors and stars who believe we should stick together period.
C’mon now. Get with the program. And why is everyone so chicken shit to use their real name?
The real problem with any kind of deal is the favored nation clause. What you get all get. Those are the numbers your dealing with. It’s not all about you.
satterfield and heister have it exactly right. if this back and forth has done anything, it has distilled this whole debacle down to one question for the u4s’s and the aftra huggers:
if it’s “a fiscal non-entity” as one guy – “suit” – described new media, then why, oh, why, won’t the suits give sag a fair percentage deal? suits make money, sag makes money. suits don’t make money, or lose money, suits have no fixed obligation to sag.
that’s what big, bad, uncooperative, overly-aggressive, out-of their minds, divisive, disrespectful, hostile, dumb, terrible negotiators, idiot boy, sag, led by mf, is holding out for.
they wouldn’t have gotten it if sag went first. they didn’t get it when sag went last. they wouldn’t have gotten it if they went in with aftra, they didn’t get it without aftra.
they are holding out for it because they understand it means the whole show. no percentage deal on new media? goodbye residuals. goodbye middle class actors. hello non-union.
every day, there are industry stories about all kinds of content originating on the web. it’s like, the anti-mf people are so wrapped up in some kind of irrational hatred of mf, that, even while the suits are DOING what the anti mf people say won’t amount to much,and can be addressed in three years because of some patently bogus “sunset clause,” they STILL won’t acknowledge that sag is holding out, despite the violent hostility withing their own membership, despite the despicable behavior of aftra, for one reason: they’re – at this point – trying to save sag from itself. its self destructive members. its uneducated members. its bitter, unfulfilled members, its radical win-at-all-costs pro-aftra merger members.
rosenberg and allen are holding on for one reason: they know they’re right, and, they know the future of the union depends on it (that’s 2 reasons)
and people spit in their faces. wow.
The hold up for all of this is New Media — the Internet. The AMPTP would not hold out if they didn’t think it would be that big of a deal. But New Media is the soon-coming cash cow for the AMPTP members.
The more the AMPTP can spin to lesser-educated folks about the irrelevance of New Media to the contracts, the more advantage they will have in getting ignorant, anxious actors to push the union to do a bad deal.
Unfortunately, a lot of actors are not savvy business men and women — they rely too much on hearsay. Instead, they need to read business news more often, this blog, and other publications that print the news of the industry at large (not just Hollywood Reporter inbreeding news) and globally.
Residuals should be paid for all reuse.
working actor wrote, “Unfortunately, a lot of actors are not savvy business men and women — they rely too much on hearsay.”
… and many of the actors who are business savvy have become producers, which puts them on the side of the amptp.
this is from an official “summary” of the aftra contract.
you can download the whole thing at:
http://www.aftra.com/primetimeYES/primetime_tv.pdf
it says EXACTLY what sag and mf have been saying it says.
check it out:
———————–
An “original program” is a MFNM program which is not derivative, and which either (1) has a budget of at least $15,000 per minute, $300,000 per program, or $500,000 per series, or (2) employs a covered performer.
—————————
o.k. – so the rates ARE as reported. the covered performer list DOES include a wider variety than I guessed. it includes stage actors who’ve done b’way, off b’way and regional lort contracts, it includes some radio people. you’ll see. but, I still don’t see why, and it DOESN’T say – producers HAVE to, include ANYONE who falls in the “covered performer” category to flip the mfnm content “union.” and even if it GOES “union”? the rates have free windows and total shit residuals.
—————————-
The Producer shall be entitled to rely on the representation of the performer as to whether he or she meets the definition of a “covered performer.”
——————————-
this means the producer will be allowed to take the word of the “representation” as, in, agent, or manager, of the actor, that he or she falls into “covered performer” territory, which would flip the show “union.”
this is vague to me, but what it definately does NOT say is that there will be ANY increased pressure or requirement to include covered performers by producers. it seems they can avoid them easily if they want
—————————————-
Low budget, non-derivative programs with budgets of less than (1) $15,000 per minute, (2) $300,000 per program, or (3) $500,000 per series order, and which do not employ any “covered performer”, will be considered “experimental”. Experimental productions will continue to operate under the terms of the 2001, 2004, and 2005 Sideletter H: coverage is negotiable on a case-by-case basis.
—————————————————-
first: it’s 500k – NOT 450k, if this is right, and, second – it confirms the budgets as being wildly higher than the current per minute average for web content of 2k per minute.
and – “coverage is negotiable on a case-by-case basis” is ominous, in that, there’s no SET, definitive coverage for the actor.
—————————————————–
a television program produced after July 1, 2008, may be streamed on a free to the consumer, adsupported web site for 17 consecutive days surrounding the initial broadcast (24 days for programs in their first season or one time programs) before residuals are triggered.
——————————————————–
here’s confirmation of the dreaded “free window” bullshit, instead of sag’s “first airing and from dollar one” demand. so – producers can air it free for 17 days BEFORE any money kicks in. unacceptable!
——————————————————
For programs produced after that date, the Producers will have the option of obtaining consent at the time of original engagement.
————————————————————-
this is clip consent. NOTHING in the language that protects the actor from retribution (”you’re fired”) IF the actor says NO.
—————————————————————-
Similarly, for programs produced on or after July 1, 2008, the Producer may bargain with the performer to acquire consent to use of excerpts in New Media at the time of initial employment,
—————————————————————–
again “bargain with the performer” – at “time of initial employment” – NO protective language. producers should NOT be “bargaining with the performer” they should be REQUIRED by the UNION to treat the performer in a certain way, and they should be “bargaining” with the actors agent or manager.
——————————————————————
The initial compensation for derivative New Media productions permits an initial 13 weeks’ use on free to consumer, advertiser supported sites, and a separate 26-week period of use on consumer pay platforms. Performers will receive a fixed residual of $20 (for programs of up to 10 minutes) or $25 (for programs of more than10 minutes) for 26 consecutive weeks’ use on a free site which occurs within the first year following the initial 13 weeks (for no more than two such 26 week periods).
——————————————————————
so – 13 weeks FREE AIRINGS (free windows) on “free” sites (you can watch for free), and, 26 weeks on “pay” sites, like itunes (you pay with your credit card, you can watch) BEFORE any compensation kicks in. unacceptable!
—————————————————————-
Performers on original New Media productions with budgets of $25,000 per minute or more will share in 3.6% of DGR for consumer pay use following an initial 26-week period. No other payment is required for reuse of such a program in New Media unless negotiated by the performer.
——————————————————————-
so, no money on 25k per minute “union” content (essentially NOTHING for the forseeable future since current content averages 2k per minute) until AFTER a 26 week window (free window), THEN, the producer “negotiates with performer,” not IS MANDATED BY UNION, and ANY NEGOTIATION DONE WITH PERFORMERS AGENT.
———————————————————
Sunset Provision: The provisions related to New Media contain a “sunset provision”. All of the New Media terms will expire when the contract concludes, permitting the union and the industry to revisit New Media when with real world experience based on facts we acquire over the next three years.
—————————————————————–
jonathan handel – anti sag and anti mf entertainment attorney, from his own blog:
“SAG is correct. Moreover, the sunset clause is a meaningless fig leaf, as I have blogged since the concept was first touted, in the DGA deal. That’s because the entire contract expires every three years, so to add a sunset clause that says the new media provisions expire in three years is to state the obvious and add little of substance.
Straight question. What if there is no new contract offered?
Hey Sam, to answer your question, if there’s no new contract offered, SAG would continue to work, under the old contract until such time that they agreed to a new contract, chose to strike, or were locked out by the AMPTP.
Working wrote: The passing of August 15 may be a nonevent for a bunch of non working carhops in the Valley, but for those of us stuck with the old deal waiting for the Allens is ridiculous.
Posts like this always amaze me on two fronts:
1. What kind of person considers themselves so superior for currently having a job that they are willing to compare other UNION actors to car hops in the Valley? I suppose it’s the same kind of juice bag who feels so superior that they use a gainfully employed car hop as an example of someone who is inferior. Inferior in what sense, I would ask? I would suggest such a person needs to turn off “Entertainment Tonight,” reevaluate their understanding of the world, and rethink the value of every human being – as opposed to thinking “working” actors are somehow superior to car hops.
1a. Prove to us you’re “working”. I dare you.
2. How is it that some people believe SAG negotiators are responsible for their being no decent contract to ratify? Any negotiation has at least two sides. If you offer the car hop a deal where he parks your car for 3 cents and he or she refuses that deal could really want us to believe the car hop is the problem. It’s the AMPTP that is holding things up by refusing an acceptable deal–or even any kind of acceptable compromise.
This working vs. non-working actor myth that Unite for Strength insists holds the UNION back is so unbelievably lame. At a bare minimum every member has reached the minimum standard of entry into the UNION. Even if all they ever did was one line on a feature in 1995, I would say their $2000 initiation fee makes them a viable investor and worthy of a vote. They are investors if nothing else. There monies and those like them who “must join” are growing the union and, if as you say they never work, they will never get a benefit save any minor residuals. You’ll take the initiation fee then deny them a vote? Park your own car. (I’m sure you do anyway.)
And speaking of residuals, that is what this fight, this contract is all about. It’s about producers making millions off “Bewitched” and the actors making absolutely NOTHING after their weeks paycheck was spent in 1964 dollars. We finally won residuals despite the kind of people who feel they could go it alone and that car hops are inferior somehow. Now you wanna give it up because you’re working?
My advice would be don’t poke holes in the boat that’s keeping you afloat and supplies you a decent wage and residuals and insurance when you’re “working.” And then, apologize to everyone you’ve offended.
“What if there is no new contract offered?”
Most likely this:
SAG will negotiate with the AMPTP to accept the final offer without striking, and AMPTP will give them retroactive pay from July 1st which SAG will claim as a victory.
Don’t expect this to happen until after an ugly and divisive battle for SAG board seats sometime in October. By then the Feature slate will be full bore with many working and Holidays approaching and of course attention turned to the presidential election I believe it will be impossible to unite in Solidarity at this point. And I DO have a dog in the hunt – several in fact.
t-rex
Every internet program is shooting below the minimums. Most are averaging $2000 a min. Most episodes are 2 to 3 minutes. So you’re talking under 6k. So the $20 for replay is over 3% which is more than you get on a 100 million dollar feature as a contract player.
The budgets are not averaging much higher than that. I have seen them up to $3500 a minute from major networks for new material.
Nobody is spending 25k per minute. Anywhere. Period. So holding out for anything close to the standard TV or Feature contract rate is never going to happen. No budget can pay a single actor over 30% of the budget, especially something so small. That is assuming you can shoot the entire 2 to 3 minute episode in one day. If it takes 2 days then your over 60% of the budget for just one person. If its two actors and two days your already over budget and you haven’t fed anyone yet.
I just did a little math — forgive me if you’ve all already done this.
One a $100,000,000 movie, which we must all admit is no longer that uncommon, and which is most likely to hire a large number of SAG performers, assuming 96 minutes in running length (again, perhaps low, but not by that much), it works out to $1,041,666 per minute.
Why in the name of all we hold dear would anyone expect an internet project to ever approach this sort of budget?
What we need is a legitimate way to cross-collateralize all of a studio’s projects, so they they have a chance to make back their losses overall from the big projects. Then, maybe they would be a little more willing to share some of their back-end profits with all the guilds. Until we figure out a way to do such a thing honestly, we can hardly blame them for wanting to protect a revenue stream that can offset all their other losses and still leave room for their all so necessary bonuses.
Or — everyone in the business who gets 8 figures could just give back $1,000,000 to a fund to be added to the residual fund. And I do mean everyone — actors, writers, directors, studio execs, agents, everyone. That would be more than enough to cover the amounts sought in DVD and New Media….
Playmaker–
You’re correct for the most part, but I believe that “In the Motherhood” is well over 25k per minute…
“The series is produced on a TV-scale budget: $40,000 a minute. That’s cheap by TV standards but astronomical for a Web series. If it works, expect it to kick open the door to more overtly branded video, and a lot more content produced by the advertisers themselves.”
(source Silicon Valley Insider: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/abc_gives_web_series_shot_at_tube)
And I can tell you for certain that there are more coming.
wackiland-
At least you admit by name where your ideas come from. I’ll give back my million as soon as Phelps give back some of his gold medals.
“Claims by SAG’s negotiators about informal talks are no more true today than they were when first made two weeks ago,” the org said. “Negotiations concluded when the producers presented their final offer on June 30, 2008, and no meetings are scheduled.”
– Variety
- So, whats this bullshit? Why have I received emails from my SAG leadership telling me they’re still trying to get us a contract. Who are they talking to? Themselves? Yet another reason why Allen and Rosenberg need replacing. Take the opportunity, membership, and get leadership that won’t lie to us…that places the economic realities of its union above their own misguided ideals.
playmaker:
I certainly never suggested tv or film level fixed residuals. I, as sag and mf, have suggested a simple percentage formula. the suits make money, sag makes money. the suits don’t make money, or lose money, the suits have no fixed obligation to sag.
that’s about as fair as you can get, and as long as the right percentage point is agreed upon, would probably remain the standard for the forseeable future.
obviously, the suits are proposing this odd and rather arbitrary series of “floor” amounts for original web content for a reason. and that reason is they want plenty of wiggle room to expand a non-union space and to push middle class actors out of their fair share of money on new media.
that’s why sag won’t sign the deal, and, since you’re not an actor, I can see why you would be frustrated with this, but as an actor one sees the damage that will be inflicted on our ability to make a decent living as all content travels to the web.
it’s really very simple. the percentage deal is fair and reasonable, and if the other unions scream bloody murder, they can either be similarly renumerated, or left to scream bloody murder because they were so dumb to agree to this floor formula to beging with. that’s their mistake, not sag’s
and, of course, the idea that sag caused this problem and not the amptp by giving them an unsignable deal is absurd.
mark …
the sag leadership is not lying.
who is the author of the variety article and who are they quoting? and “scheduled” meetings are not the same as informal talks/meetings.
again, you are not being lied to by mf.
OK you want a percentage of every dollar in revenue from the internet regardless of cost or whether the show is profitable or not. Residuals are based on the gross not the net aren’t they. So the suits would be paying out residuals on every piece of web content they put up even if they loose money since you take the money off the top gross.
Most of the stuff on there right now are really short and of limited use. Heroes webisodes and such that have a time limit on their interest. I watched a few of the Galactica ones a couple years ago but haven’t watched them since. Maybe there will be internet shows but based on the few I’ve seen I wouldn’t spend much time watching them at all. If the nets started broadcasting full fledged shows then it might be different but they still couldn’t reach the numbers that advertisers want to see.
If you strike all you will do is drive more scripted shows off the air in favor of cheaper to produce reality and game show formats that apparently get pretty good numbers. You could end up with more scripted shows on cable than on the networks with lower budgets and even fewer acting jobs. I have yet to hear through any of the recent labor actions have gotten more productions and not less. I would think that the guilds would like to see more jobs and not less coming out of their negotiations. Based on the current environment none of the big companies is going to increase the number of these shows as their costs go up and up and returns are diminishing. You seem to think there is a limitless amount of money out there and can squeeze every penny out with no negative results.
August 4, 2008
Statement of the AMPTP
The AMPTP is always interested in exploring ways to reach an agreement, and if SAG has an approach that’s consistent with the parameters of our June 30 final offer then we are open to hearing that. SAG’s negotiators have not discussed with us any plan to reach an agreement and the only meeting the parties are attempting to schedule is one to resolve some outstanding grievance claims. No meetings, formal or informal, regarding these negotiations have taken place since the sidebar SAG requested on July 16th, and no meetings are pending.
Hey Krispy – this statement is not hiding under a rock somewhere.
I no more trust the leadership of my union I do George Bush.
Mark my word – they will be replaced.
I feel so much more at ease now!
The thing I find most disconcerting is the level and impact of false information floated by the AMPTP; that SAG members would buy into it; that others in the industry would buy into it; that the public at large would accept it, is disheartening to me. The AMPTP spin machine has done its job well. Reference note: the press before and during the WGA strike.
There are two separate issues at contention here: the contract itself and the abilities of the negotiators of that contract.
The AMPTP is a conglomeration of hugely wealthy and powerful corporations with scads of lawyers and scads of stockholders. The Screen Actor’s Guild is, well, the David in this “David and Goliath” story (as was the WGA, btw). For (at least) once SAG has competent, forward-thinking, educated, visionary, involved, supportive, non-political and selfless individuals working tirelessly on negotiations, who have learned from the missteps made in the past by previous negotiators (see the DVD “deal” for more on that). They know damned well what they’re doing and they need our unwavering support to help them accomplish their task, which is in our best interest I might add.
We (SAG) have only one weapon in our arsenal – the (threat of) strike. Sure, that’s a bad word in the industry these days and nobody, NOBODY wants to go there. I’ve read time and time again that “SAG most likely cannot get the 75% vote for strike authorization…” (I paraphrase). You know what? I don’t hear anything like that from the SAG negotiators NOR the membership. Its PR bullshit, stated by every other faction than SAG and the fact that any/everyone is accepting that concept is unbelievable to me. A potential SAG strike MUST be considered independently of the past WGA strike. They are two different animals and though related, one has nothing to do with the other. While I sympathize absolutely with anyone or any business that suffered through those 100 days (I didn’t work much either, btw), the fact that a strike has already happened this year should NOT be a reason to go soft now. By knowingly throwing a shitty deal/offer on the table and saying “take it or leave it”, the AMPTP is essentially saying “we double-dog dare you to strike”. I think they’re foolish to take that stance, and I think the overwhelming body of SAG rank and file should feel the same way. I also believe that if it comes to a strike, said strike would last about three days – fifteen minutes if the Teamsters would get on board. (I’m not trying to open a can of worms here, I just think that some inter-union solidarity would garner payback in spades.) It would suck, but I WILL vote to strike if it comes to that.
As to “the offer” by the AMPTP. Both the AMPTP and SAG know that the offered contract is bullshit. The AMPTP is most likely sniggering in their back offices that AFTRA actually took that bait. Firstly, the idea that AFTRA accepted it has nothing to do with whether it’s a good offer or not – to AFTRA or to SAG. Calling AFTRA the AMPTP’s “lap dogs” was too polite, in my opinion. I digress…
The current budget(s) per minute of online entertainment is not the issue. What IS the issue is the wording/language in the offered contract which leaves SAG-franchised producers with virtually every control to build online media empires, without having to pay professional actors for their talent. It’s not so much about today – it’s about what the AMPTP knows (and SAG negotiators know) is the future of scripted entertainment. (This is where the “visionary” part I mentioned earlier comes in.) I could care less about whether any individual is a supporter of Membership First or whatever that newer organization is called – internal politics should NOT be an issue during this industry awakening. (Note about whomever the new elected board will be: SAG has been very clear that the negotiating committee will NOT change with any new board members, national or otherwise. If the AMPTP is waiting for a body of different SAG negotiators who will bend over the table like AFTRA did… Well, the AMPTP knows this all too well – it ain’t happening.) Nothing about the negotiations will change with any new board members.
We live and work in this media industry. Don’t you people know what spin is? Don’t you realize that the media moguls OWN the press? Neither SAG nor the WGA have power over nor the connections with the media. The AMPTP does. And its their respective job(s) to use any and all resources at their disposal to get the best outcome they can from these negotiations. There’s no BS well too deep, no lie too absurd, no claim so false that they can’t justify by saying, “hey, it’s just business”. Indeed. Don’t ever forget that.
To SAG members: your negotiating committee has NO REASON to lie to you. None. On the other hand, the AMPTP has every reason to make it SOUND like SAG is internally divisive, to make it LOOK like there’s no negotiating going on, to make EVERY EFFORT to publicly show SAG as unwilling to accept their “good offer”.
So let’s set the misinformation issue aside.
Further, I am at a loss for words regarding the public statement that SAG NY Division recently made. This kind of attitude does nothing but weaken the resolve of the SAG membership, and the fact that it was made public only shows that some people have political issues and aspirations other than getting the best deal we can. Shame on them for doing so.
The bottom line is you (we, all of us) joined SAG for whatever reason(s) and you agreed to play by the rules so that you could benefit from the sacrifices made by SAG members before you. Yes, SACRIFICES! SAG operates as a [guild] union. “Union” means that we stand together, not wimping out and screwing your own (and so many others’) future when times get tough ; not listening to and believing the propaganda machine. You SAG members who are against the current status quo need to re-think your priorities and get on the f*cking bandwagon. If our negotiators had the FULL support of the SAG membership in the first place, this contract would have been finalized months ago, and in our favor.
One more side note: While I like, appreciate and respect most of the celebrity actors who have put their opinions and urgings out into the public forum (both pro and con) with regards to this SAG (and AFTRA) contract, they need to shut the hell up. Little, if any, of this contract applies to the multimillionaire SAG members. They get their money negotiated up front and their income has nothing to do with “scale” rates. Like them, we ALL want to continue working. But the vast majority of us can barely afford to pay rent while the AMPTP cries poor and makes billions. Enough, I say.
Thank you for letting me share my Sunday evening with you. I am a dual card-holder, for the record (SAG/AFTRA).
Sad to say but…that guy “Playmaker” is actually right.
The most successful stuff on the web is user-generated, freely given, no compensation required. Why? Because it fits the medium in every respect. The idea that the internet is going to be the next TV is tomfoolery. The Internet is not tomorrow’s technology, it’s yesterday’s technology.
As for the WB, I’d like the see what that bottom line is really like, or what their real justification is for putting the network online…I’m not holding my breath…
Major studios have created small, barely funded divisions to create online content. But, and believe me I know, they do not expect these divisions to even pay for themselves much less generate anything vaguely resembling a significant profit. They are there more as a marketing tool and talent incubator. If they become even more expensive because of guild regulation…? They will simply do less or shut themselves down. Why bother?
SAG has made it more profitable to make Reality shows than scripted. That’s a fact. They’re not the first guild or union in history to use their leverage to negotiate themselves out of a job… And I don’t know, maybe it’s worth it to them. Hard to say.
But if this is really about the internet then y’all are wasting your time.
Re: above, by “just pointing this out”…
More mis/disinformation. If you’re going to shill for the AMPTP you should admit who you are and whom you’re writing for.
You wrote: The most successful stuff on the web is user-generated, freely given, no compensation required. Why? Because it fits the medium in every respect.
I don’t know what your definition of “successful” is, but successful by producers’ standards is profit-related. Perhaps you meant “the most popular” or “the most clicked-on”, etc. Quantity, not quality. And yes, most of that content is freely given with no compensation. Nor should it be. About 99% of it is crap that no one would pay for – ergo it’s free. No one in the AMPTP nor SAG is interested in the multitude of free crap on the web. If it makes money, the media moguls will be interested.
The idea that the internet is going to be the next TV is tomfoolery. The Internet is not tomorrow’s technology, it’s yesterday’s technology.
The internet is current technology and constantly evolving, but that’s not the point. As it applies to marketing for profit, it’s a huge and endless corridor. The USAGE of the internet as a marketing tool is the point. (Did you just use the word “tomfoolery”? Sheesh…)
As for the WB, I’d like the see what that bottom line is really like, or what their real justification is for putting the network online…I’m not holding my breath…
Their justification is that they can’t sell advertising for their crappy shows on television so they’re trying to evolve. AFTRA negotiated a discounted contract with WB in the past, which is still (for some unknown reason) in effect. But guess what? On the internet, WB producers won’t have to pay AFTRA UNION actors for new content under the new/current AFTRA contract. Swell, huh?
Major studios have created small, barely funded divisions to create online content.
This is where my “shill” comment comes in. Major studios (like the WB example above) are trying to evolve with the new marketplace. As they should. Fine. Whatever you’re calling “small” and “barely funded” is also crap. MILLIONS of dollars are being spent on internet market development. That may be small change in relation to what the “Spider-Man” franchise, the “Pirates” franchise, the “Harry Potter” franchise, “Two and a half Men”, “Desperate Housewives”, etc are bringing in, but it’s definitely NOT small change.
But, and believe me I know, they do not expect these divisions to even pay for themselves much less generate anything vaguely resembling a significant profit.
What are you smoking? Of COURSE they expect them to generate profit – they already ARE generating millions in ad revenue and that figure is growing every day. SAG has posted a marketing research study (independently produced, IIRC) that shows these numbers. You’re either ignorant, or a liar.
And how do you “know” anything about what these companies expect online? Producer (AMPTP) insider, are you?
They are there more as a marketing tool and talent incubator.
SAG doesn’t do “talent incubator”. SAG is a body of talented, experienced and professional ACTORS. There is a SAG experimental film (and TV show?) contract available for producers of such projects.
If they become even more expensive because of guild regulation…? They will simply do less or shut themselves down. Why bother?
Why bother? Because the public at large wants true entertainment. Professionals in the entertainment industry know how to provide it. And good entertainment is expensive, no argument there. But it isn’t SAG (alone) that’s pushing production costs up.
SAG has made it more profitable to make Reality shows than scripted. That’s a fact.
Wrong again, bucko. So-called “reality shows” have allowed producers to make more money by not paying actors and writers ANYTHING for their talent and time. “More profitable” is a combination of less cost, and/or higher ad revenue (in this case) resulting in a larger ROI. This is what any company does or attempts to do. By doing an end-around actors and writers, producers have found that they can keep more money in their loaded pockets. Simply calling a scripted show a “reality show” is a loophole that allows them to do this, even though they’re AMPTP members. The current rash/trend of reality shows is nothing more than watching (choreographed) monkeys in a cage throwing shit at each other and masturbating. And as long as producers can make money selling tickets to the zoo without having to pay the monkeys, they will.
They’re not the first guild or union in history to use their leverage to negotiate themselves out of a job… And I don’t know, maybe it’s worth it to them. Hard to say.
Don’t know if this history is true or not but this isn’t SAG’s future. Nice try.
But if this is really about the internet then y’all are wasting your time.
Yeah, I guess this interweb thingy will go the way of the ATARI. It’s all a bunch of tomfoolery.
Producers are crying poor (and using mouthpieces like you) to perpetuate this myth. Again, all SAG is asking – “demanding”, in fact – is that actors are paid when AMPTP producers make a PROFIT. Producers are already allowed to show ad-supported, profit-generating television shows online (for over two weeks!) without having to pay actors ONE CENT. We’re only asking for decent base salary/pay for work done – just like anybody else involved in a production (grips, teamsters, caterers, writers, PAs, the plethora of under-producers, etc). When that work is shown over and over again for producer profit, it’s fair that all artists get paid a small portion of that profit. That’s the way it works and that’s how producers keep talented people creating their art.
When producers hire non-professional on-camera “talent” they get… well… they get “The Kardashians” and “Tia Tequila”. No shame, just profit.
And THAT’S what the AMPTP is standing for.
Wow Ace…you’re angry. Congrats on the emotion. It’s fun to be angry!
And worth noting, the weakest possible arguments you ever hear on this posting board begin with accusing someone of being a shill for the AMPTP or SAG or AFTRA or DGA…
Which you are obviously not since your arguments are too unintelligible….
The point of pointing out that the free stuff is the most successful is to point out that professional actors are not particularly necessary to “do well” on the internet. Yes, it’s possible that they could be…but so far it’s been peanuts. Or zip. So to get yourself in a tizzy over it seems a waste.
You’re absolutely right about the promo value of the internet. That is, the internet is used to get someone to watch something else….movies or televison…where producers and studios and networks can actually make money.
I’m not sure what your argument is about the WB… I’m just pointing out that most people can’t quite figure out what the overall game is with putting a network online. Yes, as you point out, you can pay everyone less. But you also make far, far, FAR less revenue. And I’m not sure anyone wants to go online to watch crappy original television shows when they can turn on the television and get better crap in both content and technology. Maybe it’ll make a fortune…I would like everyone to be happy…but please, do you really think so? I think they have another endgame with the thing and I don’t think it’s about profits…since I’m not a shill for either the AMPTP or the WB I don’t know what it is…maybe they plan to eventually re-launch the WB as a cable network and this is a testing phase.
Yes, someone is always making money in this industry. This is a good thing. And despite reality television people still want quality. So there will always be work for SAG if they can figure out how to make a contract.
My only point is that Guilds (and some really do think in this kind of far reaching way) need to work not only for their members short term interest, but for the long term interest of the industry itself. But SAG has become so bipolar and self-involved that this kind of discussion has become impossible for them. This negotiation has exposed, if nothing else, SAG’s incompetance and narcissism. Maybe this has something to do with SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment…hard to say.
But what the hell…may everything you say be true about how much money there is to make off the internet. Why not? More money is good.
Thanks for the reply, JPTO. I didn’t intend to start a flame war between myself and anybody else, not the least of whom you. A couple more things, then I’ll let it rest. Your replies are welcomed and will be read with interest.
I’m not “angry” or “in a tizzy”, and I don’t appreciate you spinning my comments that way. I am passionate about my thoughts and convictions, and I will admit that I get exasperated when I read misinformation being spewed by ignorant non-SAG people. If you are SAG, or are not connected with AMPTP, I apologize for those assumptions.
It’s not a “weak argument” to suggest that any forum posters are shills for the AMPTP. It’s overwhelming and obvious. When someone such as you publicly posts so-called “information”, which is both inaccurate and misleading, it’s clear that those people are simply perpetuating these myths and misconceptions about what SAG is doing and what the AMPTP is doing. I’m talking FACTS here, not assumptions.
I also didn’t have any argument about the WB and I’m not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Please don’t put words in my mouth. More spin.
You further wrote:
My only point is that Guilds (and some really do think in this kind of far reaching way) need to work not only for their members short term interest, but for the long term interest of the industry itself. But SAG has become so bipolar and self-involved that this kind of discussion has become impossible for them. This negotiation has exposed, if nothing else, SAG’s incompetance (sic) and narcissism. Maybe this has something to do with SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment…hard to say.
I would not only call that uninformed, but cheap shots at SAG. “Incompetence?” “Narcissism?” “SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment?” No, you’re not SAG after all.
SAG has to negotiate against a double standard. When SAG stands their ground and refuses to let the big dog push them around they’re called “militant”. But when the AMPTP stands firm on their position after giving very little in the earlier negotiations they’re called “tough and savvy”.
You must realize that although SAG negotiators would LOVE to play the temporary, short-term game to keep the film rolling, if they give up anything right now (participation in profits, clip permission and job protection from declining on product placement, for instance) they (we) will never get that back, no matter what the AMPTP says. SAG negotiators know this because the AMPTP has shown their intent in the past in this very same scenario. (See DVD deal in this and other posts.) All of this is absolutely long-term thinking – by BOTH parties, frankly.
I can’t argue that there’s not some divisiveness inside the SAG leadership (or wanna-be leadership). All of these people want what’s best for actors, and most are (like me) frustrated with the status quo. As I posted earlier, some of those higher-ups think it’s productive to go public with their frustrations – for whatever reason – and slinging mud at their own. The AMPTP and their minions are feeding that divisiveness with misleading “news” in the press, and with anonymous discussion board posters. Whatever the depth of that internal problem, it’s a separate issue which has no bearing on the contract negotiations and SAG will eventually work out those internal problems. For any non-SAG body to keep slinging that mud in public is attempting to cloud the issue at hand, and attempting to make SAG look weak. Which we’re not.
I luv JOE JONAS he is sooooo fit! Miley Rocks! I like her song
You may find this article on the SAG Ultra Low Budget Agreement interesting:
http://www.easy-budget.com/articles/articles.asp?article=ultralow