:logic:
Writers Strike (Reloaded)
- Thread starter Cheesebeef
- Start date
:logic:
And as I mentioned before, the things coming from the studios are basically smarmy comments.
The EW article I mentioned before is now online:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20159253,00.html
Really good read...
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,342
maybe I'm reading this wrong, but in your scenario above, that pretty much says the studios are the ones painting the entire masterpiece, right? I don't think ther above is relevant or makes much sense because the studio is just one of the "artists" in making the "masterpiece". Using your analogy, the studio provides the canvas and materials, but what's done with those materials is the artist's role, no?
Let's turn it around - you've said the writer's shouldn't get anything until at least 2012 I believe. That would in essence be the writers saying, "I'll write this masterpiece for you and if you happen to make millions of dollars off it in the next five years, well, that sucks for me and hopefully, people will still be downloading a now half-decade old product that's probably out of anyone's mind." Do you think there's any way if you were a writer you'd make that deal?
I believe (and maybe I'm wrong and tell me if I am) you have suggested that writer's get nothing from online until at least 2012, right? That being said, do you think they should relinquish the percentage they're already getting RIGHT NOW from various online endveaors? I mean, you do realize they're already getting a percentage of revenue from some downloads, but it's the same crap-ass deal they get for DVD/Home Video, which you yourself have deemed ridiculous in support of the writers.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
That 2012 year was an arbitrary date chosen in a previous example. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.
The point is, the studio DOES NOT MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF VIDEO ON THE INTERNET. People just don't get it. They LOSE money on the internet.
If it is so easy, as all of the writers (and the laymen who have no clue what's going on) to just write a blank check saying "ok, the writers get x% of whatever profits we get", why isn't it done yet?
Everyone's answer obviously is because the studios are a-holes and stubborn. That's just a convenient answer that has no basis in fact, because nobody knows the legal and financial ramifications of such a contract.
The writers get barely anything for downloads. Right. Well, guess what? The STUDIOS barely get anything for downloads either. The studios don't make a profit from it--the writers do, regardless of how little they get.
DVD is a lot different because there is A LOT more money flowing in that industry than in the web.
There's a reason why the unions need to make contracts that aren't 20 years long. Inflation and a changing industry are reasons to have shorter contract lengths. Right now, in 2007, is just really bad timing for this. There is no money for the writers in new media right now, just like there is no money for actors, directors and producers in new media, let alone the studios. The studio loses money DAILY in online viewership, but they do it in the hopes of getting more people to tune-in on-air, because that's where the real money is--for the writers as well.
I know I'm by myself on this one, and people keep attacking me as being without "logic", so this will be the last (again) that I speak of it. Nobody is either a) going to understand, or b) agree with me all of a sudden, so I'm not going to bother anymore.
The point is, the studio DOES NOT MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF VIDEO ON THE INTERNET. People just don't get it. They LOSE money on the internet.
If it is so easy, as all of the writers (and the laymen who have no clue what's going on) to just write a blank check saying "ok, the writers get x% of whatever profits we get", why isn't it done yet?
Everyone's answer obviously is because the studios are a-holes and stubborn. That's just a convenient answer that has no basis in fact, because nobody knows the legal and financial ramifications of such a contract.
The writers get barely anything for downloads. Right. Well, guess what? The STUDIOS barely get anything for downloads either. The studios don't make a profit from it--the writers do, regardless of how little they get.
DVD is a lot different because there is A LOT more money flowing in that industry than in the web.
There's a reason why the unions need to make contracts that aren't 20 years long. Inflation and a changing industry are reasons to have shorter contract lengths. Right now, in 2007, is just really bad timing for this. There is no money for the writers in new media right now, just like there is no money for actors, directors and producers in new media, let alone the studios. The studio loses money DAILY in online viewership, but they do it in the hopes of getting more people to tune-in on-air, because that's where the real money is--for the writers as well.
I know I'm by myself on this one, and people keep attacking me as being without "logic", so this will be the last (again) that I speak of it. Nobody is either a) going to understand, or b) agree with me all of a sudden, so I'm not going to bother anymore.
Chap, you know you're one of my favorites and I mean this as no disrespect ... but I haven't seen a post from you yet that suggests you understand the issue any better than we do. I'm neither a TV writer nor a studio employee, but I consider myself more informed than the average person on this issue because of my decade+ experience as an online producer. I've yet to see an argument on behalf of the studios that disputes that (a) they are using the writer's creative content and (b) they are using it to create considerable revenue -- billions, in fact. It's irrelevant whether there's a profit or not. In fact, it's irrelevant whether there's even revenue, but I'm going to include it here as part of the discussion.
Show me something or tell me something that disputes a and b and you will have my full attention.
If the writers get X% of any profit, and there's no profit to be made, then that's $0.00. No harm, no foul.
I don't know if you're referring to the striking writers or people on this board, but I've not heard "everyone's answer" at all. Everyone is asking the question, but no one--not even the studios--have answered it...at least not with anything that makes any sense.
Seems to me that your comment is trying to make the bad guys out of the people that are asking the question. IMO, it's a legitimate question and the frustration that stems from the silent response is also legitimate.
I don't have a dog in this fight--I'm looking at it pretty objectively, I think. I realize it's not black and white, but it seems to me the studios should be giving a little more than they are thus far.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Oh my god, Gad, if you can't see I've continually proven that your "b" is completely and utterly false, I don't know what to tell you. You seem to be generalizing on the whole industry. This issue is very straight-forward and specific -- NEW MEDIA, specifically the internet. I have addressed that ad nauseum. Sorry you don't see it that way.
Again, I find a lot of disrespect in this thread towards me--I hate to imply the "woe is me" defense, but I hate the fact that over the years people call me liar or at least imply that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about when I've been in the industry for several years. Again, it's like telling a plumber he doesn't know what he's talking about. I have no credibility to say that.
I suppose it's not impossible from my point of view for new media to turn a profit. azcentral has turned 7 figure profits since 2001 and has been profitable since 1998. I also know I spent $39 to download Lost Season 3 from iTunes last summer -- no packaging, no extras, nothing but what was broadcast on television. *Someone* made some money there especially considering it required no additional creative work from the studio to sell it there.
I'm sorry you feel attacked here, but "because I said so" is not an argument, not even from the studio presidents.
Let me start off by saying that I know absolutely nothing about the logistics of what is going on here. Everything that I am about to write is completely gleaned from the comments in this thread and what little bit I've read on the subject. I don't claim to have the right answer, I just want to see if I am understanding Chaplin correctly.
From what Chaplin is saying, I believe the point is that he is trying to make is that online media makes no money and in fact loses money in the process currently. The writers want to get a piece of the pie that will eventually be online media income. Everyone is saying what is the problem with giving them 10% of nothing. Which on the surface makes sense. But you are not factoring in the fact that writers are not losing their own money to help cultivate this media as an income producing commodity. They are basically saying you invest all of the money to make this profitable and when it becomes that way, give me my share.
Now I do believe that the writers deserve their share but I can also see where the studios are coming from. If say the writers were to give X% of their profits from somewhere else to help cultivate online media as a viable income creator, then absolutely, they should get their percentage now. But what if online media never becomes viable? The studio is out whatever money they have invested with no return and the writers have lost nothing.
I don't mean to belittle anyone's career or position, this is just my interpretation of what Chaplin is saying.
From what Chaplin is saying, I believe the point is that he is trying to make is that online media makes no money and in fact loses money in the process currently. The writers want to get a piece of the pie that will eventually be online media income. Everyone is saying what is the problem with giving them 10% of nothing. Which on the surface makes sense. But you are not factoring in the fact that writers are not losing their own money to help cultivate this media as an income producing commodity. They are basically saying you invest all of the money to make this profitable and when it becomes that way, give me my share.
Now I do believe that the writers deserve their share but I can also see where the studios are coming from. If say the writers were to give X% of their profits from somewhere else to help cultivate online media as a viable income creator, then absolutely, they should get their percentage now. But what if online media never becomes viable? The studio is out whatever money they have invested with no return and the writers have lost nothing.
I don't mean to belittle anyone's career or position, this is just my interpretation of what Chaplin is saying.
Chaplin
Better off silent
The "I paid a bunch of money, so someone must be making profit" line is totally naive, Gad. You might as well say, "well, there is water falling from the sky, it must be raining." If only it were that easy. You're right, it didn't take any more CREATIVE work to put it there. Why do you think it took so long for studios to put stuff up there? And if it is so cheap, why isn't there more? Again, people think it's free for the studios/networks to put stuff up on iTunes. It isn't--we PAY them to put the episodes up there. And you don't think we lose money in the long run, because if someone is watching something they downloaded from iTunes, they won't watch a rerun on television? The people in syndication are scared even more about the internet than the network people are, but they're not panicking because online still doesn't make any money.
Azcentral is an awful example because they never had streaming video as their bread and butter. Here's the funny thing--I have no doubt you are correct when you say what you say about azcentral. But how come you don't believe me when I talk about the stuff I work on for a living? I don't get it. Hopefully you can help me understand why your knowledge about what you do for a living is so much more valid than mine.
Chaplin
Better off silent
That's a pretty good summary.
Use Gad's sample. Say someone buys Lost Season 3 for 40 bucks online. Let's say the writers get their cut--for sake of arguement, let's say 5% or 2 bucks. That leaves 38 dollars left over--which obviously you KNOW other unions are going to want in on it--let's say another 10 dollars from that 38 goes to the other unions. That leaves 28 dollars left over. Profit? Nope. Because it costs the studios 50 bucks to stream the episode ONCE. What if that person watches it multiple times? Put an ad at the front--they won't pay the studio 50 bucks each play. They would pay 5 bucks for each play. The studios lose like 15 bucks on the transaction.
That is a rudimentary example and the numbers aren't exactly accurate, but that's the idea. The most expensive thing about streaming video is the streaming costs--and that is why the internet makes no money--the studios pay out a lot more than they are getting back. That is a loss.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,342
maybe because a) you started off the thread by telling everyone they don't know what they're talking about b) then said the writer's demands are ridiculous and impossible (even though the writer's are already getting some revenue from the online market) c) you're making arguments (even arguments in the asbtract that have nothing to do with the technicalities of the actual strike - see your 1 million dollar question that everyone is confused by) that a lot people don't believe make rational sense, b) you're not a producer/studio/network head, thus you may not be privy to all the finances that are really involved in the situation (such as how much they're making in advertising costs - unless you're privy to the networks books - which pretty much NO ONE is and which they won't open during negotiations). I mean, you keep using the plumber reference, but I sure as hell ain't gonna take the word of a plumber who's working on my GE washing-machine if I want to know what the up and ups at GE are doing with their books/finances.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
If you are so easy to throw out anything I say, why am I supposed to take what you say as gospel?
If a plumber says you have a bad gasket, are you going to get the maker of the dishwasher to come out and say, "yes, that's true, there is a bad gasket"?
But whatever. cheesebeef disagreeing with me is nothing new. You'd disagree with me if I said the sky was blue.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,342
here's the problem with the above - you're numbers aren't accurate AT ALL. The guild will probably settle for 1.5 and hopes for 2.5 at the MAX so, a) instead of 15% being taken away because of all the other guilds, you're likely looking at 4.5-7% being taken away AT THE MOST. Now considering you didn't even come close to what the guilds are going to take or want, how am I suppose to take the rest of what you wrote (besides the 50 bucks to stream - I'll believe you on that because that is you're area of ex) at face value?
Last edited:
If my plumber comes in and tells me the reason my dishwasher isn't working because it's a leap year, then no, I won't believe him because it doesn't make any sense.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,342
lol. That's a little less delicate way than I would have put it, but regardless of Chap's theory (wrong or right it may be), that scene above playing out in my head is chuckle-worthy.
Chaplin
Better off silent
sigh.
Since you either a) have no understanding of what I'm saying, or b) choose to automatically discount anything I say as lie, I won't be responding to you anymore. You're taking everything I'm saying and calling it as having nothing to do with the issue? Seriously? You obviously know nothing about this entire situation.
I still hope the strike is over soon--if this goes into March, my job will be in serious jeopardy. And I don't care who you are, that's the last thing you want.
It was tongue in cheek, chap. I don't think you're lying, but I also don't think you're the ultimate authority on the subject. We're allowed to our opinions, even though we're not in the "industry."
Even though I may only know what's being published about the situation, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant on the subject. Thanks, though.
You're right, I don't want you to lose your job. (even though it's far from the "last thing" I want--I have many more things in my life that are far more important to me than your job).
...Why does this sound like some sort of threat?
Chaplin
Better off silent
You're right, I don't want you to lose your job. (even though it's far from the "last thing" I want--I have many more things in my life that are far more important to me than your job).
...Why does this sound like some sort of threat?
LOL, nah, I was meaning it as a generalization, not that you wouldn't want me to lose my job. I meant, if anyone was under the threat of losing their job, they wouldn't want that to happen. Sorry.
Although, that almost makes no sense also.
So is this writings strike still going? Or not? Im being serious..
yes.
Matt L
formerly known as mattyboy
Will Lost still be on after Christmas or is this strike going to cancel the season of LOST?
Won't cancel it, but won't have uninterupted season like originally promised.
MigratingOsprey
Thank You Paul!
i think i get what chap is saying about the revenues online and why it isn't as simple as saying 1.5% once it becomes profitable
it could be the reason why the studios are unwilling to tie themselves to a percentage yet is that they have no idea how much money can be made, how quickly a profit can be turned and how much they'll have to spend to get there
the writers help provide content - but distributing the content is a whole different world - especially trying to breed new technology in a profitable manner
so why does it matter? - work with small numbers for purely examples sake
example 1 - it costs $1,000 to make the technology viable - at this point the profit per unit that would be divided amongst all parties is $100 - it takes 3 years to get to this point
example 2 - it costs $5,000 to make the technology viable - at this point the profit per unit that would be divided amongst all parties is $50 - it takes 5 years to get to this point
the writers cut in each instance is 2% - so that would be $2 in example 1 and $1 in example two
if this were my business I would find example two to be more upsetting than example 1 even though i'm giving the writers less real money - in that case I spent a lot more time and effort bringing this thing to market - it was hard and opened up a never existing revenue stream - why should i give such a large cut of so little profit?!
i can also see the writers side in that they could have issues revisiting the issues and who judges when this becomes profitable
so there is a definite riddle to be solved
however to say that 1.5% is 1.5% regardless of circumstance is pretty light in substance
it could be the reason why the studios are unwilling to tie themselves to a percentage yet is that they have no idea how much money can be made, how quickly a profit can be turned and how much they'll have to spend to get there
the writers help provide content - but distributing the content is a whole different world - especially trying to breed new technology in a profitable manner
so why does it matter? - work with small numbers for purely examples sake
example 1 - it costs $1,000 to make the technology viable - at this point the profit per unit that would be divided amongst all parties is $100 - it takes 3 years to get to this point
example 2 - it costs $5,000 to make the technology viable - at this point the profit per unit that would be divided amongst all parties is $50 - it takes 5 years to get to this point
the writers cut in each instance is 2% - so that would be $2 in example 1 and $1 in example two
if this were my business I would find example two to be more upsetting than example 1 even though i'm giving the writers less real money - in that case I spent a lot more time and effort bringing this thing to market - it was hard and opened up a never existing revenue stream - why should i give such a large cut of so little profit?!
i can also see the writers side in that they could have issues revisiting the issues and who judges when this becomes profitable
so there is a definite riddle to be solved
however to say that 1.5% is 1.5% regardless of circumstance is pretty light in substance
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,342
the biggest problem in this whole deal is that the writers trusted the Producers on "revisting the issues" when it came to Home Entertainment residuals agreeing to the universallly recognized unconscionable percentage of 1.2% (even Chap agrees this is ridiculous) and they have been STONEWALLED ever since they made the deal as the Prodcuers for the last 20 years refused to ever "revisit the issue". As George Bush would say, "Fool me once... shame on... me. Fool me... you won't get fooled again!" They've gotten bent over for 20 years after false promises were broken. They can't let that happen again and have no reason whatsoever to believe the Producers will be good on their word this time as opposed to last time.
