Writers Strike (Reloaded)

[MigratingOsprey]

and I definitely can see where past experience can tie into it and why the writers wouldn't desire a wait and see approach - can see where both sides are coming from on this

just saying that it isn't as easy as 1.5% of nothing is nothing so why not just give it now

 

[Pariah]

just saying that it isn't as easy as 1.5% of nothing is nothing so why not just give it now

I just disagree. I think they need to figure out how much of a cut the writers are entitled to, in essence, determining the value of writing to the end-product.

Their contribution should be rewarded accordingly.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

why when they have nothing to do with bringing it online

so you're saying the studios who are enabling this content delivery, eating all the initial costs and helping create this revenue stream have no rights to be compensated in proportion to the efforts they put forth in bringing in the money?

the writers should be compensated for helping create content - the producers should be compensated for delivering content - factors such as sunk costs, overall profitability and resources spent by the production companies must come into play

let me throw a 3rd scenario into my previous post

it takes 1 year to get profitable, costs $500 and the studios can make $200 per unit - in this case the 1.5% would seem paltry as compared to the other 2 scenarios - i think this would be similar to the home video circumstance referenced earlier

it could behoove both of them to see how profitable this is - problem is there isn't a whole lot of trust (and for good reason)

 

[Pariah]

why when they have nothing to do with bringing it online

What is "it?" The content? They have LOTS to do with creating "it."

"It" is getting sold in very different ways these days. They should be compensated for how their product sells, IMO.

 

[Gaddabout]

why when they have nothing to do with bringing it online

so you're saying the studios who are enabling this content delivery, eating all the initial costs and helping create this revenue stream have no rights to be compensated in proportion to the efforts they put forth in bringing in the money?

All I know is if a publisher picks up my novel, they will pay me someway somehow every time they use it. If they spent a billion dollars to launch my book into another galaxy to open up a market among alien beings, I expect to be compensated whether they see another dime in return or not. It's my creative work. They didn't buy my ideas to use as they please once they cut me a check for the final print.

At the very least I expect them to approach me with a new contract for a new platform. If aliens suddenly started buying my novel, I'd want a cut of that. I might support a small profit-sharing deal to help launch a new platform.

Either way, there is no market without my creative content. I am a "credit" in this situation, not a "debit."

 

[MigratingOsprey]

pariah - they help create it - but don't help distribute it

the broader distribution benefits everyone - but there should be some proportion as it relates to the expenditure and costs of bringing in this new revenue stream

gaddabout - if it costs 5x the amount of money to bring in 1/2 the net profit to tap this alien market place in comparison to a traditional earth bound outlet - do you feel it's reasonable to demand the same exact cut in both circumstances?

you'll benefit by the new revenues and new cuts of something that didn't exist before - but why should you get paid a higher percentage of the real money (factoring in start up expenses) for this new alien marketplace?

 

[Pariah]

pariah - they help create it - but don't help distribute it

So, then they shouldn't get paid anything but a straight salary. Is that what you're saying? Compensation shouldn't depend on how popular a film or a show is? Because when it's re-distributed, it's based on popularity, no?

 

[Gaddabout]

gaddabout - if it costs 5x the amount of money to bring in 1/2 the net profit to tap this alien market place in comparison to a traditional earth bound outlet - do you feel it's reasonable to demand the same exact cut in both circumstances?

It really depends on who I'm working with. If I don't trust them to tell me the truth about profits, I'm not going to play the game. I'll want my full cut. They could gain my trust by opening the books to me or my agent.

That's how the game is played. If you want me to concede something, give me something else of value or work harder to gain my trust. Don't talk down to me by trying to give me a macroeconomic lesson I'm already bright enough to understand on my own.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

pariah - i'm not saying that at all - it definitely should - also, i'm sure the writers on more successful shows are able to draw more favorable front end deals as well - just like the actors on friends made a lot more than the actors on a new series that went 6 episodes and then met the axe

people want good content but it also has to be easily obtainable - flipping it to sports the NHL is better than it has been in the past 15 - 20 years - however on Vs the distribution sucks so they are hurting - nothing the players can do about it and it hurts them directly as well by limiting league revenues

you can have the best product in the world, designed and created by the best but it will not bring itself to market - let alone create new marketplaces

as stated previously, i'm fully sympathetic to the fact the writers feel burned about the home video marketplace - they could very well put themselves into a similar situation where they take a small cut of a large pie by demanding something immediately if they are not careful

what is prudent in this case seems doomed as there is just no trust on either side and too many hurt feelings

 

[Gaddabout]

Paul Haggis captures the writer's perspective well here:

Part 1

Part 2

 

[Heucrazy]

That's like me saying, "You know, if there comes a time where I make a million dollars painting a masterpiece, I'll give you 10%." Why would I do that? There's no way I'd make that contract with you.

You should if I drew the thing and then you just did paint by numbers. And if you refused then I wouldn't draw the thing for you and you would be screwed.

Sounds like what is going on right now.

 

[Heucrazy]

Because I helped you paint it. In fact, in taking this analogy a little further, I sketched the masterpiece on the canvas for you. You added the paint, but I gave you the basis for it.

If it's decided that the writer is worth X% of the creation, then X% is what they should get--regardless of the ultimate amount.

JMHO

I really should read down further before replying to older posts.

 

[abomb]

Will Lost still be on after Christmas or is this strike going to cancel the season of LOST?

Lost has 8 in the can that should air as normal. Episode 8 has a natural cliffhanger, per the show runners, so it wouldnt be a terrible place to break.

 

[Chaplin]

You should if I drew the thing and then you just did paint by numbers. And if you refused then I wouldn't draw the thing for you and you would be screwed.

Sounds like what is going on right now.

You people just think the writer's can do no wrong, huh?

They deserve more than they are getting, that I agree with. But the studios are losing money in new media right now! Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

 

[Heucrazy]

You people just think the writer's can do no wrong, huh?

They deserve more than they are getting, that I agree with. But the studios are losing money in new media right now! Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Actually I think the writer's are wrong for going on strike and causing many other people to lose their jobs because of it.That said they have every right to want to be compensated for their work.

I also find it very hard to believe that networks are losing any signifigant amount of money from online streaming. If it was a money pit then they wouldn't do it. These companies aren't worth billions because they throw money away hand over fist like you and the execs are claiming.

 

[Gaddabout]

They deserve more than they are getting, that I agree with. But the studios are losing money in new media right now! Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

You're never going to turn a profit if you take content and give it away under a promotional budget line. Web sites are no longer promotional tools. They're places of business. This is the part that blows my mind.

We're no longer at a point at guessing whether people will pay for streamed video or video downloads. We're at the point of deciding how much they would pay for it.

Studio online business models are stuck in 1998 thinking, IMO. Ad-driven, free content. There are some industries where this is clearly the best model -- newspapers, for one. That will change eventually as we move to more mobile content, more multimedia, etc. For now, newspapers can't afford to abandon online advertisers. Studios can, though, because that kind of media delivery already has a proven market. TV shows have much more of an evergreen flavor. Forty years of syndication and the rapid expansion of cable television has proven that.

But I have no doubt they're losing money on it. Big time.

 

[Chaplin]

Actually I think the writer's are wrong for going on strike and causing many other people to lose their jobs because of it.That said they have every right to want to be compensated for their work.

I also find it very hard to believe that networks are losing any signifigant amount of money from online streaming. If it was a money pit then they wouldn't do it. These companies aren't worth billions because they throw money away hand over fist like you and the execs are claiming.

Hard for you to believe? Fine. I get it. If it's the studios, then they automatically are money-grubbing blowhards.

It is a money pit, but it's essential for marketing their shows since across the board, ratings are down significantly this year. I'm not "claiming" that the studios are throwing money away hand over fist. They make a ton on home entertainment and other forms of revenue. But NOT New Media!

 

[Chaplin]

You're never going to turn a profit if you take content and give it away under a promotional budget line. Web sites are no longer promotional tools. They're places of business. This is the part that blows my mind.

Wrong. Sorry, but for sites like AZCentral that don't have HUGE video streaming fees, they are places of business. What you aren't getting is the immense cost it is to put full pieces of video on a website. Tens of thousands of dollars go into ONE show, let alone 12 or 15.

We're no longer at a point at guessing whether people will pay for streamed video or video downloads. We're at the point of deciding how much they would pay for it.

Uh huh. Again, a phantom number that the writers want substantial money from. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Studio online business models are stuck in 1998 thinking, IMO. Ad-driven, free content.

But I have no doubt they're losing money on it. Big time.

Then what's the issue? If they are losing money on it "big time", as you claim, why are you eager to say the studios should give the writers money regardless of their losses? I don't know, but in my world, if you are losing money, you don't have any left over to give to other people.

 

[Gaddabout]

Then what's the issue? If they are losing money on it "big time", as you claim, why are you eager to say the studios should give the writers money regardless of their losses? I don't know, but in my world, if you are losing money, you don't have any left over to give to other people.

I'm now sure which part of ownership of creative content you're misunderstanding. If my employer is losing money, I'm still not going to work for free. If they can't sustain my employment they shouldn't be in business.

Develop a market? Sure! But you first have to include a budget line for those who create the product for your market. Anything else is just stealing, Chap. Pure thievery. Just blows my mind we keep coming back to this issue. If they develop a market and start turning profits under the current deal, the studios aren't going to go back and square up and make things right with the writers. Just look at the DVD issue.

 

[abomb]

I'm now sure which part of ownership of creative content you're misunderstanding. If my employer is losing money, I'm still not going to work for free. If they can't sustain my employment they shouldn't be in business.

Develop a market? Sure! But you first have to include a budget line for those who create the product for your market. Anything else is just stealing, Chap. Pure thievery. Just blows my mind we keep coming back to this issue. If they develop a market and start turning profits under the current deal, the studios aren't going to go back and square up and make things right with the writers. Just look at the DVD issue.

I love these analogies. I would also be shocked to find out that networks are streaming/downloading content in a very efficient manner. Most are using a mishmash of technologies, many of them the same way they streamed ads 10 years ago. It isnt the writer's fault that his boss cant run his business properly.

 

[Gaddabout]

You know what, Chap? I told you before I wouldn't get into this again with you because it ain't worth it. I like you. I'll just quietly disagree from now on.

Not like I've got a vote in this dadgum issue anyway. I'm a selfish TV watcher that wants this over with so Lost can get back to filming!

 

[Chaplin]

You know what, Chap? I told you before I wouldn't get into this again with you because it ain't worth it. I like you. I'll just quietly disagree from now on.

Not like I've got a vote in this dadgum issue anyway. I'm a selfish TV watcher that wants this over with so Lost can get back to filming!

Hey, I'm with you 100% on that one.

 

[Cheesebeef]

so, it looks like the first of the Late-Night Talk Show Hosts is gonna go back on the air. Why does it not surprise me that it's Carson Daly.

Man, if Daly was painfully unfunny with writers, I can only imagine how horrifically unfunny he'll be without 'em.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_en_tv/hollywood_labor_carson_daly

This doesn't really upset me all that much though considering how little people generally think of Daly. Dude's a pathetic industry personality and he's doing nothing but backing up what I've always believed about him that he's a talentless/integrity-challenged hack.

 

[abomb]

so, it looks like the first of the Late-Night Talk Show Hosts is gonna go back on the air. Why does it not surprise me that it's Carson Daly.

Man, if Daly was painfully unfunny with writers, I can only imagine how horrifically unfunny he'll be without 'em.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_en_tv/hollywood_labor_carson_daly

This doesn't really upset me all that much though considering how little people generally think of Daly. Dude's a pathetic industry personality and he's doing nothing but backing up what I've always believed about him that he's a talentless/integrity-challenged hack.

Agree on all counts.

 

[Chaplin]

so, it looks like the first of the Late-Night Talk Show Hosts is gonna go back on the air. Why does it not surprise me that it's Carson Daly.

Man, if Daly was painfully unfunny with writers, I can only imagine how horrifically unfunny he'll be without 'em.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_en_tv/hollywood_labor_carson_daly

This doesn't really upset me all that much though considering how little people generally think of Daly. Dude's a pathetic industry personality and he's doing nothing but backing up what I've always believed about him that he's a talentless/integrity-challenged hack.

As someone on the other side, I gotta agree.