It really is hard to care about any of this.. With the quality of TV and movies this day I almost think their share should drop!
alphie
· 2 years ago
You don't have to care about it...but you could at least get the math right :)
Jazz
· 2 years ago
Producers and distributors typically get the lion's share of the money. (I do some work in this area and work with some industry people on occasion.) I couldn't quote you an exact figure, but distribution deals are very lucrative for the distribution company, and the people who put up the cash for the project initially (the executive producers, typically) are written in to get their share of the pie first as you would expect, which certianly makes sense. They bear the large part of the risk initially (many film projects make no profit at all) and justifiably want to ensure they get their return on investment for the projects that actually do bear financial fruit.
The portion left over for the directors, actors, writers, and the rest of the names you see in the closing credits (not all of whom have a deal that pays anything past their initial payday) is well below half, but that's still a significan chunk of money given the size of the market.
I did find your rather obvious disdain for the writers surprising, though. They're working on an old contract (very old) and are watching large amounts of money being swept off the table without their share of this more recent revenue stream reflecting their contribution to the original project. Their request certainly seems reasonable, and I suspect they will eventually agree to take five and a half or six cents rather than eight. They certainly deserve a fair share of th pie.
captained
· 2 years ago
I have disdain for the argument offered in Newsweek. It's deceptive and contextless. The writers got almost a billion dollars last year, and while some obviously do better than others (based on their performance in the marketplace), as a group they're hardly starving.
The contract may be old, but that doesn't make it invalid. In 1988, the retail unit price of a videotape was higher than it is now, and DVDs have also come down in price. They're still getting four cents per unit, which makes their participation somewhat stronger than in 1988.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Funny -- NPR reported that the lions share goes to producers, directors, actors -- anyone with a "name". They didn't mention distributors. Of course, there's always the Desi Arnaz way of doing things -- take five jobs in the stream and draw five salaries.
jim
· 2 years ago
The distributor's take probably figures in as the "cost" part of it, with everyone else getting a share of the remaining "profit".
I put "costs" and "profit" in quotes, because really we only have the studios' word for what that actually is.
A few years ago, writer Art Buchwald sued Paramount over "Coming to America", because they basically stole his idea and put another writer on it. He won in court, and Paramount then attempted to claim that "Coming to America" didn't actually make them any money (!!).
Paramount trotted out a lot of trumped-up costs going to foreign distributors and other things, which are impossible to verify without looking at the studios actual books...
jim
· 2 years ago
Oh, and Buchwald won a settlement. Happy ending...
quickjustice
· 2 years ago
It's hard to feel much sympathy for people who pull down $200,000 or more per year working for the big shows. That said, it's hard to find much to like about their bosses either. These aren't people for whom I feel much sympathy.
Call me when they stop cranking out their anti-war dreck, and start entertaining Americans once again.
Dragnet
· 2 years ago
Amazing, you can't tell me there is not a single thing on TV that you watch and enjoy that use writers. And, consequently, if you don't watch TV, then who cares what you think about those whose profession you do not enjoy or even use.
Pam
· 2 years ago
Yes there are shows that I like to watch..L&O SVU or CI, but I can catch them on cable in rerun form....Netflix is also a nice alternative to network television....
Dave Rywall
· 2 years ago
What a ridiculous rationale for not supporting people who are getting screwed. As if they shouldn't be complaining because 200,000 should be enough money for anybody.
Studios make money off the writers' content online. Therefore, they should pay the writers for that. Pretty simple stuff.
Whether or not you like the content they produce, billions of dollars is made off that content, and as an American you should be rooting for people to get compensated fairly. If this were a coal mine union you'd be up at arms.
Jazz
· 2 years ago
"If this were a coal mine union you'd be up at arms."
That's a rather large assumption. I believe you'll find that the very word "union" is pretty much a four letter word around here, at least in the comments section. Sadly, it's become pretty much a plank in the GOP platform. Most unions endorse democrats, therefore Unions=Evil.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
My Old Man worked for a union for most of his career as an airline engine mechanic. He HATED the union and not political reasons: it was a question of taking a chunk of his paycheck and giving damned little back except the occasional threat to take away his job if "the union" decided to go on strike.
A good friend of mine's father also worked in a union shop. He got fed up when one of his worthless coworkers - who should never have been hired in the first place - was caught redhanded stealing from the company. The union went to bat to get this guy his job back.
Unions have their uses and have done a lot to improve the lot of the working man in the past. However, in these days of OSHA, EEOC, and the other alphabet soup of government agencies that monitor and regulate the workplace, they don't have much use anymore.
But you're right about one thing: the fact that unions overwhelmingly give their members' dues to democrats (whether the members want it that way or not) doesn't exactly win them friends among conservatives.
Pam
· 2 years ago
The writers were paid for their stuff.
Dave Rywall
· 2 years ago
Pam
You. Miss. The. Point. Entirely.
The studios refuse to acknowledge how huge the internet will be in the distribution of entertainment content. They will make more and more money from it as technology develops. That the writers are barely compensated for this avenue that will be the PRIME method by which their product is consumed by the public is hugely unfair and unamerican.
Jeff
· 2 years ago
Dave
The writer's gave their power of negotiation to the Writer's Guild, the Writer's Guild negotiated a contract for the writers to be paid x per unit. If they are still getting x per unit, then they are not being ripped off by the industry, they were ripped of by the Guild which did not negotiate on their behalf very well.
I assume the 1988 contract was not opened ended and had a date set for renegotiation. If that is the case they should a) Suck it up until then, or b) ditch the Writer's Guild and negotiate for each project themselves, that way they could get what they think/actually are worth. If it is indeed open ended then they are bigger fools then I or anyone else thinks and deserve whatever happens because of that stupidity.
Unions were long since taken over by socialists and because of this see Jazz's comment.
Dave Rywall
· 2 years ago
It appears you're commenting on a situation you're not very familiar with.
The Writers Guild contract expired on October 31, 2007.
This situation couldn't possibly have less to do with socialism. Duh.
Pam
· 2 years ago
Dave
I agree with you. These writers didn't sell their work under the promise of anything more than their contract called for. They chose to spread the wealth rather than be paid according to what each member contributed. ($4000 per member) Does the one hit wonder writer collect the same as a writer who had their work go into syndication? Example: A writer for a show that lasted 4 episodes vs a writer from Seinfeld..
Pam
· 2 years ago
the above comment was addressed to Jeff, not Dave.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
But isn't it the American way to dispise the rich -- to not want to pay them more than you have to from your own pocket, and to deny them the "rightful" fruits of their labor?
Aren't you Canadians the same way?
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
I haven't watched a non-sports, non-documentary TV show in years, so I could not possibly care less whether this strike is ever resolved.
I stopped watching when everything became repetitive and juvenile. The Ivy League must be sending it's legacy students to Hollywood, because everything is unoriginal, uninspiring, uninteresting dreck.
Let them strike forever or better yet, quit and get real jobs.
K T Cat
· 2 years ago
My response to the writer's strike has been to watch reruns of Green Acres. I also raise my fist in solidarity with the proletarian scribes as they march around with signs, demanding more money to give my kids' moral instruction on shows like 2 1/2 Men.
Err, maybe that's "I shake my fist" instead. :-)
I'll support Hollywood when I hear that all of the personnel involved in entertainment production have volunteered for the Big Brothers / Big Sisters program and are helping out the unwed mothers who became convinced that there was nothing wrong with the moral messages given out by Charlie Sheen and Beyonce.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
I note that McGrath couldn't resist a gratuitous swipe at Bush. I don't know if he did it because he suffers from BDS, or because he thought that it would earn him some sympathy points, or both.
Anyway...
Cap'n Ed: McGrath doesn't give entertainment consumers much reason to care about this strike. It's not about working conditions or the quality of the product. So far as any of us can tell, it's a typical entertainment-industry strike, where both sides work against their own interests in failing to come to a reasonable formula to divvy up an avalanche of money. We see it in professional sports and in TV and movies, and quite frankly, we find it even more boring and formulaic than 80% of what all of them produce.
Exactly. McGrath makes this point to show how just soooo UNFAIR it all is:
Douglas McGrath: I am not being hyperbolic when I say "small." For a DVD sold for $19.99, we are paid 4 cents.
It would be interesting to know how much people in various industries are made for the goods and services they sell vs. how much their eeeeevil, greedy employers make. For example, I work in the chemical industry. I make about 0.6 cents per pound for the materials we sell. In other words, my salary would increase almost by a factor of 7 if I got paid as well as McGrath and his fellow writers. Granted, the comparison is not exact: they "create" their scripts, while I merely do quality control for things that other people make. Nevertheless, it's a little hard to have sympathy for somebody who's "paid" so much better than I am.
It's a little disingenuous for the Captain to suggest that McGrath is leaving out vital numbers of perspective when he does the same thing himself. Yes, the total monies paid to writers in 2006 might have been over $950 million -- but Captain Ed forgets that this has to be *divided among (at least) the 12,000 members of the Guild,* where it only comes out to about $80,000 per person per year. (There are an awful lot of gas tanks that need filling.)
And *that's* assuming an even division per person, which isn't the case; most of the writers in the entertainment industry make far less than this--it's only the few lucky enough to sell blockbuster studio scripts or work on prime-time ratings leaders who make six digits or more.
Moreover, the entire point of the writers' case is not only that however "reasonable" an average $80K earnings may seem, it's a fraction of what they could and should be earning, but that even this equation won't hold if the Internet business model is as successful as it quite reasonably may be anticipated to be, and the writers will lose even more money if they don't get a just compensation for contribution to new-media markets.
Our right to argue for a fair share of a business that couldn't operate without our input shouldn't be contingent on someone else's dismissive judgement that, "aaah, you already make enough to get by, whatcha bitchin' about?" Otherwise the doctors who are so fervently defended as earning their salary would have no grounds to complain about the salary cap a socialized medicine system would necessarily impose.
Stephen J.
· 2 years ago
And in fact, I just realized that Alphie is correct and the Captain's math is wrong: McGrath indicates that writers are paid not 4c on the dollar, but 4c on *every 20 dollars*. So the residuals come out to only 48 million, not 960 million -- and 48 million divided among 12,000 writers is $4,000 PER PERSON.
And as before, this isn't an even division; most writers will make far less than this.
*Now* I think the writers' case is a lot easier to see.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
I also think you could argue that without the writers there would be no profits for anyone else. Unlike employees at a car factory who are making something that was designed by somebody else, the writers in Hollywood are making "original" product.
I enjoy a lot of shows on TV and think it is better now than it has been in a long time. I love LOST, The Office, 30 Rock, and others. I also end up downloading many shows on my ipod to enjoy at my convenience. I don't like the idea of writers not being paid just because I choose to access their work through a different medium than traditional television.
Pam
· 2 years ago
Not really...for the most part, the writers are hired to write scripts based on someone else's creative concept. The Sopranos went through quite a few writers, but each and everyone of them wrote a script based on David Chase's concept of where the storyline was going to go. The original concept is sold to a studio. A writer, actually a team of writers, is utilized to make that concept become a reality...
jim
· 2 years ago
David Chase is a writer. Therefore he's a writer working with other writers. Writers are still creating the content.
Pam
· 2 years ago
David Chase owns the show, so no, he isn't classified as a writer. His background is writing, and he may have written some episodes, but when the credits roll, he is listed as a bigger player than the writers are.
jim
· 2 years ago
Yes, totally. However, Teresa's point is that without writers, there wouldn't be anything else.
You stated that this isn't true with the Sopranos, because David Chase told other writers concepts for each episode. I'm pointing out that David Chase is himself a writer - and thus, he's acting here as the de facto lead writer.
Yes, you're right; David Chase is credited as a producer. That's probably because he knows that if he merely credited himself as a writer he would simply get shafted.
MarkTheGreat
· 2 years ago
The same argument can be made for just about everyone who works on a show. Or just about any other product for that matter.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
No it can't. Someone working at a factory making windshields is making them all the same according to someone else's plans. It will not matter if worker A or worker B is making the windshield. It will come out exactly the same unless they are a real screw up.
Writing a TV show is very different. You have to produce new, original content for each show. No script, no show.
always right
· 2 years ago
Your argument would be more genuine if the $4000 per person per year is the ONLY income every writer gets.
Let's use the same math to figure out how many cents an actor/actress or movie making industry (electricians, carpenters, etc. etc.) get from each $20 DVD sale. And I mean everybody.
That way the “sympathy towards filling up each gas tank” may be more legitimate.
(BTW, the annon is from always right. I haven't yet figure out how to register again.)
docjim505
· 2 years ago
I don't think anybody's saying that writers (I assume from your post that you are one) don't have a right to negotiate for as much pay and benefits as they can. Nobody's saying that writers haven't got the right to strike, either.
It's just a little hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for people who have what appears to me to be a cushy job and not only whine that they should make more money (please note that I wish I got paid better, so I understand why other people have the same desire) but also make claims about "fair share". "Fair" is a totally subjective word; what's fair to you may not seem so to me. The companies that employ writers obviously think that the contract as it stands is quite fair.
Stephen J: ... doctors who are so fervently defended as earning their salary would have no grounds to complain about the salary cap a socialized medicine system would necessarily impose.
I think that there is an important distinction here. In the case of the government mandating doctor's salaries, it's a case of an outside agency imposing its will on the two parties who would normally set the rate, i.e. the doctor and his employer. In the case of the writers, they are working directly with their employer(s).
MarkTheGreat
· 2 years ago
In your opinion, it's luck that determines who works on the top shows and who doesn't?
Pam
· 2 years ago
I really could care less about the strike. I don't watch 'network' television as a rule, and I have yet to see a good arguement as to why I should care about the issue.
rbj
· 2 years ago
Wait, what with all this global warming, shouldn't the liberal Hollywood community be happy they can't fill their gas tanks so often?
I do have some sympathy for the writers, but hey don't we all want to make more money?
And don't liberals consider $200K/year to be rich when talking about tax increases?
Voiceguy
· 2 years ago
The $960 million figure is almost certainly overstated by a considerable factor. As pointed out in another comment, the rate is not 4 cents on the dollar, but 4 cents on each 20 dollars. Even this is not completely reliable as a rule of thumb, because not all DVD sales are royalty-generating. One of the problems, though, is that most of the key information is kept secret by the studios, and even the Guild can't say for sure what the number should be. The Guild only knows what it reported to it in royalty statements from the studios, which tend to be fairly opaque and incomplete.
The current formula is based on a percentage taken against 20% of net wholesale revenues from home video sales. "Net" means that there are all kinds of deductions for product returns, promotional uses, club sales, and so forth. The other guilds are on a similar formula, which was supposedly an "introductory" rate set deliberately low in order to allow the home video market to be established. One reason the studios are fighting so hard on this issue is not that the writers, in and of themselves, would cut heavily into the economics if their requested rate change was enacted, but because it would set a pattern for comparable changes in all the other guild formulas. That has the studios terrorized.
The biggest problem, and one that will likely prolong the strike, is that the writers are completely overmatched by the PR and spin machinery on the studio side. Already the AMPTP is running full-page ads in Variety making deceptive claims about the issues. And as judged by the comments here, the writers have not made good use of their own talents to get a sympathetic story out.
Writers are pretty low on the Hollywood food chain, and have always had trouble claiming a place at the table. It took courage (or foolishness) to walk out. I hope it won't be a futile gesture.
kimsch
· 2 years ago
Is downloading a show to your laptop or iPod (or TiVoing for that matter) really that much different from the old days of setting your VCR to record the television show?
McGrath's article makes it seem as though the 4 cents per DVD is ALL that the writers are paid. Writers are paid for the writing when it happens as well. Salaries can buy gas too.
With rentals so prevalent, why not a penny for each time a movie or TV episode is rented as well? Or a TiVo'd episode? Of course, with my TiVo, I'm recording to watch at a more convenient time, not to get more eyeballs on the episode and my watching the show at time other than broadcast generates no new revenue.
This kind of reminds me of Apple's new rules for selling iPhones. You can't pay cash (must use a credit card) and you can't buy more than two. Apple is afraid of the secondary market. The secondary market could make more money than Apple is. I don't see it especially. If someone pays retail for the iPhone, Apple gets its money. If the person who bought the iPhone at retail is able to sell that same iPhone to someone for more than the retail price (plus tax?) that it was purchased for, then more power to that person. Apple really doesn't have a right to be "jealous" that someone else was able to make more than it was....
Jeremy
· 2 years ago
With your argument, why should anyone get residuals? I would judge from this article you are not an artist by any means nor have any idea how the payment on how these things work. Most writers are not filthy rich, but even if they were the way the media companies are currently operating it threatens to bring their income down to next to nothing as the digital age explodes. Do your research before you go off on how stupid someone else is.
If you don't like the fact that you are making these people rich, don't support them by going to movies, watching TV, etc. No one is forcing you to pay the media companies. I avoid supporting these companies that often attempt to screw the artists anyway.
Skip
· 2 years ago
From what I understand, the actors and directors/producers contracts are up in a few months themselves, so what they currently get in residuals may not be a very good benchmark. But via the magic of google, I found this blog posting from an actor who had a part in Seabiscuit.
It indicates that the actor residual rate is 12 cents per unit, but split among all the actors, but that the residual for broadcasts is much better.
MarkTheGreat
· 2 years ago
A lot of videos are sold for a lot less than $20. Wal-Mart has a bin with videos for $5 each. Many of the videos that I buy are closer $9 to $13 each.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
It makes for a good retirement. You get this money forever, and so do your heirs until the copyright runs out in 75 or so years.
As for me, watching these guys roll up to a set at my workplace (a defense contractor) in their new BMW SUVs tells me they really don't need the money. Really -- they all, to a person, drive BMW SUVs. And they don't carpool. I guess I'm a bit selfish, but I'd prefer to spend the money I'd be forced to pay them on something else -- like a candy bar or two.
burt
· 2 years ago
Stagehands are on strike in NY (AFP). They get an average compensation package including benefits of over $150,000 with some making over $200,000. I doubt they have any more knowledge or skill, probably not as much, than a newly licensed carpenter. Its good to be associated with a monopolistic union.
me
· 2 years ago
That's kind of the point of joining a union, isn't it?
Shawna Benson
· 2 years ago
I'm dismayed that so many people lack understanding of the issues involved. I am a conservative living in Hollywood, an aspiring TV writer, and believe me, I'm no union lover. But, consider the following:
* Not every writer sells work every year. Yes, there is the MBA (Minimum Basic Agreement) for works sold to studios, and many writers make more than the MBA on a screenplay sale, but often that screenplay is the result of a year or more in writing. The contracted minimum for a screenplay today is between $53,000 and $99,000. TV writers, who often only write one or two scripts in a season, can make up to $30,000 for an hour long episode (story and teleplay). Because staff writers are on salary, this is often counted against their salary. Meaning, that in order to make more than $50,000 a year, you'd have to write at least 2 TV scripts in full. Usually the only people making more than the minimums are the head writer (showrunner) who is also a producer and a handful of the exec-producer or co-producers.
* If a songwriter sells a song or a novelist publishes a book, should they not be compensated based on the sales of those works? TV and Film residuals are no different than the royalties other writers receive for their published works.
* Many TV shows today do not get re-run. 'LOST' episodes don't re-run well, and so the network has decided to run the episodes consecutively with no repeats. Without a repeated episode TV writers are not compensated as they used to be.
* Recording a program on a VCR is NOT like downloading or streaming on the internet. The networks sell the broadcast programs for advertising. Those advertising dollars are then used to pay the writers, actors, directors. The studios are selling advertising on streaming video and are selling shows directly to consumers on platforms such as iTunes. The writers receive NO COMPENSATION from these methods of sale. In short, the studios are keeping all of the profits from these distribution methods and are not paying writers at all. Nick Counter, the lead negotiator for the studios stated at the end of the contract talks that shows streamed online or available through paid download services were considered "promotional" and therefore not subject to the residual formulas for DVD, and they do not know how profitable the internet will be for them. By the studios own talking points to their shareholders, however, they sing a different tune.
* The $200,000 average is a misleading indicator of most writers. There are 12,000 Writers Guild members (and I'm not one of them), The MEAN income of a guild member is $4,000 a year. Yes, that means there is a very large distribution. There are the A-list writers who make a lot of money, there are writers making the minimum, and there are writers who aren't getting paid at all because they sold nothing in that calendar year.
* You may not watch a lot of scripted television today, but consider that the DVD formula applies to older shows you may watch and enjoy. 4 cents for every DVD sold. And that's for films. TV is an even more convoluted formula. Ken Levine, a writer on MASH and other shows, stated the following on his blog: "The producers say we already receive royalties from DVD sales. There are no less than fifteen box sets of TV series with my scripts in them. I haven’t received a dime. I have gotten $0.19 from American Airlines for showing eight of my episodes on maybe 10,000 flights."
Sorry for the long post, but this isn't a Dem vs. Republican issue. And it isn't a 'big evil corporations' issue, as some would frame it. The business model is changing, and what you are seeing is an industry that is grasping desperately at the remains of the old way of business. As far as the new way go, they fear making a deal with talent to share the wealth, because of uncertainty as to how much wealth they will have. The writers are looking at this form a standpoint of "Won't Be Fooled Again." In 1985 the studios pleaded with the unions that they didn't know how much money was to be made from home VIDEO. They promised that if the guilds agreed to a lower residual rate on video, they would 'make good' on it at some point in the future. 20 years later, the writers, actors and directors are still waiting.
Pam
· 2 years ago
If the business model is changing, shouldn't the writers change with it? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a writer go in with the same kind of contract that the star of the show goes in with...
jim
· 2 years ago
Sure, that would be nice. But without a union behind them, most writers would just get laughed off the set and blacklisted as a loon.
And one of the reasons that the star's contracts are so good, is because of the actor's union, SAG.
Pam
· 2 years ago
So the union makes the talent? Or does the union stiffle the talent..
As for the contracts of the stars...if SAG were a player in them, why is there no uniformity to the contracts. SAG membership is required to be employed..SAG membership gets you voting privilages for awards...SAG does not negotiate your contract...
jim
· 2 years ago
In the WGA's case, the union does neither. What the union does is set a basic level for negotiations to start from, that producers can not go beneath.
And producers will typically never give an *inch* from that starting point.
So, a writer who went into a producer's office just demanding a different contract to start with, would literally just get laughed out of the office. Let alone a star's contract.
And SAG also sets the base line, from which stars can demand more. Stars are more successful than writers in demanding more, because the public tends to care far more about actors than writers.
always right
· 2 years ago
How did you get the idea it is treated as Dem vs. Repub issue here? Majority of the commenters here understand the "issue" all right. I just don't think it worth too much of my sympathy. So others make a bigger cut (on DVDs), so what? Did your teachers tell you everything in "Life Is Fair" when you grew up?
It seems to me the out-of-work writers should hold the UNION guys to account, rather than try to garner public sympathy by whining. Don't tell me nobody knew this is coming until the contract expires, if the UNION can not and did not anticipate to negotiate better deal with the studios.
Tell your average writer's woes to any aspiring author who tries to sell his/her book(s). If a writer does not make any money selling his/her stuff that year, time to seek alternatives. Or thank your spouse/parents/whoever to support your dream.
chatterbox
· 2 years ago
Your math is still wrong. You lowered the cost of the DVD without lowering the compensation writers receive, thus upping them to more than four cents per $15 (I'm actually not sure how you arrived at $72M as .04 per $15 works out to $64M). At .04 per $20 their share of $24B is $48M. Your revised number is still fully 50% higher than the actual compensation.
JAT
· 2 years ago
I don't go to movies or watch TV, so I really don't care about this strike. However, we forget that these writers are part of a team that creates a product - that is all it is. And what they are saying is that every time some one buys this product they should get a cut. OK.
So why doesn't Dow Chemical get a cut every time some one's new heart valve opens and closes? After all they created the plastic that the valve is made from - why not get a cut?
Sorry I never understood residuals. I mean look at all the money Elvis Presley is still making and he is dead!
Rick Ellis
· 2 years ago
The comparison between the Writers Guild and other unions is a bit complex, since they all have slightly different deals.
When it comes to the primary issue that's on the table now--that writers don't get any money for anything that is streamed or offered for free downloads--the other participants are all in the same boat. No one gets any sort of residual or other payment. One of the reasons that NBC/Universal and Fox can launch something like Hulu.com is that they don't have to pay anyone any residuals for any of the programming.
With the DVD question, it's a lot more complicated. Generally speaking, no one gets all that much money. The Director's Guild (DGA) gets a better deal than most, but that's not saying much.
The way the DGA money (for instance) is that for movies that are made for theatrical release, or made for free or basic cable, the director receives 1.5% of Producer's gross under $1 million plus 1.8% of Producer's gross over $1 million. 80% of that goes to the director, 20% to the pension plan. For studios, Producer's gross is 20% of wholesale gross receipts.
I've been writing a lot about the strike, since we cover TV (and hey, we're also Minnesota-based).
Hope this helps a little bit.
naftali
· 2 years ago
Regarding caring. I care. I care in a fresh, new way, just like the big hit things I cared for before, and that were a hit caringwise for other people before. I care in a beach scene kind of way, a way with many beach scenes that lead to a car chase. Because I deeply care about car chases. I care because I think I can get Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson to care with me. And if I can get Kirsten Dunst to care with Cruise and Nicholson then I will really really care. But I am a caring person.
Waldo
· 2 years ago
Since many people rely on The Daily Show as their main source of news and Jon Stewart's leaned Left, I wonder if the writer's strike will have an impact on the election.
naftali
· 2 years ago
You just opened a huge philosophical question--if someone is liberal because of his staff of writers, if the writers strike, is he still liberal?
psmarc93
· 2 years ago
Unless you write for a living, invest in media, or work in media most people would only be interested in the strike because it sorta-kinda involves celebrities (sometimes). The short version is that the studios want writing for free -- and they've been getting it for free and make no apologies that they want it for free. Their legal argument has been -- the Internet doesn't make money, probably won't, so we don't need to pay you. Anyone in any profession can see through that lie. I don't understand why one would need to compare the residuals of writers and directors since both have their own unions to determine their worth and compensation. The Writers' Guild only argues for the writers.
All Comments
I get $48 million.
The portion left over for the directors, actors, writers, and the rest of the names you see in the closing credits (not all of whom have a deal that pays anything past their initial payday) is well below half, but that's still a significan chunk of money given the size of the market.
I did find your rather obvious disdain for the writers surprising, though. They're working on an old contract (very old) and are watching large amounts of money being swept off the table without their share of this more recent revenue stream reflecting their contribution to the original project. Their request certainly seems reasonable, and I suspect they will eventually agree to take five and a half or six cents rather than eight. They certainly deserve a fair share of th pie.
The contract may be old, but that doesn't make it invalid. In 1988, the retail unit price of a videotape was higher than it is now, and DVDs have also come down in price. They're still getting four cents per unit, which makes their participation somewhat stronger than in 1988.
I put "costs" and "profit" in quotes, because really we only have the studios' word for what that actually is.
A few years ago, writer Art Buchwald sued Paramount over "Coming to America", because they basically stole his idea and put another writer on it. He won in court, and Paramount then attempted to claim that "Coming to America" didn't actually make them any money (!!).
Paramount trotted out a lot of trumped-up costs going to foreign distributors and other things, which are impossible to verify without looking at the studios actual books...
Call me when they stop cranking out their anti-war dreck, and start entertaining Americans once again.
Studios make money off the writers' content online. Therefore, they should pay the writers for that. Pretty simple stuff.
Whether or not you like the content they produce, billions of dollars is made off that content, and as an American you should be rooting for people to get compensated fairly. If this were a coal mine union you'd be up at arms.
That's a rather large assumption. I believe you'll find that the very word "union" is pretty much a four letter word around here, at least in the comments section. Sadly, it's become pretty much a plank in the GOP platform. Most unions endorse democrats, therefore Unions=Evil.
A good friend of mine's father also worked in a union shop. He got fed up when one of his worthless coworkers - who should never have been hired in the first place - was caught redhanded stealing from the company. The union went to bat to get this guy his job back.
Unions have their uses and have done a lot to improve the lot of the working man in the past. However, in these days of OSHA, EEOC, and the other alphabet soup of government agencies that monitor and regulate the workplace, they don't have much use anymore.
But you're right about one thing: the fact that unions overwhelmingly give their members' dues to democrats (whether the members want it that way or not) doesn't exactly win them friends among conservatives.
You. Miss. The. Point. Entirely.
The studios refuse to acknowledge how huge the internet will be in the distribution of entertainment content. They will make more and more money from it as technology develops. That the writers are barely compensated for this avenue that will be the PRIME method by which their product is consumed by the public is hugely unfair and unamerican.
The writer's gave their power of negotiation to the Writer's Guild, the Writer's Guild negotiated a contract for the writers to be paid x per unit. If they are still getting x per unit, then they are not being ripped off by the industry, they were ripped of by the Guild which did not negotiate on their behalf very well.
I assume the 1988 contract was not opened ended and had a date set for renegotiation. If that is the case they should a) Suck it up until then, or b) ditch the Writer's Guild and negotiate for each project themselves, that way they could get what they think/actually are worth. If it is indeed open ended then they are bigger fools then I or anyone else thinks and deserve whatever happens because of that stupidity.
Unions were long since taken over by socialists and because of this see Jazz's comment.
The Writers Guild contract expired on October 31, 2007.
This situation couldn't possibly have less to do with socialism. Duh.
I agree with you. These writers didn't sell their work under the promise of anything more than their contract called for. They chose to spread the wealth rather than be paid according to what each member contributed. ($4000 per member) Does the one hit wonder writer collect the same as a writer who had their work go into syndication?
Example: A writer for a show that lasted 4 episodes vs a writer from Seinfeld..
Aren't you Canadians the same way?
I stopped watching when everything became repetitive and juvenile. The Ivy League must be sending it's legacy students to Hollywood, because everything is unoriginal, uninspiring, uninteresting dreck.
Let them strike forever or better yet, quit and get real jobs.
Err, maybe that's "I shake my fist" instead. :-)
I'll support Hollywood when I hear that all of the personnel involved in entertainment production have volunteered for the Big Brothers / Big Sisters program and are helping out the unwed mothers who became convinced that there was nothing wrong with the moral messages given out by Charlie Sheen and Beyonce.
Anyway...
Cap'n Ed: McGrath doesn't give entertainment consumers much reason to care about this strike. It's not about working conditions or the quality of the product. So far as any of us can tell, it's a typical entertainment-industry strike, where both sides work against their own interests in failing to come to a reasonable formula to divvy up an avalanche of money. We see it in professional sports and in TV and movies, and quite frankly, we find it even more boring and formulaic than 80% of what all of them produce.
Exactly. McGrath makes this point to show how just soooo UNFAIR it all is:
Douglas McGrath: I am not being hyperbolic when I say "small." For a DVD sold for $19.99, we are paid 4 cents.
It would be interesting to know how much people in various industries are made for the goods and services they sell vs. how much their eeeeevil, greedy employers make. For example, I work in the chemical industry. I make about 0.6 cents per pound for the materials we sell. In other words, my salary would increase almost by a factor of 7 if I got paid as well as McGrath and his fellow writers. Granted, the comparison is not exact: they "create" their scripts, while I merely do quality control for things that other people make. Nevertheless, it's a little hard to have sympathy for somebody who's "paid" so much better than I am.
http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2007/11/allow-me-...
And *that's* assuming an even division per person, which isn't the case; most of the writers in the entertainment industry make far less than this--it's only the few lucky enough to sell blockbuster studio scripts or work on prime-time ratings leaders who make six digits or more.
Moreover, the entire point of the writers' case is not only that however "reasonable" an average $80K earnings may seem, it's a fraction of what they could and should be earning, but that even this equation won't hold if the Internet business model is as successful as it quite reasonably may be anticipated to be, and the writers will lose even more money if they don't get a just compensation for contribution to new-media markets.
Our right to argue for a fair share of a business that couldn't operate without our input shouldn't be contingent on someone else's dismissive judgement that, "aaah, you already make enough to get by, whatcha bitchin' about?" Otherwise the doctors who are so fervently defended as earning their salary would have no grounds to complain about the salary cap a socialized medicine system would necessarily impose.
And as before, this isn't an even division; most writers will make far less than this.
*Now* I think the writers' case is a lot easier to see.
Unlike employees at a car factory who are making something that was designed by
somebody else, the writers in Hollywood are making "original" product.
I enjoy a lot of shows on TV and think it is better now than it has been in a long time.
I love LOST, The Office, 30 Rock, and others. I also end up downloading many shows
on my ipod to enjoy at my convenience. I don't like the idea of writers not being paid just
because I choose to access their work through a different medium than traditional
television.
You stated that this isn't true with the Sopranos, because David Chase told other writers concepts for each episode. I'm pointing out that David Chase is himself a writer - and thus, he's acting here as the de facto lead writer.
Yes, you're right; David Chase is credited as a producer. That's probably because he knows that if he merely credited himself as a writer he would simply get shafted.
Or just about any other product for that matter.
them all the same according to someone else's plans. It will not matter
if worker A or worker B is making the windshield. It will come out exactly the
same unless they are a real screw up.
Writing a TV show is very different. You have to produce new, original content
for each show. No script, no show.
Let's use the same math to figure out how many cents an actor/actress or movie making industry (electricians, carpenters, etc. etc.) get from each $20 DVD sale. And I mean everybody.
That way the “sympathy towards filling up each gas tank” may be more legitimate.
(BTW, the annon is from always right. I haven't yet figure out how to register again.)
It's just a little hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for people who have what appears to me to be a cushy job and not only whine that they should make more money (please note that I wish I got paid better, so I understand why other people have the same desire) but also make claims about "fair share". "Fair" is a totally subjective word; what's fair to you may not seem so to me. The companies that employ writers obviously think that the contract as it stands is quite fair.
Stephen J: ... doctors who are so fervently defended as earning their salary would have no grounds to complain about the salary cap a socialized medicine system would necessarily impose.
I think that there is an important distinction here. In the case of the government mandating doctor's salaries, it's a case of an outside agency imposing its will on the two parties who would normally set the rate, i.e. the doctor and his employer. In the case of the writers, they are working directly with their employer(s).
I do have some sympathy for the writers, but hey don't we all want to make more money?
And don't liberals consider $200K/year to be rich when talking about tax increases?
The current formula is based on a percentage taken against 20% of net wholesale revenues from home video sales. "Net" means that there are all kinds of deductions for product returns, promotional uses, club sales, and so forth. The other guilds are on a similar formula, which was supposedly an "introductory" rate set deliberately low in order to allow the home video market to be established. One reason the studios are fighting so hard on this issue is not that the writers, in and of themselves, would cut heavily into the economics if their requested rate change was enacted, but because it would set a pattern for comparable changes in all the other guild formulas. That has the studios terrorized.
The biggest problem, and one that will likely prolong the strike, is that the writers are completely overmatched by the PR and spin machinery on the studio side. Already the AMPTP is running full-page ads in Variety making deceptive claims about the issues. And as judged by the comments here, the writers have not made good use of their own talents to get a sympathetic story out.
Writers are pretty low on the Hollywood food chain, and have always had trouble claiming a place at the table. It took courage (or foolishness) to walk out. I hope it won't be a futile gesture.
McGrath's article makes it seem as though the 4 cents per DVD is ALL that the writers are paid. Writers are paid for the writing when it happens as well. Salaries can buy gas too.
With rentals so prevalent, why not a penny for each time a movie or TV episode is rented as well? Or a TiVo'd episode? Of course, with my TiVo, I'm recording to watch at a more convenient time, not to get more eyeballs on the episode and my watching the show at time other than broadcast generates no new revenue.
This kind of reminds me of Apple's new rules for selling iPhones. You can't pay cash (must use a credit card) and you can't buy more than two. Apple is afraid of the secondary market. The secondary market could make more money than Apple is. I don't see it especially. If someone pays retail for the iPhone, Apple gets its money. If the person who bought the iPhone at retail is able to sell that same iPhone to someone for more than the retail price (plus tax?) that it was purchased for, then more power to that person. Apple really doesn't have a right to be "jealous" that someone else was able to make more than it was....
If you don't like the fact that you are making these people rich, don't support them by going to movies, watching TV, etc. No one is forcing you to pay the media companies. I avoid supporting these companies that often attempt to screw the artists anyway.
http://stephonfuller.blogspot.com/2006/06/audit...
It indicates that the actor residual rate is 12 cents per unit, but split among all the actors, but that the residual for broadcasts is much better.
Wal-Mart has a bin with videos for $5 each.
Many of the videos that I buy are closer $9 to $13 each.
As for me, watching these guys roll up to a set at my workplace (a defense contractor) in their new BMW SUVs tells me they really don't need the money. Really -- they all, to a person, drive BMW SUVs. And they don't carpool. I guess I'm a bit selfish, but I'd prefer to spend the money I'd be forced to pay them on something else -- like a candy bar or two.
* Not every writer sells work every year. Yes, there is the MBA (Minimum Basic Agreement) for works sold to studios, and many writers make more than the MBA on a screenplay sale, but often that screenplay is the result of a year or more in writing. The contracted minimum for a screenplay today is between $53,000 and $99,000. TV writers, who often only write one or two scripts in a season, can make up to $30,000 for an hour long episode (story and teleplay). Because staff writers are on salary, this is often counted against their salary. Meaning, that in order to make more than $50,000 a year, you'd have to write at least 2 TV scripts in full. Usually the only people making more than the minimums are the head writer (showrunner) who is also a producer and a handful of the exec-producer or co-producers.
* If a songwriter sells a song or a novelist publishes a book, should they not be compensated based on the sales of those works? TV and Film residuals are no different than the royalties other writers receive for their published works.
* Many TV shows today do not get re-run. 'LOST' episodes don't re-run well, and so the network has decided to run the episodes consecutively with no repeats. Without a repeated episode TV writers are not compensated as they used to be.
* Recording a program on a VCR is NOT like downloading or streaming on the internet. The networks sell the broadcast programs for advertising. Those advertising dollars are then used to pay the writers, actors, directors. The studios are selling advertising on streaming video and are selling shows directly to consumers on platforms such as iTunes. The writers receive NO COMPENSATION from these methods of sale. In short, the studios are keeping all of the profits from these distribution methods and are not paying writers at all. Nick Counter, the lead negotiator for the studios stated at the end of the contract talks that shows streamed online or available through paid download services were considered "promotional" and therefore not subject to the residual formulas for DVD, and they do not know how profitable the internet will be for them. By the studios own talking points to their shareholders, however, they sing a different tune.
* The $200,000 average is a misleading indicator of most writers. There are 12,000 Writers Guild members (and I'm not one of them), The MEAN income of a guild member is $4,000 a year. Yes, that means there is a very large distribution. There are the A-list writers who make a lot of money, there are writers making the minimum, and there are writers who aren't getting paid at all because they sold nothing in that calendar year.
* You may not watch a lot of scripted television today, but consider that the DVD formula applies to older shows you may watch and enjoy. 4 cents for every DVD sold. And that's for films. TV is an even more convoluted formula. Ken Levine, a writer on MASH and other shows, stated the following on his blog: "The producers say we already receive royalties from DVD sales. There are no less than fifteen box sets of TV series with my scripts in them. I haven’t received a dime. I have gotten $0.19 from American Airlines for showing eight of my episodes on maybe 10,000 flights."
Sorry for the long post, but this isn't a Dem vs. Republican issue. And it isn't a 'big evil corporations' issue, as some would frame it. The business model is changing, and what you are seeing is an industry that is grasping desperately at the remains of the old way of business. As far as the new way go, they fear making a deal with talent to share the wealth, because of uncertainty as to how much wealth they will have. The writers are looking at this form a standpoint of "Won't Be Fooled Again." In 1985 the studios pleaded with the unions that they didn't know how much money was to be made from home VIDEO. They promised that if the guilds agreed to a lower residual rate on video, they would 'make good' on it at some point in the future. 20 years later, the writers, actors and directors are still waiting.
And one of the reasons that the star's contracts are so good, is because of the actor's union, SAG.
As for the contracts of the stars...if SAG were a player in them, why is there no uniformity to the contracts. SAG membership is required to be employed..SAG membership gets you voting privilages for awards...SAG does not negotiate your contract...
And producers will typically never give an *inch* from that starting point.
So, a writer who went into a producer's office just demanding a different contract to start with, would literally just get laughed out of the office. Let alone a star's contract.
And SAG also sets the base line, from which stars can demand more. Stars are more successful than writers in demanding more, because the public tends to care far more about actors than writers.
It seems to me the out-of-work writers should hold the UNION guys to account, rather than try to garner public sympathy by whining. Don't tell me nobody knew this is coming until the contract expires, if the UNION can not and did not anticipate to negotiate better deal with the studios.
Tell your average writer's woes to any aspiring author who tries to sell his/her book(s).
If a writer does not make any money selling his/her stuff that year, time to seek alternatives. Or thank your spouse/parents/whoever to support your dream.
So why doesn't Dow Chemical get a cut every time some one's new heart valve opens and closes? After all they created the plastic that the valve is made from - why not get a cut?
Sorry I never understood residuals. I mean look at all the money Elvis Presley is still making and he is dead!
When it comes to the primary issue that's on the table now--that writers don't get any money for anything that is streamed or offered for free downloads--the other participants are all in the same boat. No one gets any sort of residual or other payment. One of the reasons that NBC/Universal and Fox can launch something like Hulu.com is that they don't have to pay anyone any residuals for any of the programming.
With the DVD question, it's a lot more complicated. Generally speaking, no one gets all that much money. The Director's Guild (DGA) gets a better deal than most, but that's not saying much.
The way the DGA money (for instance) is that for movies that are made for theatrical release, or made for free or basic cable, the director receives 1.5% of Producer's gross under $1 million plus 1.8% of Producer's gross over $1 million. 80% of that goes to the director, 20% to the pension plan. For studios, Producer's gross is 20% of wholesale gross receipts.
I've been writing a lot about the strike, since we cover TV (and hey, we're also Minnesota-based).
Hope this helps a little bit.
I don't understand why one would need to compare the residuals of writers and directors since both have their own unions to determine their worth and compensation. The Writers' Guild only argues for the writers.