I assume most of you have heard about the WGA (Writers Guild of America) strike. I’m not sure how much attention it gets in other parts of the country (or the world, for that matter), but here in Los Angeles it’s a big story. This is after all an entertainment industry town, and the effects of the strike can be felt in every part of our local economy. My wife is a writer and a WGA member, as are many of our friends.
The strike has come about because of a disagreement between the corporations who own the movie and tv studios and the writers who create their content over how much, if at all, the writers should be compensated for their creative work. The writers contend that they should be getting a slightly larger share from the sale of DVDs of the movies they wrote. From the sale of a $28.95 DVD, the writer of the movie currently gets 4 cents, or as comedian Tim Kazurinsky points out, that ‘s 4 cents out of 2,895 cents. The writers are asking for 8 cents.
But a bigger issue, and possibly the main one, is that the networks and studios want to pay the writers nothing, that’s ZERO $, for tv shows and movies that they (the corporations) post on their web sites. The corporations claim that these streaming videos are “promotional”, and that they shouldn’t have to compensate the writers for posting them. But these “promotional” shows have commercials, just like any regular tv show, and are a huge source of income for the studios. They just want to keep it all for themselves.
As Mark Harris notes in his Entertainment Weekly Online column, “Why the Striking Writers Are Right”:
“The problem with this position is that writers deserve a share of revenue for material they help to create. Not a share only if the revenue is really, really a lot. A share, period. If it turns out that streaming video is a goldmine, then both sides will get a lot of money. If it turns out not to be, they’ll get less. Corporations are fond of reminding their employees that they’re all a ”family” during tough times. But when families sit down to dinner, Dad doesn’t get to say, ”I’m gonna eat until I decide I’m full, and then we’ll see if there’s anything left for the rest of you.” The right of a writer to earn money from work that continues to generate revenue cannot be dependent on how comfy studio and network heads are with the fullness of their own coffers.”
The studios are responding to the strike by showing reruns, and more reality and talk shows. But many of the more popular talk shows themselves will have to be reruns, since people like David Letterman and Jay Leno don’t come up with all those clever lines off the tops of their heads. They are created by a staff of, you guessed it, writers. To their credit, both Leno and Letterman are supporting the writers’ position in this dispute.
For the personal reasons mentioned above, and also on principle, as an artist, I’m siding with the writers as well. It seems obvious to me that the people who profit from the success of a creative product should include the artists who actually created it, not just the executives who made the phone calls and brokered the deals. I don’t watch a whole lot of tv to begin with, but until this strike is over I’m not planning on watching any. I’m going to vote with my remote, and say no to corporate greed. I hope many other people do the same.
==============
Here are a couple of videos about the strike that you might find interesting:
Tim Kazurinsky on WGN
the writers of The Office
I am very much with the writers. Not too sure how much I can contribute to the cause as I do not watch much TV to begin with. I maybe watch about an hour of telly each week. I know and am glad Jay Leno is with the writers. He knows he can’t stand and be wise upfront if it were not for the ones who toil in the background. I liked the quite by the comedian Tim Kazurinsky (as always you need one wisecrack to bring things into perspective).
David, doesn’t writing this piece for our entertainment when we’re not watching TV make you a bit of a scab? :-)
New media, since they convey something people value, will always bring up new questions of compensation for the job of creating content. In fact, the question of “economic model” for blogs came up in last week’s survey on the purpose of an art blog. Artists in general do not have a reputation for being financially savvy, so it’s good to see the writers pushing for this.
Yesterday’s NY Times had an article suggesting that a major financial practice squeezing the studios is the payment of stars in “participations.” The overall conclusion that films lose money makes me suspect that the analysis is not counting everything.
I too side with the writers. 4 cents from 2895 seems reasonable to me, and the notion that even though they write something in any context they’re not entitled to be compensated for it like anyone else involved is mindless greed, pure and simple.
I don’t have a TV set and now, after reading the NYTimes article that Steve referred to , I may feel morally obliged to stop watching movies as well because of the greed of the big stars?
Birgit:
The big stars are part of the talent pool that management can and will exploit.
There’s a sense here that some common thread runs through the Gees Bend story and this. According to June, one of the quilters is suing over an asserted exploitation of her creative product, which figuratively puts her on the same picket line with the writers.
Karl:
Do you think A&P will have to go into re-runs?
David, doesn’t writing this piece for our entertainment when we’re not watching TV make you a bit of a scab? :-)
Oops, didn’t mean to entertain anyone. Guess I’ll have to be more careful what I post :)
The overall conclusion that films lose money makes me suspect that the analysis is not counting everything.
Yes, the studios claim that they lose money on the films, but somehow the executives running the studios and their parent companies make tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars. Who says accounting isn’t creative?
New media, since they convey something people value, will always bring up new questions of compensation for the job of creating content.
I think it boils down to a question of who’s making money. The studios are posting their content online, with commercials, just like on tv. The studios are paid by the advertisers. So the studios are making money from posting their shows online, and it seems only fair that they should be paying the writers of the shows.
Keep in mind that these are the same studios that are complaining loudly about all the money they’re losing because of online piracy of this same valuable content. They claim it’s valuable when some college kid shares it online with his friends, but that it’s worthless when they’re being asked to pay a portion of the money they make on it to the people who created it.
…I may feel morally obliged to stop watching movies as well because of the greed of the big stars?
Birgit, I agree that the compensation the big stars get is pretty extreme. But many of the actors I know earn most of their living from tips. If you eat at a restaurant in Los Angeles, the odds are that your waiter is an actor.
Did I espy a rerun?
Good post, David. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I have to say that it feels strange to me that it has come to this, when the writers’ bargaining position seems so reasonable. As a writer myself–not of the “industry” variety–I do very much understand that need to derive a fair share from one’s work. I know that my late father-in-law, a one-time president of the screenwriters’ guild, is turning in his grave!
Here’s an interesting video compilation of various studio executives on talk shows, bragging about how much money they’re making from the same digital content that they’re not making any money on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a37uqd5vTw
David,
Thank you for the video. Keep us informed
David
Apparently it’s not a good idea to piss off a bunch of writers.
Apparently it’s not a good idea to piss off a bunch of writers.
If you do just try not to use your real name :)
Update on the Writers’ strike.
Yesterday the AMPTP (the organization representing the media corporations) published an “open letter” (advertisement) in the New York Times and the LA Times to “set the record straight” on their positions. Here are links to their letter, and to a response from the President of the WGA (Writers Guild West).
A few excerpts:
AMPTP: “…writers currently do receive residuals for digital downloading…”
WGA: “It’s true some companies are trying to pay us for downloading shows we’ve created at the abysmal DVD rate of a third of a penny per dollar earned by the companies. But we have never agreed to this formula, and we have initiated arbitration”
AMPTP: “the Guild is seeking at least a 700 percent increase over what writers currently receive, and more than a 200 percent increase over what they receive for Internet “pay per view.” There is no way that these increases can be deemed reasonable.”
WGA: “This is more than misleading. Again, some companies are trying to pay us the DVD rate. And we are asking to receive 2.5 cents per dollar. The only way to characterize our request as a 700% increase
is if you accept as a given the low ball amount they’re trying to foist on us.”
AMPTP:”The AMPTP has offered to pay writers a percentage of the revenues the producer receives from licensing streamed content on the Internet…”
WGA: “Here’s the truth about their offer. We would get no share of revenue for the first six weeks that our shows air. In other words, they’re offering us a share of revenue after there is little revenue left.”
There’s more. If you’re interested click on the links above and read the two letters.