The meeting
Last night’s meeting at the Shrine was packed. It started late, because of parking challenges. Most of my picket line crew was out sick. And as I took a seat next to a fellow USC’er, I had a brief moment of panic: I spotted a woman with an LED pin which kept scrolling, “IT’S NOT OVER YET!!!”
While the woman’s pin was technically correct — the vote to end the strike will be counted Tuesday night — I hope she reprogrammed the message during the 2.5 hour meeting. “WE WON!!!” might be a choice. “WE ACHIEVED MEANINGFUL PROGRESS IN KEY AREAS RELATED TO NEW MEDIA” would be more honest. But that probably wouldn’t scroll as well.
The focus of the meeting was to read through and explain the four-page deal summary. To their credit, the guys on stage did a good job explaining the victories and the concessions, and the logic in ending up where we did. They called it the best contract in 30 years, while pointing out its obvious gaps. Was it kind of dull? Yeah. But I was happy to be bored.
One of the most important areas the new contract defends is separated rights, which I suspect will not be well explained in mainstream news reports about the deal. So here’s my very brief recap.
Remember a couple of months ago, when I explained Why writers get residuals? In it, I described the weird legal judo writers and studios do to assign copyright and authorship to the corporation rather than the creator. Well, there are certain rights that the writer has traditionally been able to keep in this arrangement. For example, turning a TV series into a feature film. Or using a character created in one show (Frasier Crane, in Cheers) as the basis of a new show (Frasier).
The new contract needed to establish that even if work is created for the internet (rather than TV or features), the same principles of separated rights apply. If a webisode becomes the basis of a new TV show, that’s separated rights. It’s a unique, writer-only issue that doesn’t have a parallel in the DGA or SAG deals. There are loopholes and potential issues, but the framework is now in place.
I went to the meeting dreading the open mic format, but the first few questions from the floor proved to be explanatory rather than inflammatory. For example, in contract terms, “dramatic programs” isn’t a genre, but rather a means of distinguishing scripted programs from other formats. (Thus, a sitcom is a dramatic program.)
There are some writers who don’t like the deal, and intend to vote against it. But the vast majority of people in the room, and online, have already reprogrammed their internal LED displays in preparation for the post-strike period.
Articles
February 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Hello John,
Thank you for keeping we non WGA members in the loop.
As the Neg. Comm. has recommended this deal to the members, does this mean that all strike activities have been suspended, while the members vote?
In other words, come Monday, you’ll be able to sleep in?
Thanks again.
Hope you’re feeling better.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’ve been vocal about my displeasure with “the deal.” So, yeah, I’ll be one of those unhappy few who’ll be voting “No.”
I hope there’ll be enough of us to carry the day. I doubt it though. And that’s disappointing.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’m curious to hear more about why people might vote no to the deal. Is it just their situation makes the deal bad for them or do they think the deal is bad for everyone in the guild, and bad enough that striking longer is worth doing and is going to make the deal better?
Also, can someone link to a nice summation of the deal and how it compares to the previous deal and to the DGA one?
February 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
As a New Zealand television writer who has just been given a green card in the U.S. Cultural Diversity Program, I was looking forward to hitting LA and joining in the picketing. Great way to meet writers and showrunners, I thought. “Here – have one of these kooky kiwi cakes covered in coconut – made ‘em myself. But enough about me, tell me about you.”
But hey, I can put aside my self-interest and say fingers crossed for an ending this week. If it does come to pass, congratulations on all you’ve achieved. I’ve appreciated the pain and the gains even from this far afield. Thanks, too, for your invaluable commentaries on the whole thing, John.
Apologies to those writers who are voting no. I mean no disrespect. Blatant self-interest ahoy. Again.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Pop quiz: In the future, how long will networks leave online content available for streaming on their websites:
A: 17 Days B: 17 Days C: 17 Days
That point is a bad concession I fear will come back to haunt the writers. The rest of it seems just good enough to go back to work for at this point.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Chris,
You’re being paranoid. You’re saying corporations don’t like money. They only have to fork over a very small fraction of their revenue when they show the episodes. It’s not like they’d throw away any potential profits because they don’t get to pocket 100% of it. That doesn’t make any sense. Period.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Well, it sounds like this new contract is just an openning salvo for future negotiations. The nice thing is that it sets, if I am understanding you, the precedent for whats going to be on the table. It may not be perfect, but as the saying goes- perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good. The good is that it opens the door.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Jake, could you explain a little why you are disappointed in the deal? As an outsider, all I have to go by is John’s word here and why he supports the deal. John mentioned the concessions that had to be made, but what are they and what affect will they have on writers? Further, why are they more important to you than the progress that was made in the deal? Do you feel the progress made was not substantial?
February 10th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Congrats to all WGA members, good luck with the ratification and thanks John for keeping us all informed during this historic three months!!
February 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Sure, Adam, got a few hours?
Okay, I’ll make it easy: 1) the freaking 17 day window and flat payment for the first two years. Last year internet ad rates went up 78%, this year according to reputable sources, 768 million dollars in ad rates are expected to be made via the internet and that’s before Tv/film streaming. And no one knows there’s money to be made from internet or how? Yeah, I just fell off the turnip truck. 2) The accidentally left out of the contract “favorite nations” clause…and 3) The damn DVD being yanked without a fight. That’s a couple of reasons, I could go into detail and minutia of the deal, but not now.
Oh, and even Mr. August says it’s not a great deal, not even a “good” deal (see his previous post).
I think there was a good reason for the AMPTP to give the WGA a “take or leave it” option. It was because they knew how desperate those showrunners (and others to be sure) wanted to go back to work, And I can’t blame them, who doesn’t want to work? But one thing I hate is being backed into a corner and that’s exactly what happened here–there were options and we should’ve stayed strong and now in the very near future we’ll learn just how bad this deal really is. And in three years the AMPTP will laugh at us when we try to fix this mistake and they’ll be perfectly justified in doing so.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Jake Hollywood,
I’m sorry if this seems condescending, but are you a working writer? Are you consistently employed? If so, TV or film? Also, do you have a lot of anger for your employers that you’ve been stockpiling for awhile now?
These are serious questions to consider. I’m not trying to belittle your arguments. I’m just looking for some perspective.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Just wanted to add, that if you read today’s LA Times (business section), you’ll read that. “…The companies would be able to exploit the natural divisions within the WGA by first coming to an agreement…with the DGA.”
Which is exactly what happened–those damn showrunners acted in their own interests ann sold out at the expense of a really good deal.
And just to piss them [the showrunners] off, it’s going to be a “No” from me and I hope there are more of us then there are of them.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Just wanted to pop in and say thanks for keeping those of us not-quite-in-the-know a little more in-the-know!
February 11th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Writer: I’m a working film writer. Never missed a strike day. Two days before the strike I had a movie in development at a major studio (not my first deal, but one that could’ve made me some serious bank) and two weeks after it started [the strike] the film was dead, dead, dead. So, yeah, I’ve lost something too. In fact, the deal will never be resurrected (at least not at that studio) since there have ben some major upheavals and changes in management. Back to square one.
It’s tough, but that’s not why I think this is not the right deal. Cable Tv writers lost on this deal. DVD? Forget it. The internet flat rate is a joke? Last year internet ad rates increases 78%. This year expected ad revenues are $768 million before streaming of popular TV shows/movies. And that’s just the high points.
What do you do?
February 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Unintended consequences of a “no” vote:
1) So much for the vaunted “unity.” 2) Since the deal was approved by NegCom and WGA boards, a “no” means that the leadership does not represent the membership. In other words, why negotiate with these people if they can’t deliver the membership? It’s an exercise in futility.
As to Jake’s concerns (well, I haven’t known a time when Jake wasn’t concerned):
1) Flat rate in only first two years, increase in third. Sets a precedent. The rate contractually increases. The expectation is that next will have to continue trend. That was always the problem with DVD. Flat rate all three years means no increase from contract to contract. Sometimes, pattern bargaining is in WGA favor.
2) That advertising money is not earmarked just for the networks. Go get some for yourself.
3) Cable writers did lose out on deal. To get any sort of gain in a new media, the old was going to have to suffer. That’s negotiating. If you want this, we want that.
4) What other options are you referring to earlier?
February 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
You will never be able to please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Just the way is goes. Most writers will be happy, some not.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Here in France i m currently paying almost 3 dollars (1.99 EUR) a week to watch Lost Season4 new episodes , downloaded threw a contracted french TV channel (called TF1) a couple days after those long awaited & highly expected episodes air on ABC
Show that to the greedy money men:
http://www.tf1vision.com/tf1vision/television/serie-tv/lost/ Legal internet downloads.
That s new medias. I wouldnt pay such money if it wasnt for the story the writers created. Thats what makes me pay now for a crappy Divx rather than keeping the same cash for the DVD box next year. Not the director spanking new photography, actors new performance hair cut & makeup, FSX, what gives..
No. I pay those 3 bucks for the story.
In my opinion those should go almost fully to the writers. Period.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Jake,
My concern isn’t how you’ll vote, but why.
You’re arguing from anger, not logic. You’re eager to find villains (“damn showrunners”), but not lay out a plan for getting what you think we deserve.
Tell us exactly what you’re willing to stay out on strike for, how long you think it will take, and what the costs will be of doing so.
I think you’ll find it hard to articulate these points — and harder to defend.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
laurent:
are you not able to go to abc.com and see those episodes? they are there for no charge.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Brian, You can watch shows on ABC.com only if you are in the US. The US networks have deals with networks in other countries, and allowing viewers in France to bypass the French network and watch Lost on ABC.com (with advertising revenue going to ABC) would circumvent the deal with the French network. It’s also why iTunes doesn’t sell network shows outside of the US, at the moment.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
John, I’ve already stated a few of my reasons–and by your own admission, this isn’t a “great” nor “good” deal, so why don’t you think it’s so hot?
Also, I’m the first to admit I’m angry at being backed into a corner by the few who had the leadership’s ear, but that’s NOT why I’m voting “no.”
I tend to think by waiting just another week (and using the Oscars as leverage, plus SAGs entering into negotiations) or so that there could have been a breakthrough regarding the 17 day window and the flat rate–which I think hurts writers more than help them in the long run, especially given that revenues will only increase as streaming becomes mainstream. Additionally, I’m disappointed that DVD was taken off the table never to return and that somehow if SAG negotiates a better rate we still won’t get it (unless, of course, if the favorite nation clause returns to the contract this becomes moot). I have views on the rest of the deal as well…And I could be wrong, but a week or two wouldn’t have truly hurt anyone (any more than it already has–and I’m among those it has hurt) and just might have aided in bettering the deal. I think it would’ve been worth the risk.
There are a lot of little, finite details I don’t like about the deal, the precise wording, etc.
Overall though, I think we stopped short of what we could’ve gained.
It’s pretty apparent that as outlined in today’s Times Business Section that the very nature of writers was exploited by the AMPTP and that they didn’t want us to wait for June (more like March) and SAG, because if they did major concessions would’ve been made and to our benefit. Look, you and I both know that if “management” is happy, it’s because they got the better of the deal.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Why are you voting “no” because of “what could have been?” I don’t understand your logic here.
Also, DVD was taken off the table the first week of November. You were just in denial. I’ve spent the last three months making peace with it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m a bit confused. Isn’t the 3rd year fee essentially a cap because of the cap on the input value? If that’s the case, then each year an increase is negotiated, the other side will simply do the math and figure what the new cap will be. It becomes a de-facto cap?
Also, if much programing migrates to the net, especially TV shows, then a re-run payment of 20 – 40K becomes $1400. Yes?
I think the death of discs have been greatly exaggerated. The studios and partners would not get behind Blue-ray if they didn’t think it had legs for several more years. The Guild should have looked closer at disc fees.
In my opinion, this strike was 3 years too early. The Guild was in such a hurry to set a future internet fee structure that they ended up taking a deal on a paradigm not yet, nor even close to, being evolved. They should have kept their powder dry.
Just my thoughts.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Face it. Some people will vote no just to prolong the strike, their only reason because they’d rather blame the strike for their lack of sales than for their lack of talent or initiative. Thankfully, these crybabies who are actually in the WGA (and don’t just play them on message boards) are in the minority so everyone can get back to work. Those of us who do work of course.
And John. Thanks for the updates. Craig’s site has been acting bizarre of late with updates to the site being as rare as blue moons, no apparent comments to most updates, lack of access to the forums etc. So it’s been that there’s been one major WGA member one can count on to offer up their opinions.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I just watched your movie and I liked it. But if I were you I would change the layout on the cover. The letterforms on it read, “The Ninos”. It’s a design that doesn’t convey the precision of the craft in the actual movie. I know you’re involved in ever stage of the film, I thought you’d be interested. Maybe that’s a distributor’s choice? They should get a good typographer.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I am voting ‘yes’ but the essential lockout of basic cable does bother me. And I know, yes, sometimes you have to make concessions. The thing is, that basic cable scripted programming is in much better shape right now financially than in network scripted programming. Those basic cable scripted shows often have tiny deficits or no deficits at all, so unlike network shows they’re automatically recouping. So, if a concession was to be made, I wish it had been made on the primetime network side, because, honestly, that’s a troubled area of the business and I sympathize with the Companies who see broadcast eyeballs and dollars shrinking.
Of course, this confusion is my fault because I was out of town this weekend and didn’t make it to the meeting. Was this discussed in any way?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Mike (#26):
Basic cable was raised at the meeting, and addressed to the degree that the WGA didn’t make significant progress in that area. It was listed among the things that weren’t achieved.
Chris (#23):
Here was the thinking on the third year percentage (at least, as explained at the meeting). By choosing the “imputed values” that they did, they let the studios feel secure that they’d be paying exactly what they were paying in the 1st and 2nd years. It’s essentially a flat fee, reached through a different calculation.
So why bother? Because it clarifies that the residuals paid to writers are meant to be 2% of the value of the show, so as the market matures and these programs’ real values become apparent, you have a basis for arguing what the numbers should be in 2011, 2014, etc.
If you just take a flat fee, you’re always asking for a dollar bump, regardless of the real value of the programs.