John Bowman - The First Shot Fired
John BowmanNow that the Kabuki Theater of negotiations is officially underway, I thought I’d reprint John Bowman’s opening remarks made on behalf of the WGA Negotiating Committee.
I really love this speech.
I love it because it’s the perfect tone. Calm, reasonable, business-oriented, without a trace of Norma Rae nonsense, no whiff of the words to “Joe Hill,” and no detectable mouth foam.
All in all, a huge step forward for us.
Naturally, Bowman had to put in plugs for a better home video residual rate and jurisdiction over animation and reality, but everyone knows those are essentially DOA. This fight is about downloads, and he’s positioned us strongly. With generous references to authorship and intellectual property rights, Bowman sure sounds like an Artful Writer to me.
I like what I’m hearing from my union right now, and it’s been a while since I could say that.
Here are John’s remarks.
First of all, I want to congratulate our corporate partners at CBS, Time Warner, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, and NBC-Universal on what appears to be another great year for entertainment revenues and profits. Box office is up, and broadcasters are getting ad rate increases across the board, driven largely by digital content created by many of the people in this room. We are all of us very fortunate to be working in an industry that is thriving. It is thriving not only because of the content created by members of the DGA, SAG, AFTRA, and the WGA, but also because the CEOs of these companies are proving to be extremely adept at finding ways to monetize the Internet and other new technologies.
There is a real disconnect, however, between what the companies are reporting to Wall Street and what they’re saying to the talent community. Investors are hearing about the changing landscape in entertainment and exciting new markets to exploit. In contrast, the AMPTP communicates nothing but problems to the Writers Guild. Problems like-and this was mentioned by AMPTP at a recent press conference-ad skipping, even though NBC Universal had just announced a one billion dollar DVR deal. And while WGA member revenues have not kept pace with industry growth-we are a line item that is definitely under control-the companies balk at giving us a fair and reasonable share of the industry’s success.
I don’t think anyone in this room is arguing about the right of writers, actors, and directors to residuals. As collective authors of a work, we are entitled to a portion of the revenue generated by that work. But you have publicly stated that you no longer want to pay us residuals on shows that are not in profit. Here’s why that is untenable:
Writers are a cost of doing business. They have no say in production, marketing, on advertising and publicity, directors, casting, the decision to spend tens of millions of dollars advertising, etc. They can’t be expected to be paid from profits when they have no say in the costs which affect those profits. Profits are under the control of CEOs and their executive staffs.
Intellectual property has rights, just as physical property does. Management has no problem paying the person who made the DVD box before a film turns a profit; they shouldn’t have any problem paying the artists who created the intellectual experience that came in that box either. To claim that intellectual property has lesser rights than physical property is a dangerous argument for anyone in our business to make. You are making the same argument to us that digital pirates make to you.
According to Hollywood accounting, The Simpsons is not in profits. How can we trust that kind of bookkeeping? What other business but ours has the accounting term, “monkey points?”
Residuals from shows not in “profit help” support a writing middle class, and keep writers in the business until they finally create that one great thing. Do away with residuals, and you do away with late-blooming careers like Marc Cherry and David Chase - they couldn’t afford to stay in the business. Your proposal transfers money from developing, promising writers, actors, and directors who need them the most to established pros who need them the least. It’s bad for the business.
Ultimately, your complaint is not about unprofitable shows, it’s about the portfolio nature of the entertainment business. Risk is spread out among many shows, some of which are unprofitable. This economic fact will never be changed, even if writers work for free, as you propose they do on the Internet.
Now let’s turn to your proposal that we do a three year study before bargaining about the Internet. Your reasoning is exactly the same as it was in 1985. Models haven’t emerged, the environment is uncertain, we’ll take care of you later. Well, we know what happened then. Home video and DVD sales soared, and nobody got taken care of later. But this isn’t 1985, when TV writers didn’t envision that their shows would someday end up on DVDs, and they’d get stuck with a .3% return. This time, TV writers can see how important the Internet is - our shows are already there. And, unfortunately for your argument, positive economic events are daily giving the lie to your doomsday scenario.
But if you insist on a study - I used to do studies for a living - I’ll give you one now. The Internet is a distribution channel with no major fixed costs, no media costs, no shipping or handling costs, and margins that are the envy of even the cigarette industry. Though you lose your monopoly on distribution, you have a strategic advantage that nobody else has: strong relations to the talent community. Above all else, nurture this relationship. If you don’t-if, for instance, you insist that members of that community not get paid for three years, or get paid, at most, a .3% residual rate, what possible incentive would they have to work for you? What incentive do they have to help you fight video piracy, when they’re only getting .3%? If you don’t pay them someone else will-Yahoo, Youtube, who knows? It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, and very quickly indeed, if you bargain so unreasonably that you force talent to go elsewhere for a fair deal. Of course this study is flawed, but then all studies are - you can make them come out any way you want to.
I can imagine an NBC-Universal Wall Street press conference, 18 months from now. Revenues are down, profits are down, due to a work stoppage which you, the AMPTP, collectively, forced. Shareholders are restive. They ask the company this: “Your industry paid 84 million to fire Tom Freston, 300 million to invest in “Last FM.” Yet at a time when it was absolutely crucial that we establish a presence on the Internet, you chose to alienate content providers, the best strategic advantage you had. And you made this catastrophic decision over how much money?
Today you’ll receive our proposals. They are designed to help writers keep up with the overall growth of revenues in our business. Our operating principle is simple: if you get paid for the reuse of our material, we get paid. So let’s now back away from the edge, get real, and get to work. Studies and profit-based residuals are not serious proposals. They have no legitimate basis in the economics of this industry. They are non-starters for this committee and membership. Our response to such proposals will be a polite “no thank you.” But there are serious issues to discuss, issues that come directly out of our real relationship. Those issues are:
How we will share new media income
How we will produce material together for new media
How we will deal with the non-union shell companies that you’ve created to avoid paying the talent, especially on reality and animation
How talent will get a fair share of home video money
How we will work together on issues like piracy
How we will work together to make sure that new technologies are a boon for all of us
These are real issues. Writers and the talent community deserve to keep up and we have not been. All of our proposals will be focused on that central fact. Writers have to keep up with the industry growth that we help create. It is simple and fair. We look forward to your response, and thank you.
I agree, very encouraging. Bullseye for Bowman.
Well done, interesting to see where the focus is. Would loved to have seen how it was received.
craig - i am right with you on both of your posts on this topic. PR and communications was one of my big (founded) fears and bowman is the hero here. he has been pitch perfect.
Not bad.
Love that line.
Wow. This is a huge step forward from the dark days of “Subservient Donald.” I agree, Craig, kudos to David and Patric for placing someone in the job who’s right for the job.
On the whole this was very good. Although this one part was just an atrocious analogy:
“Management has no problem paying the person who made the DVD box before a film turns a profit; they shouldn’t have any problem paying the artists who created the intellectual experience that came in that box either.”
The artists who create the intellectual experience DO get paid up front. Just like the guy who makes the DVD box. The difference is that this ALSO get residuals. It’s a faulty comparison.
The residuals are payments for reuse of intellectual property in another medium, so technically, the writer hasn’t been paid for the use of his work in the non-original medium until he receives the residuals.
Yeah, the DVD box analogy was a bit weird since graphic designers always do work-for-hire and never have the luxury of anything like residuals.
“Yeah, the DVD box analogy was a bit weird since graphic designers always do work-for-hire and never have the luxury of anything like residuals.”
The point is that the only payment writers get for DVDs is residuals. Unless it’s DTV, they’re getting paid upfront for the use of their work theatrically but are getting nothing for it’s reuse on DVD. So residuals is the only income writers get from home video market. At least the graphic artists get paid upfront. If it wasn’t for residuals, barring straight to video work, the writer would be making zero income off DVDs.
A double…maybe even a triple…but a long way short of a home run. His refusal to even consider a study of markets or a profit oriented system of secondary payments just smacks of David Yound and Patric…and let’s be honest that is who is ruuning the show. Mr. Bowman is window dressing.
“At least the graphic artists get paid upfront. If it wasn’t for residuals, barring straight to video work, the writer would be making zero income off DVDs.”
Yes, but this is exactly how it works for designers! If I design a piece of keyart for the theatrical release and they hire somebody else to scale it down and slap it on the DVD box then I’m not getting paid for the re-use of that design. So I’m not sure why a writer would try to compare themselves with a work-for-hire employee with absolutely no intellectual property rights. But other than that I thought the piece was great.
I hope people resist attatching pot shots at Patric and David to positive strides like this. ‘I told you so’ doesn’t help the cause. And it doesn’t enourage P & D to let go of what wasn’t working.
Yes, let’s all focus on the real issues at hand:
Analogies.
Anyway, it seems as if the AMPTP is like every other big business group and are painfully uninformed regarding new media.
As someone who’s toiled in this business for over a decade only to find money and success via the internet, I find it shocking that bigger companies have no idea how to make the internet or any new media work for them, rather than just riding the trend.
Kevin,
When you say “big” business, do you mean big like a Great White Shark that swims while it sleeps, or more like an engorged tick, bloated by its appetite for blood?
Casey,
No, “big” like a 400 pound prostitute from Alaska.
Jeez Kevin. A search for you on the internets reveals 906 hits. For someone that’s claiming to have found “success” via the internet, that’s pretty feeble. No offense. I mean I’m a fucking loser, and I get 41,700 hits googling my name. And I’m a fucking loser. Did I mention that? That.
What’s your definition of success? Managing to put your pants on in the morning?
Cuz I did!
(I’m not wearing any pants now though)
Like I said. That.
On topic discussions resume: NOW.
Ruairi,
When I “googled” my name I only found 883 hits. And I’m really cool! It just goes to show you, it’s not the number of hits but the size of…wait…for some reason I’m thinking about my dick right now.
But the I Got A Crush on Obama and Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl was seen by everyone and their mamas!
“When I “googled” my name I only found 883 hits.”
I was generous and googled you without quotation marks. It gave you a few more. And nearly doubled mine.
Because that’s how I roll.
I dunno, Kevin… if I’ve got a fella up there as the face (and negotiator) of a big group of writers, I’d kinda like for him to have his analogies, metaphors, idioms, similes and any other colorful tools of persuasion straight.
For cryin’ out loud… we’re writers.
We’re supposed to have a handle on that stuff.
RP
Kabuki theatre. Exactly right.
The seriousness starts in October. And the amount of success is exactly equal to the force of the leverage.
Everything else is graceful speeches that buy nothing.
Ronson,
If a man makes an impassioned, informative, and artful speech, and all some people can take away from it is one imperfect analogy, perhaps the problem isn’t with the speaker.
Kevin,
If that one bad analogy is indeed the only thing someone takes from the speech, then perhaps you’re correct: the problem might not be with the speaker.
But the poster above began with “on the whole this was very good” so I think I’m safe in guessing that he took more from it than just the one flawed analogy.
Question: if the poster is a producer, does that make the observation any more valid?
(I’m now thinking not in terms of what we think of the speech, as writers, but rather how a member of the AMPTP might receive that part.)
Then again, it is just one analogy and who is to say there are a team of AMPTP mental giants dissecting this thing, anyway?
RP
We should start calling him John Bowbow Bowman. It’ll be an ode to that dude from Sha na na.
Guild politics are important to me.
“We are all of us very fortunate to be working in an industry that is thriving. It is thriving not only because of the content created by members of the DGA, SAG, AFTRA, and the WGA, but also because the CEOs of these companies are proving to be extremely adept at finding ways to monetize the Internet and other new technologies.”
Good to see the WGA is continuing it’s age old way of alienating IATSE members- you remember, the ‘working class’ that handles the nuts and bolts of translating your written content into visual content.
Below:
I think the schism between the WGA and IATSE is pretty much a disaster for the WGA, and I regret it.
I will say that it takes two to tango, however. Our leadership, of whom I’ve been highly critical, seriously misplayed a number of things with IATSE. On the other hand, I think Tommy Short has to go.
(btw, I’m an IA member too)
How long did the last WGA strike last?
The ‘88 strike lasted 22 weeks.
Wait, did I get my comment deleted because I was anti-strike?
Working Writer:
I don’t ever delete comments for content like that. I don’t remember the comment per se. I only delete comments that clearly violate basic standards of civility.
Perhaps it didn’t post?
Little nitpick: The assumption that internet distribution does not come with major costs is probably erroneous. There could be very severe bandwidth costs for streaming high quality video.
Little nitpick. The assumption that internet distribution does not come with significant costs is likely very, very wrong. In order to supply high quality video, the bandwidth costs could be pretty severe.