A Brief Disclaimer
I wish I lived in a world where this was as obvious as I think it is, but I guess I don’t.
Some people out there seem to think that I either:
a) speak for the WGA, or
b) believe I speak for the WGA
I don’t.
I speak for myself.
I am one person, the articles I post on this website express my opinions, I hold no position on the WGAw Board of Directors, I am not on the Negotiating Committee, and I represent no organization.
Various new outlets contact me through the site, because they read it. They ask for quotes or interviews, which I occasionally grant, but just as often do not. I do not identify myself in any way other than as an individual. I am, for a lack of a better phrase, a “talking head.” A commentator. An independent analyst.
Oh, and a union member.
I do not pay for publicity, nor do I retain the services of a publicist.
Okay, disclaimer done. Back to the important stuff.
Well said Craig, I never thought you were or SHOULD HAVE BEEN thought of as an WGA mouthpiece. People can’t seem to take ten seconds to sort things out for themselves, however.
Just noticed this little snippet on the AMPTP site:
“For the 2007/08 television season, scripted series hit an all-time low of 67% down from 81% just two seasons ago (that represents 64 of 96 series on five networks).”
I’m not quite sure what that’s supposed to imply, but seems to me it implies there are some execs that are making some pretty bad decisions about programming. Should that be something the analysts on Wall Street should factor into their stock recommendations?
Mike:
No, it means that the rising costs of scripted programming, coupled with the fairly brutal decline in viewership for said programs, along with the decay of the syndication value of those prescious few shows which emerge as hits, is putting scripted television in jeopardy— and that the WGA proposals will speed its demise.
I actually worry that the AMPTP is right about most of that, which is why I wouldn’t mind giving them some leeway on some financial issues specific to scripted television.
As far as scripted programming, the networks are not exclusively looking at reality shows as panacea to a strike. They’re also turning to cable.
One major network is considering airing AMC’s “Mad Men” and HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm” in the event of a strike to fill the void. For the producers and production companies behind these shows, it’s a fiscal “win win” situation.
The USA Network series “Burn Notice” could also wind up gaining greater exposure should parent company NBC wind up showing it on their own network. That series costs a third of what a primetime hour costs to produce and will prove profitable on DVD, foreign markets and “new media” in the very near future, so the rising cost of scripted programming doesn’t have to translate into rollbacks for the WGA.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way… and the producers can make a good product for less money if they put their minds to it. Usually, the trade off is more creative freedom.
For what it’s worth, “Mad Men” and “Burn Notice” are both considered to be extremely well written series. I doubt the audiences they attract care much about the pattern budgets or deficits.
Scripted TV is not making as much because there are not as many shows. Reality has built a stronghold in prime time. But if they counted Dancing WIth The Stars (covered by the WGA) and shows like that… Those AMPTP figures would look very different.
Could it also be that the major networks’s scripted programming is losing out to cable’s scripted programming, which can take more risks and/or appeal to more specific audiences. Pretty much, whatever your tastes, there’s a combination of cable channels that caters directly to you.
A strike while “American Idol” is airing does render all other programming, whether scripted or not, pretty much irrelevant. Despite whatever erosion gets cited, it’s a vortex that takes no prisoners. Picket lines wouldn’t have the same impact while Simon and Paula are bickering, IMHO.
Just to further the point, less scripted TV shows shows means less of a chance for big runaway hits which make all the money. If they want more profits from scripted TV, they need to make more shows and increase their odds and the number of programs. OF COURSE they are making less. There are making fewer shows.
And Craig, though you do not hold a post on the board currently at the WGA, you used to be an active board member before the current administration. The confusion is understandable.
Cable does take more chances and is niche, as NBC aired the new, acclaimed “Battlestar Galactica” in primetime and it drew paltry numbers. On the Sci Fi channel, a couple of million eyeballs and the right demos are cause for celebration.
The major networks all had chances to develop and produce pilots for both “The Sopranos” and “Mad Men,” but the executives, even when they occasionally recognize greatness on the page, are prone to blinding fear. Hence, the best pilots are often unsold and airing on “You Tube.”
Executives often cite the “talent pool” of writers to blame, but the truth is it’s their own decision making that’s at fault. “Seinfeld” might not even get past the pilot stage in this climate. The sitcom form is in trouble right now because the people in charge of comedy departments at the major networks look like they’re presiding over the Nuremburg trials.
Scripted programming isn’t to blame nor the costs, it’s the decisions being made about what makes the schedule.
What can you say about a network who passes on a pilot directed by Christopher Guest… yet puts on a half hour Geico ad? Or that fires the two executives who developed and championed both “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost”?
ABIO: All good points. I do think shows like ‘Burn Notice’ and ‘Mad Men’ (though I doubt the latter will ever make back its deficit) are beacons for the future— they are cheap (and look it, frankly) and well-executed. I think we’ll be seeing more of such shows on network TV, strike or no strike, and less expensive risks like ‘Lost’ or ‘Viva Laughlin.’
And though I bet I’ll get flamed for this, I also would like to see some sort of exemption from online residual payments for first-season shows. This wouldn’t be much of a concession on the part of the WGA, and I think it would lead to a net increase in jobs for members.
For instance, take a show like ‘Greek’, which offered its pilot for free on iTunes. Consistently since then, it’s done well both on ABC Family and iTunes. As a result, it’s been picked up for a second season— which is a net increase in WGA jobs, since ABC Family would probably otherwise rerun a movie or put a reality show in that timeslot.
Would ‘Greek’ have been a hit were it not for iTunes? Maybe, maybe not. Would ABC Family have offered the pilot for free if it had to pay out a substantial residual rate to the writer and director and actors? Again, maybe, maybe not. But I’d like to encourage, not discourage, that kind of experimentation, and I think the net gains for the WGA, in terms of more jobs for members, would outweigh this small concession. (Again, I’m thinking about a one-season exemption, or something similar.)
As a parallel, consider that Staff Writers on TV shows aren’t given script payments— which I never hear anyone complaining about. (I don’t mean members of the writing staff; I mean Staff Writers, the first rung of the staff writing hierarchy.) I don’t know how this practice was developed, and since it can mean about 60k less income for a baby writer on a drama who does two scripts, it is a significant concession, but again, I never hear any complaints. I’m sure it encourages shows to hire new writers— ultimately a good thing for everyone.
ABIO from #9: Yeah, but for every ‘Cavemen’ there’s a ‘Friday Night Lights’, so I don’t think you can ascribe the financial problems with scripted shows just to bad executives and bad decision-making. It is really hard to launch a scripted show, even a great one.
As far as the power and importance of not withholding residuals, Mel Brooks negotiated a unique deal with the TV series “Get Smart!” in that he got a dollar for every time the series aired in syndication that never decreased over time. That deal holds true to this day and in every foreign market the show airs in.
During a fallow period after M.B. made “The Twelve Chairs,” those checks were especially important.
Of course, after he did “Blazing Saddles” the rest is comedy history.
Mike S.,
“And though I bet I’ll get flamed for this, I also would like to see some sort of exemption from online residual payments for first-season shows. This wouldn’t be much of a concession on the part of the WGA, and I think it would lead to a net increase in jobs for members.”
That’s interesting.
“And though I bet I’ll get flamed for this, I also would like to see some sort of exemption from online residual payments for first-season shows. This wouldn’t be much of a concession on the part of the WGA, and I think it would lead to a net increase in jobs for members.”
Unless you’ve created or worked on a show that only ran one season*, as those transcend over to iTunes quickly, often with un-aired episodes.
*See “Andy Barker: PI”
ABIO: Well, there’s the rub. But I do think it would be good for the union, and the industry, as a whole, and thus worth doing. In any union, sometimes the short-term interests of individual members lose out for the greater good.
Craig,
I know you didn’t write this post seeking praise, but it seemed the right opportunity to say what I’ve been thinking.
You and Ted deserve praise for the time, energy and thoughtfulness you put into this site. This is an invaluable resource for many, especially me. But no good deed goes unpunished. While spirited disagreement reflects a healthy forum, you put up with a lot of crap from people who question your motives. Let those who suspect you start their own online discussions.
Ass-kissing session now complete. We now continue with the scheduled program, already in progress.
JP Wolff
Mike S.
Brave man. Really. My thinking was, set it up so that the each run of an episode includes a 7&7 download (for seven days after the episode airs, consumers can download the episode for free; it evaporates seven days after download, whether its been watched or not). But the trade-off is, get rid of the promotional double-pump from 2004.
Their writing fees, calculated at MBA minimums, are charged against their guaranteed salary. If, at the end of the contract period, the total writing fees exceed the guarantee, then the Company has to pay them the over-guarantee amount.
Two Questions:
1) Isn’t doing overtime writing for the prodcos and studios in the weeks prior to a WGA strike a form of SCABBING? The top writers are undermining the WGA’s ability to negotiate when the studios can stock up on material.
2) How many of the top writers will have a roster of assigments leading up to and during the strike? Don’t tell me they are going to shut off Final Draft during the coming weeks. Puhleease!
Mark,
I think writers screw themselves and each other over whenever they go above and beyond the call of their contract.
But there’s a fear, which is usually aided by reps and producers and other writers, that if one does not go above and beyond then they’ll never get a contract again.
So, to answer your question, it’s not technically scabbing. It’s business as usual.
Ted, that’s a really interesting idea. I hope that both sides of the negotiations are thinking about these sorts of solutions instead of haggling (or, it would seem, not haggling over a straight percentage. Because I do think there’s a deal out there that would give both sides most of what they say they want in terms of new media, and, at the same time, encourage rather than retard growth and experimentation.
Mark S.:
No.
None that I know of, and I know quite a few.
We know that although you do have an influence which is impossible to deny. But perhaps that is more due to the press which pays more attention to your blog than blogs by those few other pro writers.
I think writers screw themselves and each other over whenever they go above and beyond the call of their contract.
Hafta say, this sounds like the motto of the DMV.
There should be some reasonable area where the writer can simply say “I’m writing the movie.”
One studio, that will remain nameless, just told all writers on the lot that if they have any personal files or emails on their computers to remove them as the studio will be taking back computers on Friday. Doesn’t sound like it will allow any “above and beyond” if the talks are still continuing.
I mentioned on a non-industry forum during a discussion of the writers’ demands the fact that writers now get only 4 cents for every DVD sale (please correct me if I’m wrong), and was then asked what piece of the pie went to the producers, directors, and actors. But I have no idea. What is the payment schedule to other participants? Everyone, by the way, thought that 4 cents was a pitance. Surely that’s a contract point that the public would support the writers on if they only knew.
Steven 23,
When you work in Hollywood, you get contract thicker than a screenplay. It details everything including how and when you take a shit. But sometimes those that have hired you ask you to take a shit that wasn’t stipulated in the contract. To go above and beyond.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t perform your contractual duties to the best your abilities, I’m saying you shouldn’t be forced (by fear) to perform duties outside of your contract. But, sadly, this is the rule not the exception.
Mark S.:
Not unless we broaden the definition of “scabbing” to mean “union members doing union jobs under a current union contract.”
If your question is, does it have a marginally adverse affect on the Guild’s strike threat?
Yeah, it does.
But I guarantee you that none of those writers is thinking, “I really have to help the studio make sure they can continue to operate for as long as possible during a writer’s strike.” They are thinking “I’ve got to get my movie in the best shape possible because I won’t be able to work on it if we go out on strike.”
This says a lot more about you than you seem to realize.
SML:
The contract gives writers absolute authority over their work process, including the authority to determine whether or not contracted-for literary material meets the requirements of the contract. This means, whatever the writer decides is necessary to create and deliver the contracted-for literary is what is required by the contract; there’s no “above and beyond” possible.
Ted,
“…there’s no “above and beyond” possible.”
So you’re telling me that a contract that allows ten weeks to write a script and a strike deadline comes in the first two weeks of that contract, you’re telling me that writers are not being pressured to use their “absolute authority” to finish those scripts before the strike? That they’re not threatened with force majeure? Is that what you’re telling me?
Studios may have a legality in informing their writers of such technicalities and they may never come out and directly say, “Finish or else…” but there is a belief, perpetrated by producers and reps, that this is the case.
Of course we have the contractual semblance of absolute authority, just like a visible minority has the constitutional semblance of freedom when crossing the border. My point is that writers are coerced to use their absolute authority in the interest of their employers or be punished.
So, yes, technically, writers do not go above and beyond (except maybe when they do a free step… although, I’m sure you’ll point out, a free step has no contract).
David Mamet once wrote: “No wonder all writers want to direct: one still has to put up with a load of nonsense, but even if wearing two hats (writer and director), there is one under which one is not called a thief and then raped.”
And Ted,
From Nikki Finke:
“URGENT! I just received this email from a top WGA source: “There’s a campaign of fear and lies being waged by several top agencies today, telling TV writing clients that if they’re co-producer or above, they are a hyphenate and have to report to work during a strike. This is false. Evidently, instead of pleading with the companies to make a reasonable deal, some agents have resorted to attempting to scare their clients out of complying with the strike rules. It’s really fucked.”
Not truly fitting to my argument, but proof that some manipulate technicalities and use fear and ignorance to get people to do what they want.
SML:
No, I’m not telling you any of that. What I’m saying is, any decisions a writer makes between “commencement” and “delivery” of a step is an exercise of the absolute authority over the writing process that all writers are guaranteed under the MBA.
I don’t know if any writers are being threatened with force majeure, but even if they are, so what? All it proves is that whoever is making the threat doesn’t know or understand the term of the MBA he’s using as a threat, so he’s just coming off as a silly.
No, I’ll point out that if someone authorized by the writer’s contract as authorized to request rewrites even gives him notes on a delivered draft, whether his individual contract calls for another step or ott, the MBA gives the writer the right to bill the studio for the applicable minimum fee for a final draft/rewrite. And if every writer did just that, or had their reps do that, or, if their reps wouldn’t, called the Guild and had the Guild do just that, the whole “free draft” issue would history.
But, since everyone knows that writers are such militant “fight the power and fuck the AMPTP” warrior-gods they won’t put up with shit from anyone, when a writer does go ahead and execute the notes without billing for the new contractually-guaranteed step he has the legal right to be paid for, it means he’s agreed with the studio that the previously-delivered draft was not quiiiite up to snuff and required a bit more work before the writer felt he actually deserved his delivery fee. And then he exercises the authority he has over his writing process to execute the notes and deliver the draft … for which he has already been paid.
So, I stand by statement: it is not possible for writers to go “above and beyond” the requirements of their contract.
It is only possible for writers to unknowingly exercise their MBA-guaranteed authority over their writing process so as to serve the interests of the Company, rather than their own.
SML:
You don’t wonder why a “top WGA source” requested anonymity?
According to the MBA …
Since it does not list “co-producer,” if agents were telling clients if they are employed as “co-producers” or above they’re hyphenates, the unamed “top WGA source’s” statment that this is “false” is not a flat-out bald-faced lie.
However, obviously, the statement is intended to make Guild members think that anything their agents told them about their hyphenate status is false. Since we only have the “top WGA source’s” version of what agents are telling clients, this would appear to be either:
or
an attempt by the AMPTP to fool Guild members into breaching their contracts based on statements falsely attributed to the WGA, and so provide additional grounds for the AMPTP to sue the Guild for unfair labor practices.
Ted
Ted 30,
I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of force majeure. I thought in the event of a strike (or a flood) studios could invoke this clause. And though they be legally righteous to do so, they could also, with a gruff voice, point this fact out to their writers (who in turn have the right to interpret this reminder as friendly or threatening. And with the aid of their reps and producers their interpretations usually fall to the latter).
Also…
“…I’ll point out that if someone authorized by the writer’s contract as authorized to request rewrites even gives him notes on a delivered draft, whether his individual contract calls for another step or ott, the MBA gives the writer the right to bill the studio for the applicable minimum fee for a final draft/rewrite.”
We have these rights, granted. But there is a belief if we attempted such an act we would be shunned and labeled, “unhireable.”
As I said in post 19, it’s a quiet (possibly unreal) fear perpetrated by producers, reps, and other writers.
I actually believe we agree on this topic (although I will forever be doomed for my improper use of “go above and beyond.”)
Writers should use their absolute authority and they undermine each other when they allow fear (and sometimes greed) to influence that authority.
Ted 31,
“an attempt by the WGA or a rank-and-file Guild member to fool other members into breaching their contracts and making them vulnerable to legal action by the Company;
“or
“an attempt by the AMPTP to fool Guild members into breaching their contracts based on statements falsely attributed to the WGA, and so provide additional grounds for the AMPTP to sue the Guild for unfair labor practices.”
or
an attempt by someone to control someone else through fear and misinformation.
and
we’re saying the same thing.
Nick Counter’s latest statement indicates a complete impasse due to no movement from our side on the DVD issue.
I’d just like to let you know that DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com has turned on the “comments” feature for strike-related stories starting tonight and continuing as needed.
For the record, #22 is an imp.