The WGA Strike for Dummies: Why Is It Taking So Long?

There's a lot of anxiety about the Writers Guild strike, throughout the community and on the picket line -- not to mention worldwide fans worried about The Academy Awards. There are rumors about imminent deals or at the least soon-to-be revealed breakthroughs. It was sure to end last week. No question that it will end this week. Then, a major letter from the Screen Actors Guild president and executive director decrying the Directors Guild deal. Does anyone think that this was coincidental and not at all in concert and spirit with the WGA leadership?

Does anyone think that the SAG hierarchy, after years of building trust and forging alliances with honchos at the WGA to make certain the next negotiation would be meaningful, would suddenly go off like a rogue bull in heat? Could it be that, amidst the uncertainty and natural fears pervading the industry and certainly among striking writers, it was necessary to accentuate our goals and give us the spirit and energy to move purposefully towards them?

Or to put it in more basic and simpler terms. Are we (the industry major creative players) forever to play Charlie Brown to the AMPTP's arrogant and menacing Lucy Van Pelt? How many of us each autumn look forward to the inevitable sado-masochistic exchange between Lucy and Charlie Brown in which Lucy says something to the effect, "I'll hold the football, Charlie Brown, and you come and kick it." How many times does Charlie Brown go through the motions and how many times does Lucy pull the ball away?

They update it year to year, and, making matters worse, Charlie Brown is imbued with the memory of each prior horrifying occasion. He's not a total idiot -- almost, but not total, as he at first refuses to do so, reciting Lucy's penchant for screwing around with him. But Lucy always has the upper hand. She changes her story just so and absolutely, positively promises to hold the football in place this year. And Charlie Brown, turning the appellation optimist into someone sure to be scorned, because he so wants to believe and wants so much to kick that elusive football, comes charging down the field one more time, only to have the diabolical Lucy pull the ball once again, as Charlie Brown goes flying up in the air.

We believed the AMPTP when they cajoled us to accept the cable deal in 1981 with the understanding that when they stopped rerunning old black and white shows and started making serious money they would take care of us.

We believed the AMPTP when they cajoled us in 1985 to accept the definition of gross to be one fifth of the monies they received, because the VHS industry was new and those cassettes were expensive to make. When it became really profitable they would take care of us.

Well, they did become profitable, even more so when they switched to DVD and its much cheaper manufacturing costs. And of course, the cable industry grew and grew as it became more and more the norm for shows to rerun directly from their original broadcast network home not on broadcast local stations, but rather on cable networks like USA, Lifetime and Arts & Entertainment. The result? Ad rates for those reruns -- hot off the network -- soared through the roof.

And guess what, they didn't change the payment formula. For DVDs, we still get 1.2% of the producer's gross (1/5 of actual monies received and called the distributor's gross). We still get 2% of the rerun sale to cable networks, which is actually a decrease of the original deal. It used to pay 2.5%, and that was lowered to 2% for all shows written after July 1, 1984.

And now there's the Internet and all its possibilities, some of which are already here. They offered us $250 for a year's run of hour-long shows and thought that since they upped it to $1,200 when they negotiated with the directors that that would seal the deal. But does it and should it? Apart from the fact that $1,200 is a small amount of money for a year's worth of usage, the money only kicks in after a couple of weeks free "promotional" usage. And promotional usage can mean anything the AMPTP chooses it to be. A few minutes of trailer or the full-blown episode, all of which, by the way, can be strewn with advertisements, which fill the companies' coffers further.

The AMPTP ridicules the notion that the residuals should be higher, because it is a new technology (see cable and VHS/DVD reference above). It further ridicules any comparison between the Internet and broadcast or cable, and says it's absurd to presume that the $20,000 hour-long prime time residual would be possible or relevant for reruns on the Internet.

Well, no one's suggested that either $20,000 or the $12,000 prime-time network residual fee that half-hour shows receive should be paid for reruns transmitted on the Internet. When the Internet replaces broadcast and cable as the main source of original programs and reruns, the fees should more accurately approach the amounts writers, directors and actors receive in syndication, which are significantly lower than the prime-time rerun rates. These monies are in the low to mid-thousands for subsequent runs and descend in value as rerun usage increases until the payments are in the hundreds of dollars.

I'm also not suggesting we must absolutely have the syndicated rate, and perhaps it's time to recognize the vast dissemination of viewing possibilities. Just as there are many, many more cable networks than there are over-the-air channels, the Internet choices are infinite, and yet it's clear that in the future a relatively manageable number of dot.com networks and film companies will dominate.

Let's have a formula that is meaningful and reflects the true worth of AMPTP afterlife profits, rather than the pitiful amounts they propose and that the DGA accepted, without much of a struggle as is their historical practice, since it would have been hard to convince the AMPTP they were serious about striking when 45% of their Membership receive only the barest amount of residuals. Unit Production Managers, Assistant Directors, Associate Directors and Stage Managers only receive residuals on Supplemental Markets such as Pay-TV and DVDs, and even with that only about 4% to 7% of the residual monies directors themselves receive. They receive no residuals for reruns on free or basic cable TV. Only directors receive those royalties.

With such a huge minority who have no reason to put their regular livelihood at stake to prevent the further erosion of future income in which they mostly don't participate, is there any wonder why the DGA gave in?

If they want to play Charlie Brown in the sequel of 2008, let them. But I sincerely hope that the WGA and our friends at SAG will not fall for Lucy's trickery anymore.

Read more strike coverage on the Huffington Post's writers' strike page.

Comments

[unidentifiedman]

two small things...you are wrong about the DGA, its institutional position on residuals, and its willingness to lay down for the AMPTP. wrong...very wrong...wrong, wrong and yes, resolutely, repetitively wrong! if I'm redundant, it is because you and other WGA leaders have so shamelessly chanted this divisive nonsense. as a director member of the DGA, and a small d democrat, I find this difficult to admit, but Directors completely dominate the leadership of the DGA. and the AD's and UPM's are generally delighted because they understand that the strength of the institution rests with its director members. they know that the director is, ultimately, the only leverage they have and mrussnow, directors want and need RESIDUALS, just as much as you do. the DGA deal is a good one, intended to transition us, rationally, into an uncertain future. I think the demands you're making betray a lack of understanding of how uncertain that future really is. your idealism is commendable but futile. you are trying to nail spaghetti to a stone wall. directors are uniquely positioned to understand compromise. they deal with it every work day. among other things, we have to deal with writers and actors and to negotiate the often rough, often emotional terrain between the two. but not in the boardroom. no, mrussnow, it is not a coincidence that WGA and SAG leadership have developed a close working relationship. they've created a closed feedback loop of misinformation, slogans and half-truths. I hope you make a deal. the DGA hopes you make a deal. the DGA loves you, needs you, prays for you. we just hope you do it before the industry that's fed us collapses irrevocably, or we as individuals do. which brings me to my second point. this issue is serious. for many people, the effects of the strike are tragic. if you are, as you declare, a "major creative player", please do better than this lame Peanuts analogy. there's no giggle here, just a terrible sinking feeling that you don't get it.

[mrsgarrett]

The argument (repeated in this blog, yet again!) that the DGA is controlled by people who don't care about or get residuals is old, tired, and ridiculous. It's a rationalization, and it is not in any way true. Why it was necessary to repeat it here again is beyond me. There is another reason the DGA is accepting the deal they negotiated for-- they feel it is good for them; they feel they have gotten a toe-hold into original internet production and a start at internet residuals. The WGA has a different opinion and a different tactic; so be it. Stop questioning the DGA's motives. The DGA is controlled by DIRECTORS and people who someday wish to be DIRECTORS and a small minority of others- who collect residuals on all platforms-- including network television(yes, ADs and UPMs get residuals on sitcoms and hour dramas as well as pay TV and DVDs). And even if they didn't receive them directly (which they DO), residuals feed their pension and health plans, so they are absolutely important to every one of the members.
And there was of course no reason for the studios to believe the DGA would strike-- they never threatened to.

[thetvdecider]

michael, you say, "When the Internet replaces broadcast and cable as the main source of original programs and reruns, the fees should more accurately approach the amounts writers, directors and actors receive in syndication, which are significantly lower than the prime-time rerun rates."

do you really see the internet replacing tv as the main source of programs any time soon? if this happens, writers should receive more. but the web sure as hell ain't going the replace the multi-billion dollar broadcast, cable and syndication business any time soon. and it sure isn't going to happen in the next 3 years. NO ONE knows what it's going to look like, who the players will be or what it's going to be worth. it's worth next to nothing now (in terms of ad revenue).

i'm sorry the writers feel like they've been screwed in the past. but going on a wild goose chase for revenue now, isn't the way to make up for that. there's a credible deal on the table now that in some cases actually pays you more for internet use than is actually received by the studio or the network. there's not going to be a better offer from the producers on this. (they aren't going to reward the writers on strike with more than the gave the directors.) you're killing the town and maybe even the tv business for your own people in pursuit of something can be re-addressed 3 years from now if conditions have changed greatly.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I think it's important to have some perspective. The strike has gone on for three months but the final contract will be in effect for many years.

It's awful that so many people involved in the industry who aren't writers have lost their source of income but if the WGA settles early just because of pressure then they're going to regret it for many years.They also shouldn't settle just because people are concerned about the Oscars being canceled this year.It's great to have the industry acknowledge your work but the Oscars are really just politics anyway. How else could you explain how Raging Bull didn't win best picture or Crash won over Brokeback Mountain? So forget about everyone who thinks the world will end if the Oscars are canceled.

The point is the the WGA has to bear in mind that three months isn't really that long when you're working on contracts that will last years. The bottom line for me is that writers are creating art and the studio execs are not and art lasts forever so I know what I think is more important.

[heywhat]

The writers deserve a bigger piece of the pie, end of story.

However, I am sick to death of "the major industry creative players" crap - and the fact that I use the inelegant word crap denotes just how tired of it I am. If you are the force without which no movie, TV show or internet content can be written then go out form your own production and distribution channels. Game, set, match.

While there are quite a few writers who have written incredible, life changing scripts there are also quite a few who write crap - there's that word again. In two seconds a lot of these writers would become tight fisted execs if their money was on the line. It's easy to talk about the studio execs being monsters just this side of hell as long as you aren't the ones making the decisions. I'm sure a lot of them are asses, just like I'm sure a lot of writers are asses. A lot of them are also decent human beings, just like a lot of writers are decent human beings.

I for one am tired of hearing very highly paid actors and screenwriters and television writers with years and years of residuals to sit on telling people who have very little money to hang tight for the future. If you want the little guy to hang tight for the future then stop signing side deals with minor players that allow Paul Haggis to sign two deals while others are walking the picket line.

Both sides need to pull in their egos and their cajones and get to work on signing a deal.

[jacobsmeyer]

I'm getting tired of people who haven't worked since 1985 telling writers who are losing thousands of dollars a week that they need to hold tight.

[elayneriggs]

Not for nothing, but shouldn't a writer at least know enough about one of this country's iconic comic strips to spell the name of its main character correctly? It's CharlIE Brown.