As the writer’s strike lingers on (hey, at least Broadway is back), more and more people throw their opinions into the mix. One of the most rational I’ve seen lately comes from Shelly Palmer. I’ve enjoyed the conversations we’ve had the few times we’ve met, but his recent Media 3.0 newsletter reminded me why I enjoy chatting with him so much.
If they’d just set a three year time limit on the Advanced Media portion of the deal, they could promise the writer’s 100% of the profits — there won’t be any! That’s a bit of hyperbole, but it’s not entirely inaccurate. Guys — we’re in a transition period, any deal you make today will be completely obsolete by the time the ink is dry. You’ve made your point, let’s revisit this when everyone understands the issues better than we do today.
Well said, Shelly. Its not like any of the striking writers are getting paid for spoofing their “day jobs” on YouTube.
Hi Corey! I have to disagree with you and Shelly 100% here… that is the very mistake the writers made in 1985 with the home video agreement. 20 years later they are still fighting for their equal share of the profits. While the money may not be on the table today or tomorrow everyone is quite certain that it will be in the future (that in fact the future of the industry depends upon it). The graveness of this issue is further intensified when one considers that both actors and directors are due to re-negotiate their contracts in the coming months and the strength of their campaigns sit squarely on the shoulders of the writers success or failure. Many of us in new media have come to embrace the democracy and creativity of the tools now available to producers, writers, directors and actors alike. There is no longer any room for the dissembling, creative accounting and plain greed that has defined hollywood for so long.
I discuss the issue more fully at http://www.shellypalmermedia.com/2007/11/10/the-writers-strike-networked-televisions-first-death-match/ if you read it, you will see that the comments lifted from my weekly newsletter today appropriate, but incomplete.
s
I also disagree: the fact that digital media will be a major revenue driver in the long run is not disputed by either side. Based on the shared expectation of future value, it’s completely reasonable that they seek compensation based on those expectations.
At a certain point you have to take a stand, in Kathryn’s words: If not now, when?
Free to be you and me, I guess.
I’m generally an anti-union guy because its seems like, more often than not, the wrong people get hurt and ultimately a reasonable deal is reached that could have been achieved without a strike.
To quote more of Shelly, “…it is incredibly unclear if the current model of television and movie production can survive the behavioral changes in media consumption.”
This is clear to 99% of the players involved. Why can’t we have a compromise that works well enough for both parties and can be revisited as we have a clearer picture of how the digital media landscape will evolve.
What is the point of Jay Leno’s non-writing staffers losing their jobs? They certainly aren’t going to be the last, particularly if this strike lingers on.
I’m unclear on the specifics of the 1985 agreement, or how the negotiations proceeded, but we should be able to take something away from it. Short term agreements for emerging markets and mediums make sense. Yes, the writers got screwed in that deal because nobody foresaw the explosion of that market. But why that deal didn’t have a 3, 5, or 10 year limit before revisiting the medium is beyond my layman’s comprehension.
But now that we know how quickly the digital landscape can change, we don’t need to shoot for the end-all-and-be-all of all agreements. Do enough so nobody feels today screwed, people’s asses are covered in the short term, and the long term prospect of losing out on billions of dollars without any method of recourse is removed from the equation.
[...] one again for us (er, just me – Ben disagreed – and Shelly Palmer, too) for suggesting a reasonable contract term that could be revisited as the [...]