Hollywood Strikes Are Over! - SAG-AFTRA agrees to a deal

[Casper Gutman]

I guess I haven't followed this closely. Is her argument they deserve extra pay for streaming, or that her pay shouldn't be based on theater releases alone? Honestly I don't even know how it works totally. I always thought most actors simply get a base salary and that's the end of it (some higher ups maybe get a small percentage of ticket sales). So are studios trying to argue for a decrease in pay because theaters aren't doing well?

Residuals for streaming are perhaps the biggest issue for both writers and actors. There’s a reason the last combined strike (the one led by Reagan) coincided with the advent of television - residuals in a new media were the issue then as well.

A major if not THE major sticking point is that the studios absolutely will not let anyone see streaming data, very likely because if they did the entire industry would be thrown into chaos due to revelations regarding their misrepresentations.

 

[AEfx]

Wow. Your whole post was thought provoking, but I'm taking out this point here above because it's so important.

Just... wow. I hadn't thought of it like that, but you are right. Making less than 26K per year, they are creative hobbyists with other jobs.

Using that analogy, imagine the pension and health insurance I deserve after spending 20 years of my life posting on these forums???

And that is really the crux, and why many of the arguments from the actors strike start to fall flat once you start thinking about it from the real world perspective. It's not that I don't think actual working actors deserve better deals and that the changes in the industry haven't kept up (it's not even just about streaming, but the fact that even linear networks no longer do 26 episodes a year, for example), but when 93% (!!!) of your union is unemployed the majority of the time, the constant going back to them for sympathy and that it's "really about them" is just utter BS. They are not working actors.

So when you see an interview with some 20 or 30-something guy on the picket lines, who clearly spends at least half his day every day in a gym, has a $300 haircut and spray tan, demanding that because he works a couple of days a year as an extra he is entitled to "a living wage, health care, and a pension!" - I just don't know what reality they live in where that is possible. (I think everyone should have health care, though that's a larger societal issue - but it's the pension stuff that really makes my eyes roll - pensions in private industry are pretty much non-existent for everyone else, and have been for decades.)

Much of America works full time, 40, 50, 60 hours or more a week, doing actual work that is far from what they are passionate about, barely making a living wage themselves. They are lucky if they have affordable health care, and if they are super-lucky manage to stuff a few bucks into a 401K in hopes that someday they might actually be able to retire. And many of them are working that much and barely able to make it paycheck to paycheck and keep food on the table and the lights on who know they pretty much will be working until they die.

It does sound harsh, but it's just the reality - being a performer is a pretty narcissistic profession, period - "I'm special enough that people should pay me to be in front of a camera". But, that doesn't mean they are owed a living wage for it if they aren't actually landing jobs. I mean, no other creative industry is like that. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where we could say, "I'm a photographer!" or "I'm a painter!" and then devote ourselves full-time to "working on our craft" without having to support ourselves otherwise, but we just do not live in that kind of utopia.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How do the people in this thread live with so much resentment? You just sound like curdled human beings.

You: How do you people have so much resentment?
Also you: You sound like curdled human beings.
Also you: No, seriously, this is absolutely a post a well-adjusted human would make.
Also you: No deep-seated insecurities and hatred at all.
Also you: I’m SURE the billionaires pushing AI will stop before they get to all the people you care about.
Also you: How much do the studio executives get?

So resentment towards actors is bad. But resentment towards studio executives and random posters on a message board is good?

Oh, and thanks for including a tweet from a hate account. Just broken.

Who cares who tweeted it? It's literally a video clip.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You: How do you people have so much resentment?
Also you: You sound like curdled human beings.
Also you: No, seriously, this is absolutely a post a well-adjusted human would make.
Also you: No deep-seated insecurities and hatred at all.
Also you: I’m SURE the billionaires pushing AI will stop before they get to all the people you care about.
Also you: How much do the studio executives get?

So resentment towards actors is bad. But resentment towards studio executives and random posters on a message board is good?


Who cares who tweeted it? It's literally a video clip.

I know that you understand how things can be framed in particular ways and broadcast to a willing audience to encourage or force a particular interpretation. This is very similar to the LGBTQ debate we just had, in which certain sites circulate a very small number of images, frequently falsified, to demonize millions of people. Here a hateful site is using an edited clip (not incidentally of a Hispanic woman) to attempt to label and discredit an entire strike and inspire rage in readers who follow the feed specifically to have their rage fed. Posters on these boards have shown how effective it is.

I don’t resent anyone on these boards. I do get annoyed at proud cruelty or the exploitation of the weak by those in power, and whatever you think of the actors, they aren’t the ones with power in this situation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I know that you understand how things can be framed in particular ways and broadcast to a willing audience to encourage or force a particular interpretation. This is very similar to the LGBTQ debate we just had, in which certain sites circulate a very small number of images, frequently falsified, to demonize millions of people. Here a hateful site is using an edited clip (not incidentally of a Hispanic woman) to attempt to label and discredit an entire strike and inspire rage in readers who follow the feed specifically to have their rage fed. Posters on these boards have shown how effective it is.

Is the clip deceptively edited? I'm asking that sincerely.

I don’t resent anyone on these boards. I do get annoyed at proud cruelty or the exploitation of the weak by those in power, and whatever you think of the actors, they aren’t the ones with power in this situation.

Nobody has any power in this situation. Bob Iger chose the right word when he said the actors' requests are "unrealistic." The residuals model doesn't work in the age of streaming, it just doesn't. Streaming is arguably unsustainable even with the old pay structure, let alone a new, more generous one. This isn't an example of corporate greed, it's an example of corporate survival.

 

[AEfx]

A major if not THE major sticking point is that the studios absolutely will not let anyone see streaming data, very likely because if they did the entire industry would be thrown into chaos due to revelations regarding their misrepresentations.

You had me in agreement, until the "misrepresentations" part. It implies there is some malfeasance going on, which is what Fran Drescher wants you to think when she is up there doing her Norma Rae bit, but isn't actually the real reason they want that data public. It would cause some chaos, but not because streamers are somehow cheating people. And it DEFINITELY isn't about "the little guy" - it's all about the big guys.

Streaming salaries are just that - salaries. There is no "pay per minute" residuals. And, as far as I can tell, they aren't even asking for that, so the actual numbers data is irrelevant to the pay, and there is no "misrepresentation". If there were, then they couldn't keep them private, they would have to allow forensic accountants in to examine the records - it would simply be illegal not to.

There are myriad reasons that they do keep the actual numbers private - mainly they don't want you to know that they spent $50M on a show that less than a million people ended up watching, etc., and a lot of it has to do with the fact that the industry is in its infancy and they are just figuring out the business model. (Though it should be noted, Nielsen has been doing streaming ratings for years now, just like linear TV - they just don't rank every single show, versus just the top ones.)

The reason the actors want that data is all about "the big guys" - the actual millionaire actors who want to use numbers as a negotiation tool to get more millions. It's so Gal Gadot, who has been working for Netflix, can say "hey look, I got them 500 million minutes of viewing" when she goes to negotiate with Max for a different deal. Actors (and their agents/management) have become so used to playing that game, I'm sure they do feel handcuffed that they don't have that tactic with streaming.

I listened to Michelle Hurd (another one of the strike leaders) for an hour on a podcast the other day going over that, and everything they are negotiating about, and she was so careful to not actually explain any of this. She did a lot of talking, but said little - because she would bring up the numbers issue above, but as soon as she caught herself getting close to actually explaining it plainly like I just did, she would pivot back platitudes of "but this is all really about the little guy!" She did it on each and every point, I wish I had a bingo card - I would have won.

I think a lot of folks are turned off by just how disingenuous SAG is being about why they are asking for what they are asking for, in general. There is definitely a seismic shift going on, there are absolutely valid concerns and yup, just like every other industry out there, the money needs to start recirculating around, but make no mistake about it - what is actually going on with SAG is all about the big boys.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You had me in agreement, until the "misrepresentations" part. It implies there is some malfeasance going on, which is what Fran Drescher wants you to think when she is up there doing her Norma Rae bit, but isn't actually the real reason they want that data public. It would cause some chaos, but not because streamers are somehow cheating people. And it DEFINITELY isn't about "the little guy" - it's all about the big guys.

I mean there's definitely some misrepresentation in the Netflix Top 10 and stuff like that. But it's not a conspiracy to screw anyone, it's just because the Netflix Top 10 isn't an accounting metric, it's a marketing device.

 

[AEfx]

I mean there's definitely some misrepresentation in the Netflix Top 10 and stuff like that. But it's not a conspiracy to screw anyone, it's just because the Netflix Top 10 isn't an accounting metric, it's a marketing device.

Oh sure, if you mean the UI of the consumer facing app - which is basically just content curation to direct existing customers to shows. No one is negotiating for bonuses based on app recommendations to existing subscribers.

Fran Drescher even started to admit it in one of their speeches - the only reason they care about those numbers so strongly is so they can negotiate with the competition to increase their perceived value - but of course, she did what they have trained all the reps to do: 1) mention issue, 2) fluff over the reasons it is an issue 3) remind everyone "this is just about the little guy", 4) pivot to next issue, 5) Rinse/Repeat.

 

[Heppenheimer]

And that is really the crux, and why many of the arguments from the actors strike start to fall flat once you start thinking about it from the real world perspective. It's not that I don't think actual working actors deserve better deals and that the changes in the industry haven't kept up (it's not even just about streaming, but the fact that even linear networks no longer do 26 episodes a year, for example), but when 93% (!!!) of your union is unemployed the majority of the time, the constant going back to them for sympathy and that it's "really about them" is just utter BS. They are not working actors.

Here's one thing I noticed watching TV when I lived in Europe. Within a given country's entertainment ecosystem, you tended to see the same actors over and over again, particularly in supporting roles. Especially for TV shows from Denmark and Belgium, it was always interesting to see how heavily the casts overlapped from one series to the next. I don't think I've seen a Danish TV show in which Søren Malling didn't make at least one appearance, for example, playing everything from major characters to bit cameo parts. I think there was a period when Flemish actor Werner de Smedt had regular staring roles on two different shows simultaneously, one of which was a daily soap opera.

So, if the actors guild representing the those who work in the world's largest producer of entertainment content has a regular unemployment rate of 93%, that would say to me that their guild has far too many members for the available work.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Nobody has any power in this situation. Bob Iger chose the right word when he said the actors' requests are "unrealistic." The residuals model doesn't work in the age of streaming, it just doesn't. Streaming is arguably unsustainable even with the old pay structure, let alone a new, more generous one. This isn't an example of corporate greed, it's an example of corporate survival.

This is where I get the old "I don't have a dog in this fight" notion. The actors are feeling the crunch from losses of residuals from traditional sources, but they want a cut of money that doesn't now exist and may never exist. Because the studios went all-in for streaming without a reasonable plan to make it profitable.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This is where I get the old "I don't have a dog in this fight" notion. The actors are feeling the crunch from losses of residuals from traditional sources, but they want a cut of money that doesn't now exist and may never exist. Because the studios went all-in for streaming without a reasonable plan to make it profitable.

But that was a decision made by the executives, who get paid hundreds of millions because they’re supposedly incredibly rare geniuses at making precisely those kinds of decisions. Why should writers and actors take pay cuts while the people who made the decision continue to pull down salaries of up to half a billion dollars?

On a more historical note, the last time a unified strike took place was 1960. The issue was startlingly similar - film was struggling with a new medium, TV, which seemed all but guaranteed to destroy cinema and the studios pled poverty. Long story short, the studios survived.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Who are these geniuses making "hundreds of millions"?

Can you back that claim up?

 

[Casper Gutman]

You had me in agreement, until the "misrepresentations" part. It implies there is some malfeasance going on, which is what Fran Drescher wants you to think when she is up there doing her Norma Rae bit, but isn't actually the real reason they want that data public. It would cause some chaos, but not because streamers are somehow cheating people. And it DEFINITELY isn't about "the little guy" - it's all about the big guys.

Streaming salaries are just that - salaries. There is no "pay per minute" residuals. And, as far as I can tell, they aren't even asking for that, so the actual numbers data is irrelevant to the pay, and there is no "misrepresentation". If there were, then they couldn't keep them private, they would have to allow forensic accountants in to examine the records - it would simply be illegal not to.

There are myriad reasons that they do keep the actual numbers private - mainly they don't want you to know that they spent $50M on a show that less than a million people ended up watching, etc., and a lot of it has to do with the fact that the industry is in its infancy and they are just figuring out the business model. (Though it should be noted, Nielsen has been doing streaming ratings for years now, just like linear TV - they just don't rank every single show, versus just the top ones.)

The reason the actors want that data is all about "the big guys" - the actual millionaire actors who want to use numbers as a negotiation tool to get more millions. It's so Gal Gadot, who has been working for Netflix, can say "hey look, I got them 500 million minutes of viewing" when she goes to negotiate with Max for a different deal. Actors (and their agents/management) have become so used to playing that game, I'm sure they do feel handcuffed that they don't have that tactic with streaming.

I listened to Michelle Hurd (another one of the strike leaders) for an hour on a podcast the other day going over that, and everything they are negotiating about, and she was so careful to not actually explain any of this. She did a lot of talking, but said little - because she would bring up the numbers issue above, but as soon as she caught herself getting close to actually explaining it plainly like I just did, she would pivot back platitudes of "but this is all really about the little guy!" She did it on each and every point, I wish I had a bingo card - I would have won.

I think a lot of folks are turned off by just how disingenuous SAG is being about why they are asking for what they are asking for, in general. There is definitely a seismic shift going on, there are absolutely valid concerns and yup, just like every other industry out there, the money needs to start recirculating around, but make no mistake about it - what is actually going on with SAG is all about the big boys.

Simple question. Guy writes a Star Trek episode. In the old days, he gets a check in the mail every time it airs. Should he get a check every time it’s streamed? How does that happen without opening the books?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Who are these geniuses making "hundreds of millions"?

Can you back that claim up?

Zaslav has made half a billion in the last five years. But you’re right, tens of millions is more accurate for most execs. Pardon my hyperbole. Iger’s was at $45.9 million in 2021, Netflix’s Hastings is at $51 this year, Comcast’s Cavanaugh is at $40 million.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Seems odd you'd make that claim, showing a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But that was a decision made by the executives, who get paid hundreds of millions because they’re supposedly incredibly rare geniuses at making precisely those kinds of decisions. Why should writers and actors take pay cuts while the people who made the decision continue to pull down salaries of up to half a billion dollars?

On a more historical note, the last time a unified strike took place was 1960. The issue was startlingly similar - film was struggling with a new medium, TV, which seemed all but guaranteed to destroy cinema and the studios pled poverty. Long story short, the studios survived.

Your understanding of the figures here is off by at least an order of magnitude.

 

[Heppenheimer]

But that was a decision made by the executives, who get paid hundreds of millions because they’re supposedly incredibly rare geniuses at making precisely those kinds of decisions. Why should writers and actors take pay cuts while the people who made the decision continue to pull down salaries of up to half a billion dollars?

On a more historical note, the last time a unified strike took place was 1960. The issue was startlingly similar - film was struggling with a new medium, TV, which seemed all but guaranteed to destroy cinema and the studios pled poverty. Long story short, the studios survived.

No objection to executive compensation going down when they make bad decisions.

But paying them less still wouldn't make the money the actors and writers want to magically appear, especially considering how much of executive income comes from automatic stock liquidation.

The analogy to 1960 doesn't really work, though, because there was money to be made in TV through advertising. Disney himself was one of the earlier studio heads to realize this. The studios could (and did) pivot into TV production. Streaming so far has not only helped dry up traditional revenue streams, but it hasn't even generated new ones for the studio.

 

[Casper Gutman]

No objection to executive compensation going down when they make bad decisions.

But paying them less still wouldn't make the money the actors and writers want to magically appear, especially considering how much of executive income comes from automatic stock liquidation.

The analogy to 1960 doesn't really work, though, because there was money to be made in TV. Disney himself was one of the earlier studio heads to realize this. The studios could (and did) pivot into TV production. Streaming so far has not only helped dry up traditional revenue streams, but it hasn't even generated new ones for the studio.

There’s money to be made in streaming as well. The industry will figure it out - or there won’t be an industry. But this is the opportunity for writers and actors to negotiate contracts that account for the new medium. If they don’t, it will be three years until the chance returns.

 

[AEfx]

Simple question. Guy writes a Star Trek episode. In the old days, he gets a check in the mail every time it airs. Should he get a check every time it’s streamed? How does that happen without opening the books?

That isn't even something they are asking for, so it's entirely a theoretical question. You are basically making up a metric that doesn't currently exist. If they did negotiate for some sort of pay-per-play deals, sure, they would have to make the numbers available.

If they suddenly released the numbers, it would not change any of that. Basically, streaming works are for-hire, they hire you for a job, and, knowing that there are no residuals in streaming, that is part of your manager/agents job to make sure that the pay they negotiate for takes that into account. (And, in a lot of cases, they actually do better on front than the .50 cent residual check years later.)

But again, that's not the reason that they are asking for the "books" of these private corporations to be available - and it's not the writers that are demanding it, it's the actors, for the reasons I stated above. It has zero to do with residuals, it's so they have a number on their resumes that they can use as bargaining chips when negotiating between companies for higher salaries ("I got $5 million for my last picture from Netflix, and got 1 billion minutes of views, so I deserve $7 million this time from you").

FWIW, both sides do have legitimate complaints, though it's really the writers who are most shafted. In both cases, it's because the business model is in flux and is in its true infancy - it's like it's 1960 and we are talking about television here, as I believe you pointed out. The thing is, people got very used to the old employment model, but that was based on most content being either big studio movie productions, or television shows on commercial ad-based broadcasts that did 26 episodes a year. The latter especially, is not coming back.

The main issue for the writers is not residuals but actually the "mini-room" phenomenon, which George RR Martin goes into great detail about on his (not a)Blog. It's actually a very legitimate gripe - and among creatives, it's why the writers really have been getting the raw hand of the deal as everyone is figuring out how this business that has operated the same way for more than a half a century gets reworked. Writing in Hollywood for television used to pretty much be like a structured day-job, and it just doesn't work that way when it's not a network producing 26 episodes and working over 10 months a year.

That's why it's a shame that the actors have jumped in and taken the spotlight (who would have thought!), because the writers are the ones who have really been hurting, and taking away the focus on that has really caused an erosion of public interest/support.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Simple question. Guy writes a Star Trek episode. In the old days, he gets a check in the mail every time it airs. Should he get a check every time it’s streamed?

Dude there's no REVENUE when it's streamed.

When the episode aired on linear TV, advertisers paid the stations, stations paid the distributors, distributors paid the studios, and studios shared their revenue as residuals with the writers and actors. In streaming, there's no revenue coming in for the streamers to pay residuals against.

A better analogy would be: Guy writes a Star Trek episode. In the old days, he gets a check in the mail every time a DVD box set of that season is sold. Should he get a check every time someone put that DVD into their DVD player to watch that episode?