Studios Play Hardball with Writers and Producers

The big studios are starting to cut loose writers and producers who were on long-term deals, according to Variety. Maybe the studios think they are saving money, but more likely they're trying to send a message. However, it might backfire, particularly as at least one person found out by reading online that his deal had been terminated. Maybe the studios think that they can completely settle on reality television. It might work in some cases, but eventually all "reality" all the time is going to seem pretty damned identical. In any case, I wonder if the studios realize just how strongly they are signaling that they want the writers to go away for good. You'd think that it would take an idiot not to realize what this collection of actions communicated, but then, corporate bigwigs sometimes do seem far removed from all realities except the programmed television type.

Real Lesson From the Golden Globes

On NRP's Weekend Edition Sunday, I heard a story about the Golden Globes having "become the biggest, high-profile casualty of the ongoing Hollywood writers' strike." The emphasis was on how much the Los Angeles area lost in business opportunity in ceremonies, advertising, services, and parties - $80 million, in the estimate the show decided to use.

It would be easy - and I'm sure there will be those who do so - to use this as an example of how writers are hurting everyone else by being stubborn and selfish. I supposed you could look at it that way, but I prefer to turn that view upside for a moment. if the writers can keep that from happening, then, to at least some degree, the writers make all that possible - actually a drop in the bucket when you consider all the money made by producing and exhibiting the entertainments themselves. None of this, of course, is solely due to the writers. But, as one quickly sees, none of this happens without the writers. this is not commodity work that can easily be farmed out to the firm of Tom Dick & Harry. In fact, writers are perhaps the least replaceable people in the entertainment industry. Different actors, with varying degrees of success and appeal, can undertake the same characters. Different directors will offer different visions of the story. But the underlying tale, the dialog and plot and conflict, come from the writers. Change the writer, and you have something that is completely and irrevocably different as steak is from a fish fillet. Both may offer excellent meals, but you won't find someone eating one and mistaking it for the other.

There is no need to seek pity for writers. All of us, no matter what medium of expression we choose, do this of our own volition, even if we're of the type unsuited to any legitimate and honest form of employment. (Please note the intended irony.) Working as a stock broker or traditional business owner or even entertainment executive can pay far better. Oh, some writers are stars in their own right and do command enormous sums.

But most struggle to one degree or another to find enough work, to pay insurance costs and put some aside for retirement, to pay for lessons for the kids and upkeep for the car, all with far less guarantee of having gainful employment next week than even those in the most turbulent high tech start up. Writers are expected to pitch ideas, provide spec scripts in Hollywood, underwrite all costs of doing business, find ongoing projects, deal with taxes - in short, to take risks that would seem enormous to anyone brought up only on experiences of being employees. When you invest and risk, you want reward.

In this case, writers aren't asking for the world. They are asking for some return commensurate with their investment. They want a little security, continuing revenue from projects that, themselves, continue to provide revenue to others in the industry. Society as a whole has recognized that such expectations are reasonable. That's why the US Constitution recognizes the need for protection of intellectual property, why everyone "knows" that book authors are supposed to get royalties, and why the television and movie industries have institutionalized additional pay in the past.

That is why having payments for web use of material is only right. perhaps the studios have been taking a chance on the medium, but they also read the writing on the wall. They invest because they must, and they expect some payoff for every use. That's why they come down so heavily on those who post clips on Youtube: because they don't want others to make money off their investments without their say or their participation in the profits. Because writers are hired on a temporary basis and can strike, there is a legal fiction that they are employees. They are not; they are solo practitioners and businesspeople. They also make possible enormous sums that cascade throughout, profiting institutions and people directly and indirectly. For all they do, a small cut of the Internet revenues is not greed, but, rather, a business necessity. It is also right.

Striking Writers Talk to Venture Capitalists

Thanks to reader Debra Cash for pointing out this LA Times story: writers are talking to sources of money to see if they can create their own web site outlets:

At least seven groups, composed of members of the striking Writers Guild of America, are planning to form Internet-based businesses that, if successful, could create an alternative economic model to the one at the heart of the walkout, now in its seventh week.

Three of the groups are working on ventures that would function much like United Artists, the production company created 80 years ago by Charlie Chaplin and other top stars who wanted to break free from the studios.

Oh, this is smart on two levels. At the most basic, writers need to find ways to lessen their dependence on studios. That means going into business and developing their own production outlets for their scripts. Although venture capital firms have shied from pure entertainment plays in the past because of their risk, the money plunked down for YouTube has got them reconsidering. Their business model is fund something to get it going and then either take it public or sell it off to make their profit. And theater has often gone to wealthy individuals to bankroll shows on Broadway and other places. When the backers have enough money, they don't miss it much if it doesn't pan out, and, oh, the parties they get invited to. So now is the time for all writers to be considering how they can take what they have and make a "product" out of it. For the purists among us, don't forget that at one time, virtually all art and music was possible because of the generosity of patrons.

The other reason this is a smart move is purely negotiation. Studios stall on talks when they think they will get more leverage that way. But when they see that someone might be making money without their getting a cut, the situation becomes a powerful inducement for a rapprochement.