Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike news 2 2

[VintageComics]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:50 PM, drotto said:

But, what is a reasonable work standard? Under, the current contract scale for 1 day of work is $1082. Pay for a 1 hour drama for 1 full episode is 8 days of work and that is about $9522.  A 1/2 show is abound $5951 for that 1 episode.  I am sure these are going up in the new contract.  Obviously, experienced actors, and stars will get more than this.

 

So to make a reasonable salary an actor must be in 10 episodes per year (preferably a 1 hour show) and likely more given that taxes and agent cuts must come out of that.  So say to be a full time actor you must be in 15 epsidoes per year, which is working 120 days per year. That 15 would mean you net 89000 to 143000 per year. There is clearly not enough work for the vast majority. 

 

One of the main reasons people DON'T adapt is complacency. And that complacency comes from a lifetime of easy living. 

If we were to objectively look at it, Americans (and Canadians and UK and most of the democratic West) live in the top percentile of earnings worldwide.  We're literally in the top 1-2% in the world in standard of living while the rest of the world lives below the poverty line. 

The rest of the world has more sickness,death, suffering, poverty, hunger, lower life expectancy.  Those people would take these jobs in a heartbeat at any wage. 

If people realized how good they had it, they'd appreciate and adapt. But we're not used to austerity or struggle anymore, and unfortunately that's the solution to everything at this point in time. 

A little patience, a little regrouping and rebuilding and you can be back on top. 

[Bosco685]

On 10/26/2023 at 1:44 AM, Microchip said:

So the question is a streaming service more aligned to a Tech company, or a movie studio?   I would lean towards tech, based on the growth strategy they are exhibiting.  

The same can be clearly said for music streamers as well, where contents providers are paid a pittance. 

It's a new model moved in on in the Movie business, hence why the writers are in the situation in the first place.   The rules of the game has already changed, and of course, employed wages are last to catch onto the fact.

I wouldn't just apply a broad stroke of all Tech as an industry comparison. It's not the same. Movies and shows are still the baseline of what is being distributed, and streaming is just the distribution channel. Wrapping ourselves in distractions streaming platforms have data centers and networks as access points overcomplicates the general design when they are just elements of the service cloud. None of the studios are pointing to "my servers are much more powerful than competitors." And the limitations of distribution regionally many times comes down to historic content rights contracts like Fox Studios and WB Studios ran into.

See the difference?

[Bosco685]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:50 PM, drotto said:

But, what is a reasonable work standard? Under, the current contract scale for 1 day of work is $1082. Pay for a 1 hour drama for 1 full episode is 8 days of work and that is about $9522.  A 1/2 show is abound $5951 for that 1 episode.  I am sure these are going up in the new contract.  Obviously, experienced actors, and stars will get more than this.

 

So to make a reasonable salary an actor must be in 10 episodes per year (preferably a 1 hour show) and likely more given that taxes and agent cuts must come out of that.  So say to be a full time actor you must be in 15 epsidoes per year, which is working 120 days per year. That 15 would mean you net 89000 to 143000 per year. There is clearly not enough work for the vast majority. 

Throwing in a grouping of numbers out there just to convey 'look how deep my analysis goes' is nice. But it distracts from the residuals erosion that has occurred even for bigger talent. 

And from the article you posted earlier, a point was made you may have overlooked.

Actors’ Strike Drags On As Union And Studio Feud Over $500 Million Streaming Pay Ask

Quote

SURPRISING FACT
Goldman Sachs analysts led by Eric Sheridan wrote in a note to clients last week that the strike stands to permanently impact the industry. The lack of original scripted programming—shows like Abbott Elementary, American Dad, and 1923 will not return on schedule because of the strike—could accelerate the number of customers who cut their cable subscriptions, and streamers could see more subscribers willing to stay longer because of their "more robust content library" when compared to standard network television.

By the studios cancelling writer/producer contracts to convey they are being forced to account for higher salaries so they have to limit what gets made, they then are dependent on legacy content in their inventory. Which again can grow stale, but goes back to the syndication/residuals concerns. Traditionally, studios had agreements to honor paying creators and talent for reshowing content. Now they want the ability to rerun content but pay very little (if anything) because "they have other expenses to cover".

Anyone else in a job where your salary went up 53% from previous years?

Top Hollywood exec made $498 million in the last 5 years—384 times as much as the average writer

[TupennyConan]

On 10/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Bosco685 said:

Throwing in a grouping of numbers out there just to convey 'look how deep my analysis goes' is nice. But it distracts from the residuals erosion that has occurred even for bigger talent. 

And from the article you posted earlier, a point was made you may have overlooked.

Actors’ Strike Drags On As Union And Studio Feud Over $500 Million Streaming Pay Ask

By the studios cancelling writer/producer contracts to convey they are being forced to account for higher salaries so they have to limit what gets made, they then are dependent on legacy content in their inventory. Which again can grow stale, but goes back to the syndication/residuals concerns. Traditionally, studios had agreements to honor paying creators and talent for reshowing content. Now they want the ability to rerun content but pay very little (if anything) because "they have other expenses to cover".

Anyone else in a job where your salary went up 53% from previous years?

Top Hollywood exec made $498 million in the last 5 years—384 times as much as the average writer

This is obscene.

[Bosco685]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:56 AM, TupennyConan said:

This is obscene.

No-no. It's those greedy writers and producers. Leave those overworked CEOs alone. They're busy counting.

[CAHokie]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:56 AM, TupennyConan said:

This is obscene.

It is, but in comparison, the top QBs in the NFL make more than 3-10 on the list over a 5-year period.  People justify QB pay by the amount of money they make for the team, so one could say the above make decisions that make money for the company and shareholders.  Crazy amounts of money either way though. 

[jsilverjanet]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:09 AM, CAHokie said:

It is, but in comparison, the top QBs in the NFL make more than 3-10 on the list over a 5-year period.  People justify QB pay by the amount of money they make for the team, so one could say the above make decisions that make money for the company and shareholders.  Crazy amounts of money either way though. 

well I would argue that QBs on average are risking their health (especially long term) and their work window is much shorter, and the job pool is limited (32 open positions) which would justify some of the salaries numbers

[CAHokie]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:03 AM, jsilverjanet said:

well I would argue that QBs on average are risking their health (especially long term) and their work window is much shorter, and the job pool is limited (32 open positions) which would justify some of the salaries numbers

True, but so do electricians, construction workers, etc…with none of the perks. How many really good CEOs are there? (Not saying I like these guys) They are making decisions involving billions of dollars and a bad CEO can destroy a company and the livelihood of thousands. 

[RobAnybody]

On 10/25/2023 at 6:48 PM, drotto said:

Nothing in any of these contracts will change the fact that 86% of their members make less than $26000 per year.

Part of the reason for that statistic is that every bit part actor is a member. So the couple chatting at the beginning of Law & Order who stumble upon the body are members. The barista who takes Sheldon's order on TBBT & exchanges a few lines of dialogue is a member. The Red Shirt on Star Trek who has a few lines, beams down with the main characters, & promptly gets killed is a member.

That's what skews that statistic - for most actors, acting is at best a part-time job. No one should expect full-time pay for part-time work.

[Axelrod]

There is definitely money to go around in the industry.  But heaven forbid they try to come up with a more equitable and even-handed way of paying people because socialism.  

The streaming dilemma is interesting to me.  It's interesting because they are apparently losing a lot money, but it seems like these companies should be making money hand-over-fist from this arrangement.  Like, Disney+ has a subscriber base of close to 150 million people. If those people are paying an average of $12 per month, that's over 1.5 billion dollars, every month.  How can they be losing money with that kind of revenue stream?  They don't put out 1.5 billion dollars worth of new show every month?  Even the absolute most expensive shows - say like Stranger Things - cost around $20-25 million per episode. For an 8-ish episode show that's maybe $200 million. 

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why this still loses money.  Just sayin', I don't get it....

[drotto]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:21 PM, Axelrod said:

There is definitely money to go around in the industry.  But heaven forbid they try to come up with a more equitable and even-handed way of paying people because socialism.  

The streaming dilemma is interesting to me.  It's interesting because they are apparently losing a lot money, but it seems like these companies should be making money hand-over-fist from this arrangement.  Like, Disney+ has a subscriber base of close to 150 million people. If those people are paying an average of $12 per month, that's over 1.5 billion dollars, every month.  How can they be losing money with that kind of revenue stream?  They don't put out 1.5 billion dollars worth of new show every month?  Even the absolute most expensive shows - say like Stranger Things - cost around $20-25 million per episode. For an 8-ish episode show that's maybe $200 million. 

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why this still loses money.  Just sayin', I don't get it....

Hard to make money when you are spending $200 plus million for 6 to 8 episode TV shows.  Plus thr amount of cloud storage, computers, bandwidth, and personal to keep that all running is very expensive.

Plus, not all subscribes are paying equally.  That 150 million is worldwide.  About 40 million of those are in the US paying that $12.  Even a portion of those are getting the service for "free" through promotions or cellular carriers, so less then 40M subs are at that value.  Now in India the average monthly subscription fee is less than $1. So every market is different. The end result is they are taking in far less then $1.5B per month, it is more likely in the $500M range.  I am sure it has been in an earnings call somewhere. Now you can argue start up costs etc, but Disney + has been reported losing between $600M to over $1B per quarter since they went live.

[Axelrod]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:36 PM, drotto said:

Hard to make money when you are spending $200 plus million for 6 to 8 episode TV shows.  Plus thr amount of cloud storage, computers, bandwidth, and personal to keep that all running is very expensive.

Plus, not all subscribes are paying equally.  That 150 million is worldwide.  About 40 million of those are in the US paying that $12.  Even a portion of those are getting the service for "free" through promotions or cellular carriers, so less then 40M subs are at that value.  Now in India the average monthly subscription fee is less than $1. So every market is different. The end result is they are taking in far less then $1.5B per month, it is more likely in the $500M range.  I am sure it has been in an earnings call somewhere. Now you can argue start up costs etc, but Disney + has been reported losing between $600M to over $1B per quarter since they went live.

Well, sure, like I said, I'm sure there are reasons why they are apparently not making money.  The thing about non-US subscriptions certainly would make a large difference, even though I imagine the market/shows in that market would be proportionally less expensive to make.  

I googled.  Disney+ supposedly has about 46 million U.S. subscribers paying an average of something like $6.50/month.  So, that's like $300 million/month, $3.6 billion/year (just US).  Which is significantly less.  But seems like you could still make 12 "Stranger-Things-level-expense" shows (1/month, so there's at least one major new draw each month to keep the subscribers around) and still have more than a billion left for other expenses.  Even if you were making nothing from other markets.  

Still agree the $200 million/show for 8 episodes is an absurd figure. 

[drotto]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:57 PM, Axelrod said:

Well, sure, like I said, I'm sure there are reasons why they are apparently not making money.  The thing about non-US subscriptions certainly would make a large difference, even though I imagine the market/shows in that market would be proportionally less expensive to make.  

I googled.  Disney+ supposedly has about 46 million U.S. subscribers paying an average of something like $6.50/month.  So, that's like $300 million/month, $3.6 billion/year (just US).  Which is significantly less.  But seems like you could still make 12 "Stranger-Things-level-expense" shows (1/month, so there's at least one major new draw each month to keep the subscribers around) and still have more than a billion left for other expenses.  Even if you were making nothing from other markets.  

Still agree the $200 million/show for 8 episodes is an absurd figure. 

Apparently, they were trying to make some regional content for India and it did not go well.  Very expensive with very low revenue per user.  They initially did well when they had the cricket streaming rights, but they lost those a few months ago, and the subscribers plummeted.  There are now reports they want to sell or find a partner for the Indian division. 

[CAHokie]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:00 PM, RobAnybody said:

Part of the reason for that statistic is that every bit part actor is a member. So the couple chatting at the beginning of Law & Order who stumble upon the body are members. The barista who takes Sheldon's order on TBBT & exchanges a few lines of dialogue is a member. The Red Shirt on Star Trek who has a few lines, beams down with the main characters, & promptly gets killed is a member.

That's what skews that statistic - for most actors, acting is at best a part-time job. No one should expect full-time pay for part-time work.

Exactly.  

On 10/26/2023 at 12:21 PM, Axelrod said:

here is definitely money to go around in the industry.  But heaven forbid they try to come up with a more equitable and even-handed way of paying people because socialism.  

Using RobAnybody's example, that red shirt and barista actually get paid very well for that one day of work. They also get free food, a pay bonus if they get lunch late, a pay bonus if it rains on them, a pay bonus for changing clothes, etc.  

[VintageComics]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:09 AM, CAHokie said:

On 10/26/2023 at 8:56 AM, TupennyConan said:

This is obscene.

It is, but in comparison, the top QBs in the NFL make more than 3-10 on the list over a 5-year period.  People justify QB pay by the amount of money they make for the team, so one could say the above make decisions that make money for the company and shareholders.  Crazy amounts of money either way though. 

It's obscene and it's why I have cut back on everything obscene including sports and Hollywood. 

Just Johnny Depp that sizzle outta here! "I don't even think about it anymore."

 

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/26/2023 at 1:50 PM, CAHokie said:

Exactly.  

Using RobAnybody's example, that red shirt and barista actually get paid very well for that one day of work. They also get free food, a pay bonus if they get lunch late, a pay bonus if it rains on them, a pay bonus for changing clothes, etc.  

Yup. Many of my LA friends are part time actors and they love the work. Those studios throw money around like it's air. 

[CAHokie]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:06 PM, VintageComics said:

Yup. Many of my LA friends are part time actors and they love the work. Those studios throw money around like it's air. 

Now you are being silly. You know you have no friends. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:20 PM, CAHokie said:

On 10/26/2023 at 2:06 PM, VintageComics said:

Yup. Many of my LA friends are part time actors and they love the work. Those studios throw money around like it's air. 

Now you are being silly. You know you have no friends. 

You wish you were my friend. 

[fantastic_four]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:42 AM, VintageComics said:

Now I'm convinced that most of the world is corrupt. 

Is a lion corrupt for eating a gazelle?  Of course not; it has no other choice.  90% of companies fail, and if the 10% that succeed weren't the most competitive and prioritized morality and ethics over survival then it would be north of 99% of companies that failed.  Blame the game, not the players.  Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world except for every other economic system.  Try to take heart in the fact that capitalism can't last forever, and as Marx forecasted in the mid-19th century it will be technology that causes it to stop working.

I used to think the world was corrupt as well.  Luckily that started early for me; I felt that way from about age 16 until 23.  The way to get past that malaise is to look at what is likely to be next when capitalism fails.  Here's a decent introduction to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-capitalism

Edited October 27, 2023 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

The reports are that the studios offered the actors essentially the same contract that WAG excepted with the 5% percent raise in the first year for a total of 11% over the 3 years of the contract.  As well as the same residual agreement and AI protections.  Apparently SAG wanted 11% in the first year with more increase over the remainder 2 years.  Then they tacked on the surcharge for each subscriber on top of the bonus residual structure that the writers had accepted. That is when the studios walked.    

 

Do the writers feel betrayed that the actors are now basically saying thanks for supporting us, but your deal sucks and we deserve a far better deal, when the WAG deal was historically good in the first place? Sorry, if the other deal was a big win, why is that not enough now?  Why do the actors deserve even more?  You even have big name stars starting to break ranks and offer to pay high dues and even subsidize the lower earners, because not working is costing them millions at this point,  which they will not get back.  Melissa Gilbert, former head of SAG, even came out and said some of the rule like the costume one, make them look incompetent and silly.  But Ryan Reynold of course had the best comment, " I look forward to screaming “scab” at my 8 year old all night. She’s not in the union but she needs to learn."