The Writer's Strike - A Debate
It started with a video (see below). I sent a video about the Writer's Strike by the writers of The Daily Show out to a a bunch of friends via email. My friend Chris sent his response and we were off the races. What follows is a debate on the strike, Chris taking the producers/media owners' side and me (and our friend Larry) taking the writers'.
Chris Jenning's wrote:
the average salary of a wga guild member is $90,224.
i wish i could strike when i don't get what i want at my yearly
review, then after picketing go back to my job.
Larry Andersen wrote:
Chris,
You management whore. Writers make the world go round. They make Leno funny, Stewart smart, Lost confusing. 90K might seem like a pretty good income, but it'd take a few thousand writers to equal Sumner Redstone's salary. And how does he make his money? By making sure his people aren't paid too much. By squeezing whatever money he can from the internet, while making sure that the creatives responsible for the content don't get any of that money. If he pulls that off, then maybe he deserves his salary. This is just a resettling of the playing field in this new media world of ours. I for one hope that the billionaires don't get another big break. Bush has given them pretty much the whole pie already.
Not that I really care one way or the other.
-Larry
Chris Jennings wrote:
Larry-
I thought we lived in a free market economy, driven by supply and demand. Are you suggesting a union is protection against the demands of the marketplace? Unions create a monopoly on labor. Labor should be a commodity - however - by 'unionizing' labor you suffer the same consequences that any monopoly creates.
Unions were born out of the 'guilds' that developed in Europe during medieval times: to recognize the development of a skilled trade through apprenticeship, etc. Now, they bargain on behalf of members, who pay dues, for benefits that are strangling our economy, and shipping millions of jobs overseas. I work for a company who's largest client is GM. I understand the role of the Union far too well...
My point is that Unions are like clubs, and membership is exclusive. Only the members benefit from the collective bargaining. Only members can get certain jobs if they are part of the Union. Getting into a Union - have you tried? I was a local 25 teamster in college. I opted OUT of the union because it meant that my performance was only judged collectively, not on my own merit and performance.
The 'let's stick it to the corporate greed' argument is really baseless. I'm not a person who thinks collectively or via government regulation that I should be guaranteed employment.
$90K - average. The national average - for families - is $44k.
Chris Jennings
Tim Brunelle wrote:
Geez, I almost thought I'd written a blog post instead of sending out a humorous video link.
But I'm enjoying the conversation.
I wonder what the national average salary is for media owners? I bet it's a bit more than $90k. As Sumner Redstone puts it in the video, "Getting paid is the name of the game."
I agree unions aren't perfect. (I'm a former member of the United Food & Commercial Workers and the Musicians Unions.) But I don't think unions are soley responsible for "strangling our economy, and shipping millions of jobs overseas." There are plenty of other forces and entities with a stake (and responsibilities) in that game.
I think unions are a fair response in the free market to the prevailing force of ownership.
The issues in this writers strike are valuation and then some form of equality in distributing that value/profit. What other venue or mechanism do the writers have (other than a union) in their quest to seek a more equitable share of profit from internet content? And if a byproduct of the union is a monoplization of certain kinds of specialized labor (which in this case it isn't--witness American Idol), then maybe that's just balance. Sumner and his equals aren't going to open the books and offer up an equal share of revenue just because they're nice.
As a writer and content creator, I'm interested in seeing how content will be valued in this new realm by those who own the realm. The outcome will benefit marketers, ad agencies, production companies, and ultimately consumers--as we better define how money flows within the realm.
Tim
Chris Jennings wrote:
This is good.
No, Unions aren't solely responsible for strangling the economy, but the structure and expectations the American Union worker demands, are making America - in a global marketplace - less competitive.
For example, did you ever think the Euro would be more valuable than the dollar? Or the Canadian dollar more valuable than our currency?
As for the national average salary for 'media owners,' and the prevailing force of ownership:
Viacom, GE / NBC Universal, and other media organizations (Google included) - that are public - have a responsibility to the shareholders. Yes, Sumner Redstone is a billionaire, but he's also keeping his eye on the stock so he can create wealth for the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of investors - worldwide - in his company (that he built from a chain of movie theaters). Of course he wants to get paid - its the name of the game for everyone. If the stock doesn't perform, every
What I have an issue with - more than the tactics of Corporate America - is a strike. Let's take the role of the production assistant for example. I believe the current day rate for a PA (it depends on which end of the business you are in and part of the country you live in) is between $175-300. I'm guessing - but let's say - it's the bottom end of the crew pay scale.
Joe or Jenny Smith PA just finished UCLA, with a degree in film and a whopping $125k in student loan debt. They must maintain a vehicle, which is required for the job. They live in East LA and share an apartment with friends that costs $400 a month.
How long can the PA be out of work to 'support' the writers cause before they suffer serious financial problems?
What about the grips? the Electrics? Camera department? Hair and makeup?
Then - it spreads to the valet attendant, the deli around the corner, the craft service people, etc.
Yes - content is king - but everyone and anyone who has been on a set, and that is probably 99% of the people in this email, know it is a collaborative effort.
So, Joe Smith PA, who wants to be a writer, busts his ass coiling cable, running errands, paying his dues, is out of work because the writers want a nickel every time I watch 'Triumph the Insult Comic Dog at the Westminster Dog Show' on You Tube.
How do you even begin to create a metric for that? Where do shareholders draw a line with profit sharing?
I'm not against royalties, but the point is, where does it end? Also - isn't the beauty of the internet that you don't have to function inside the 'system?' You can be rogue, independent and 'diy.'
My challenge (issue) with the writers is - What GOOD comes from a strike? Does it really work? This is a group of very creative people, with money and expensive legal representation, and this is the level of creativity they have with regard to negotiating a contract?
:)
Chris Jennings
Tim Brunelle wrote:
The plot thickens.
Back to an earlier point you made as a means of responding to your latest thoughts, Chris.
"Labor should be a commodity..."
If that were true, we wouldn't have the advertising agencies (digital or traditional) we do today--much less the editorial houses, production companies, cinematographers, music composers, etc. There'd just be a big virtual vending machine spitting out creative. And it'd be located in India. And someone like Ed E would be running it.
Perhaps the labor of strip-mining copper can be considered a commodity. But writing certainly isn't. Creating ideas that compel the masses surely can't be considered a commodity. (Unless, of course, you're the AAAAs. Or Ed E. Cue laugh track.)
So, if Joe Smith PA aspires to move beyond his role as a PA to become a writer, I suspect he wholly supports the currently striking writers, because this strike is establishing the architecture for how content creators will be paid in the future. I support the strike because I'd like see some framework established over the value of content on the internet. It's not in the media companies' interest to establish valuation, however, because then they can continue what they've been doing--telling advertisers (and shareholders) the content is worth millions if not billions, while telling the writers it's worth nothing. (At some point, the shareholders have to wonder if their shares are worth billions or nothing, right?)
Now, on to the tactics of a strike...
Do they work? Obviously sometimes they do.
Should those creative people have found a more creative means of arriving at an agreement with the media owners? Uhhh, well, they were negotiating for quite a while. I suspect many creative ideas were proffered. But we're talking about money. Strikes = Money. Being creative, say, putting an amusing video on YouTube about the inconsistencies of the media owner's position... I suspect that isn't going to get any media owners to sign a deal. What other choice do the writers have here? You strike because the other party has refused to negotiate or accommodate.
What GOOD will come of a writers strike? We'll establish valuation. That's huge. Because none exists. And we have to start some place. You asked...
How do you even begin to create a metric for that? You establish a metric by negotiating an agreement. "We the Media Owners and We the Content Creators agree that X = Y." You just sit down and do it. It might not be perfect, but as I said, it's better than nothing. And everyone--shareholders, advertisers, production assistants--will benefit from the clarity of establishing valuation. My media buying friend Chris just told me something like 80% of most online ad inventory goes unsold every month. Why? Well, bad inventory. But also because the media owners have been refusing to establish valuation for content. Why buy ad space at questionable rates if the content it's attached to can't be (or won't be) given a value? If The Daily Show online is worth nothing--as the media owners are telling the writers, then running ads around that content should be free to advertisers, right?
I appreciate the broader appeal of a writer's strike adversely affecting everyone else in the production community. But everyone in the community knows that's part of working within a union economy. Suggesting the suffering of the production community it solely at the hands of the striking writers is only possibly half right, and ignores the responsibility of the media owners to negotiate.
I also suspect the media owners have equally expensive legal representation. Likely more expensive.
As for the current value of the US dollar versus the Euro and the Canadian dollar... gee, do you think any other forces (Farm Subsidies, Steel Subsidies, Tariffs, a couple wars we're funding, Fannie Mae, etc) might be equally if not more responsible than the actions of American Unions? I blame Fannie Mae for our current woes.
And if the strike continues, I'm going to pitch this string of emails as "network time filler" to Letterman.
Gosh, it's late.
Anyone else?
Tim
Chris Jennings wrote:
Labor IS a commodity. Get over yourself. If you made a living by writing novels, I'd agree with you, but you are a creative working in an industry funded by corporations, to sell and promote their product by whatever persuasive means necessary. This is commerce not art. Sure, it takes some dash of 'creative' to think up new ways to 'sell' but don't pat yourself on the back too much. As they say, you aren't curing cancer.
It hurts to not be coddled and told how wonderful you are. And the corporations are basically putting the screws back to the talent and the creatives by saying - enough is enough.
If it weren't for the rest of the crew - they'd just be words on paper.
Yeah - maybe a strike is effective. But - back to your point about strip mining - I have much more respect for a guy who is going to die of black lung, than a writer who works for a guild where the AVERAGE salary is 100% over the national average.
This strike has done nothing except to reinforce my belief that creatives are a bunch of 'trumpeter swans' and a good 'ole fashioned wrangling may just be thing they need.
:)
Chris Jennings wrote:
Amazing.
And the reason why the WGA rejected the proposal is because the corporations wanted the guild to be held accountable for 'performance.' Meaning - if no one watches the entertainment, we won't pay you.
And why would anyone agree to that? I mean - if the Producer brings the job in over-budget, they could get fired. If the DP shoots the project out-of-focus, well that's a big problem. But - if the content isn't good - well, that's too objective - it could be any number of things.
Creatives DETEST accountability.
Tim Brunelle writes:
Lighting matches around gas pumps, are we, Chris? Your rhetoric amuses me.
I just read two OpEd pieces from this Sunday's LA Times. The first from Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and is its chief negotiator in the Writer's Strike. The second from David Young, executive director of the Writers Guild of America, West, and the WGA's chief negotiator.
Interesting stuff. I appreciate Counter's POV that the negotiations are between the writers and the producers, not the writers and the media owners. But then, guess who sits between the writers and the media owners?
And you sent me an interview with Michael Eisner from the NY Times. Eisner said, "The area where they cannot make a deal is original production for the Internet, which is neither profitable nor is it clear in exactly what direction itΓ’ΒΒs going to go." If original content isn't profitable on the Internet, why would Viacom sue Google for $1 Billion over copyright (meaning original content)?
Anyway, back to writing as a commodity. I'm not sure I agree writing is labor--unless we're talking about some brochure assignments I've encountered. And let's remember, Chris, the strike is over television and film writing. The goal with TV and film writing isn't necessarily to sell. I'll agree advertising is both commerce and art. It ain't all commerce, it ain't all art. And if you really want to parse that issue, check in with Mark Fenske.
(And I got over myself a long time ago. You?)
Oh, and if all writing truly was a commodity--just words on paper--would I be getting my day rate? If writing was just a commodity, would you and I (and others) have produced The Microbus Movie? Those were just "words on paper" that got us a standing ovation in Detroit?
So, where did you get this information that the corporations (you mean the producers, the AMPTP) want the guild to be held accountable for performance? Got a link? I'm curious to see what metric the corporations (or the AMPTP) suggest for measuring the "performance" of a TV show or major motion picture. Because those metrics certainly haven't been shared with advertisers or marketers. Or shareholders.
As far as accountability, well, uhhhh, my first meeting today was about analytics and metrics. The second call was about tracking for an AdWords buy. I'm not sure all creatives detest accountability--maybe just the folks you hang with do. The big problem I have with accountability is the strategy at the front end--i.e. What guarantees and third-party verified analytics will the media owners put on the table to help writers, producers, shareholders and marketers establish value?
Tim
Click here to add a comment. Or click the "comments" link below.