A query on the WGA strike. At what level are decisions on contracts from the producer end made. That is could an individual show break from the producers and pay the writes what they ask without waiting for a settlement? Could a small production company like Mutant Enemy do that? In other words is the legal setup such that solidarity on management side against the writers is pretty much locked regardless of preferences by producers?
I'm guessing that Jon Stewart can't independently decide to pay his writers what the WGA demand, because he does not own the show in that sense. But what about all these branded, independent companies with a big name and a few shows? Could they break with management and just sign a WGA contract?
Typo, I think this op-ed by Marshall Herskovitz answers some of your questions -- very, very short answer, it sounds like production companies and individual showrunners have much, much less independence than previously, and that avenue is much narrower and more difficult than, say, a decade ago.
The WGA has said that they're open to the possibility of making interim agreements. But I think it would have to be some company with enough clout to give the Guild an advantage in the negotiations.
Oh, Michael Eisner:
Meanwhile, speaking out in opposition of the strike Wednesday, former Disney chief Michael Eisner called the protests "insanity" and "too stupid" while warning writers they were giving up real income in the hopes of securing digital revenue that studios do not yet have.
"For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of the future, they are misguided, they should not have gone on the strike," Eisner said at the Dow Jones/Nielsen Media and Money conference in New York. "I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike."
How can studios not have digital revenue? Where does the money people pay to iTunes and the money the advertisers pay for those commercials I sit through on NBC.com
go
?
If there's no digital revenue, then why are the studios so reluctant to give it up?
I'm sure Eisner started Vuguru as a charitable venture.
If there's no digital revenue, then why are the studios so reluctant to give it up?
Exactly! 2.5% of nothing is still nothing. You'd think they'd be more than happy to, like, grant their demands and then laugh at the fruitlessness.
I'm sure Eisner started Vuguru as a charitable venture.
I Googled. Haaaa. I wonder if
Prom Queen
will be deemed "promotional." Sorry, writers, you're working for free if it's not on TV!
Hey, I made a chant.
If there's no digital revenue, then why are the studios so reluctant to give it up?
I'm sure Viacom put every episode of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" online as a matter of national service. Pay no attention to the ads.
I totally think there is a current digital revenue stream.
That said, the argument I have been given is that the current costs far outweigh the revenue. So digital streaming is still costing the studios more than they are receiving from Internet advertising. That is why the studios are using the "promotion" term.
I don't buy for a second that that inequity will continue for very long and am not totally sold that it exists now.
And this entire argument holds no weight with me in reference to iTunes.
