The "...get back to work claim..." point is empty retoric, and half a lie in favor of the AMPTP.
Why? Because I worked almost everyday from August 1, 2008 thru March 13 2009, in NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, and CONNECTICUT. Yes, on the east coast.
The east coast: (where, what... 25% of SAG income is earned) I worked almost every available weekday, and I could name many SAG members who where on sets and locations with me.
"get back to work" is what the AMPTP want you to say.
I've been really clear about my motivations. I want SAG to concentrate on negotiating things they have a chance of winning, and allowing there to be time to find out just how much money there is (or isn't) in new media. I'm not looking to be right, I'm looking for SAG's members to make money. We've already lost hundreds of millions by not signing a deal with the AMPTP. Not the deal they presented, but one that would have given us increases in base, P&H and more.
If I wanted to go to the trouble of being litigious, I would have already done so. I invite anyone to call SAG, section 12 me and find out for yourself. I'm more than happy to leave them here as a record of your intentions and statements. I am not FiCore - I can't be any clearer than that. And those comments will remain as well. Someone has to be right, and someone has to be mistaken. I'm willing to have people find out. You're simply willing to repeat the same thing over and over.
Variety is saying a deal has most likely been reached - SAG/Producers meet again Tuesday.
Remember Actors -- NO NEW MEDIA RESIDUALS - NO CONTRACT! IT IS OUR FUTURE!! THEY'VE TAKEN ENOUGH FROM US ALREADY - NOT MEETING OUR QUOTES, LESS HEALTH CARE, ETC. FIGHT FOR OUR FUTURE!
those who dont have healthcare or dont meet criteria to qualify for healthcare will understand. those who fought for pension would understand. the contract is not only about new media, that is one aspect, those who didnt speak up about DVDs now know what its like, that is the point, it is to speak up before something is signed and not be in fear of speaking up for fairness. its about not being fooled and being awake. its not about the easy $ of the moment its about learning thru history.
i think theres a misunderstandin here somewhere. rallying is about the current contract thru studios not asking for residuals from revver (i dont think anyone from u tube is even on the amptp.)sag protectors are talking about the major network shows-sites. read the contract to understand the unfairness. places like william morris r trying to make their own deal y shuldnt SAG? those who hav to live with a contract should not be afraid to walk away if it doesnt meet the needs of the majority.
The LA Times quoted the Majors saying they are phasing out paying residuals. Fact. We cannot wait 3 years for producers to make a good faith effort given producers track record. Real working actors will not sign a deal that does not include compensation for new media.
I sure can articulate a response - vote down any new contract that does not include new media residuals and vote for a strike authorization if it comes to that. How's that for a response, fat pig!
Fat pig? Really? Do you need to resort to name calling to try to get your point across? I wasn't questioning your ability to articulate in general, just that I'd love to hear your suggestion for solving the math problem as to funding residuals. As I've yet to hear that here, and you choose to hurl insults instead of constructive alternatives (and simply screaming to vote down the contract and strike is an action, not a strategy), we're done. I've been respectful. You have not.
I don't understand the angry irrational responses to this video post. I am hearing both sides of this argument on many different forums, and I don't in any way feel David is trying to "Grab media attention". I think he's trying to provide a voice of reason and a sound argument against striking. And I hear it. It makes sense.
Think what you want - you couldn't be further from the truth, and declaring yourself the winner, taking your ball and going home is the most childlike behavior possible. But that's OK. The future will be what the future will be.
I have only *been* lobbying for negotiation from a position of strength, as the only way you can do that is to understand what is fact and what is conjecture. Most of what SAG has decided is important is based on conjecture.
Stop using this debate for your own self-promotion. If your passionate about acting, go study with a good acting mentor, do some stage work, EMBRACE the CRAFT and pursue it seriously instead of sucking on its tit with your media blitz self promotion. And please save me the pain of any denial, your strategy for monetary success and attention in this industry is completely tranparenet and has nothing to do with the craft of acting.
I have come to see several other posters' point here: you are simply seeking attention by countering arguments with disregard for their merit or the big picture to the actor. I do not rush to this opinion; I have been following this post closely: you are simply arguing to gain attention for yourself. You advertise this yourself on your home page: "Feedback and vigorous disagreement with John's premise, logic and conclusions in his SAG Elephant video"
Re your Alec Baldwin response to me. As an A-List, millionaire actor MAKING MONEY RIGHT NOW from the concept of Internet Television (even if it is just "a booking" as you say and he has NO stock investments in the future of this technology), he has completely given up his right ethically to try and convince the struggling month to month actor that there is no money there. What do you think he made on that spot - more than I did all year for sure.
...(cont) There was a time when Acting was a Craft, an Art to be studied and practiced by Artisans. These days, F*#k it, a "personality" will do (or a reality show, or an MSNBC "consultant"). I do not know what your lacking in your psychology that you yearn to hide, but You, sir, are an attention seeking leech ATTEMPTING to be a personality. Forget about this contract, YOU are what's wrong with Acting today.
Lastly, I too am going to leave you behind as a legitimate forum for this discussion. I entirely question your motives. Do you just want hits on this site? Who are you exactly? An actor? A Radio Talk show Host? An MSNBC internet scam consulant? OR Joe the SAG & AFTRA Plumber -- just looking for any bit of media attention you can grab to draw attention to yourself. ...
I'm an actor, mostly seen this season in 8 episodes of NBC's show Heroes, and now in a webisode dealing with my character which will go up in April.
I suck on no teats. But your assumptions about my acting career are as erroneous as your assumptions about my experience with the Net and my experience with negotiation strategies. I know there's no changing yours and other's minds here on that, but there you have it.
you haven't been in the business long enough to understand, you're still eager, easiliy impressed and star-struck, your credits and your bragging about them mean nothing .... the real issue is saving this union for the future actors plight, which you do not seem to have a clue about.
I've been in the business, and have covered the business, for about 35 years, which just might be longer than you've been alive. But that doesn't really matter, does it? Facts are all that matter, and not planning our future based on emotion and misinformation. It's as though you simply disagree, but can't quite articulate an alternative to what I've posed. Let's do that instead of comparing credits.
...(Cont.) I don't care if no one ever makes a penny on the internet. It is not the Actors Unions job to figure how the industry can make money off our work, it is only our job to protect our rights in ALL arenas where that possibility exists. Period. We do not need to porve they will make money in a certain medium - if they don't then neither will we, and they would not be entrenched the way they are over this issue.
I looked up your credits - not too many -- obviously why you are desperate to accept whatever BS "your oh-so-mighty" producers throw your way. Wake up dude!
I will simply end my posting here with this note: If your posts here represent sincere ideas and not simply self-interested persuasion, then I would never want you negotiating on my behalf for anything. Everything you propose begins from a position of weakness and assumes the need to prove something to the industry. You create a relationship of subordinance right from the start. It is like a kid and a parent or a student - teacher relationship you start with. ...
you're kidding, right? Like I said -- how can actors trust the producers when they've continually screwed them as history has shown. That is the real issue here -- not whether new media should be paid this or that. If we refuse to remember history, we are doomed to repeat it. STRIKE! STRIKE!! STRIKE!!!
...This is a huge problem for the ethics of a Union. This is not to say that all actors at this level forget/ignore they are a part of an "Actors" Union (I sincerely doubt that Sean Penn would agree with anything you say), but many do, and the integrity of a Union is compromised. EVERYONE KNOWS this move is an attempt at Checkmate to dismantle the Union concept in this field, and those that attempt to sell it from within through fear or mis-use of information (you) are disingenuous and disgustme
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, save it for someone who is affected by insults. My aim is not to disgust, but to discuss. I clearly want to create a climate for actors to continue to be paid well in an environment that encourages producers to do so. You can say this is misinformation all you want, but I've never said we should take the deal. Understand that. This isn't about getting people to accept a bad offer, it's about understanding the truth about the situation.
I have been following this post and want to say that I almost sh*t my pants when I saw that ad by Baldwin. One thing not discussed here yet is that is this particular career (unlike firefighters referenced below), when you reach a certain level you can become a part of the other side in a myriad of ways. If a teacher stops teaching and enters administration she/he is no longer in the teachers union. Here actors of a certain level begin to profit in the same ways as the industry ...
Why would you take Alec Baldwin to task for acting? Where do you draw the line? He's currently starring in one of NBC's biggest shows, he got paid well for the spot, and that's that. He's not their "spokesman," he's an actor in a spot. I'm sure NBC is looking at lots of other options. I would submit that you are so entrenched in your thinking, that every situation you see can be interpreted to be working against you. Try to stop and consider how things really happen: he got a booking. That's all
... 2. and I quote CuHulan33 from below: :Even if the industry was willing in the future to give up their current position on this issue AFTER it was worth millions (which is obviously not likely), think for a moment of the magnitude of the bargaining chip you are knowingly giving them now for future negotiations. What will it cost you to get this right back once it is making money? It won't come free, if at all." Furthermore, from my pov, they HAVE NO DOUBT where "the Internet will take us"-you
Since I am tired of coming here, though I feel the debate healthy, I think you are more interested in displaying a level of knowledge than you are in really looking at this in good faith as a negiator on behalf of the actor, I have two last points to make 1: Before you say anything about Hulu being free, understand that free content is how all monetized sites (except porn) work. and ...
So, really? It doesn't bother you at all that one of the major supporters of your position in our "union" is also the Spokesman for HULU? Really? That doesn't strike you at all like the major "Conflict of Interest" cited below by CuHulan33? If Alec Balwin is going to send out these letters in support of this position, I sincerely believe we have a right to know how much he is making now from these guys and how much stock he has in its future.
Well, this guy doesn't seem to have any doubts or worries about where the technology and money is headed: I can't post link I guess but see youtube plus this watch?v=1m71m-LBqFQ
I never said they'd be our friends. Quite to the contrary, they are bound by fiduciary rules to be as ruthless as they can stomach in their negotiations.
I'd really like you to read what I have to say more carefully. It's not so much about the producers being right, it's about our approach and assumptions being terribly, terribly wrong.
Oh, and you are wrong about negotiating in 3 years, and the producers will be our friends -- they are still paying sweetheart deals to the cable networks -- deals that were granted when the networks were "fledglings" much like their internet argument now. It takes courage to strike, and that is what many do not have in socieyt anymore. People are afraid to lose their creature comforts, afraid of sacrifice for the future. Our founders would be ashamed of the moderates lying down attitudes.
So, you want less money now is what you are saying?? Not ONLY are we talking webisodes, New Media already has network TV shows airing on the internet with TV ads! And tracking exists, but they don't want to pay internet residuals! The real issue is -- and history demonstrates it with the "DVD" contract never fairly revisited again in 20 years -- how can actors trust producers? With the producers rejecting SAG be in snync with its sister unions??? Short term pain for long term gain! STRIKE!!
I didn't say anything of the sort. Where's the tracking? What numbers do they show? Just simply point them out to us. The DVD contract should be vigorously pursued, but physical media will be coming to an end soon if new media extremists are to be believed. So, which is it?
Thank you to "xnerg" and "CuHulan33"!!!! The good points David makes may be true of the "current" market on the internet, but they are entirely irrelevant to someone negotiating in good faith on behalf of the actor.
How are they irrelevant? If they're true, they're a starting point, and no one, not me, not you, certainly not Alan Rosenberg can safely predict where the Internet will take us. And you can only negotiate effectively and elegantly from a position of strength. A lack of facts replaced with a fist full of conjecture is dangerous and ineffective.
david makes several good points, but something he (and everyone who shares his "3 years from now we'll negotiate" view) is naive if he thinks that the producers will be more amenable to giving us our fair share.
trust me, i've seen us get screwed with the cable deal, the video deal, the dvd deal...each time the producers told us "let's wait and see if we make money with this new technology and then we'll give the actors their fair share.
that we try to understand and match the thinking of those across the table. Even if the industry was willing in the future to give up their current position on this issue AFTER it was worth millions (which is obviously not likely), think for a moment of the magnitude of the bargaining chip you are knowingly giving them now for future negotiations. What will it cost you to get this right back once it is making money? It won't come free, if at all.
The 37" tv on the wall already is cable/internet ready - but that's not the point. I am not saying that 100% of people will ever watch tv exclusively on the internet. For example, people don't throw away their desktop pcs and laptops to use the internet on their iPhone or mobile device - it's just another form of media access - just like DVDs (on which the Unions totally missed the boat by saying "Eh, it's not here yet"). I am not trying to scream the sky is falling, I am only suggesting...
No one is going to throw away their tvs - your tv will be online. - If you're right and no one makes any money off it for a while then fine, but you will have to try and get something back you already gave up. If it happens faster than you think (this site is only a few years old and a household name) actors are locked out. If it is really a non-issue that the industry is willing to give up later when it IS making millions, then why are they so entrenched over it now? btw look up "analog"
You still have to get people to give up their 37" TV on the wall. Hmm....pretty easy to do with the common folk in the midwest who just are now getting rid of VHS and Analog TV. I looked up analog?? What ? Explain the reason they delaying the transition? Why because they didn't have enough boxes for those wanting to switch!! It will happen, but this guild shouldn't be sacrificed on it now. The SKY IS FALLING screams the ill informed.
I have no argument with the idea that the industry is finding it hard to make wealth off of the internet right now. I simply do not believe for a second that they think "its future as an entertainment medium is uncertain". The entire related world of consumer product production from computer hardware to monitors/tvs etc is not only embracing it; they are ensuring it. How they handle the particulars of making money off our work is their business. Deserving a percentage is ours.
I agree that it is going there. I don't think anyone is going to disagree, BUT to say that it is NOW media and the guild should fight for this (considering the lack of leverage) is not okay with me. the technology is getting there, but your asking the MAINSTREAM general public to throw away their TVs and watch ORIGINAL content online? Analog TV is going away after 50+ years. IT take a while for people to catch up. People will not turn away from TV for quite a while
You forget the protections we have in place now with a SUNSET CLAUSE - wasn't there with DVD's. The fact that AFTRA has a deal, that has never happened before. WE are out on this alone right now and that means the producers have no incentive to deal. COVERED PERFORMER Clause - That shoots a HUGE hold in the "non union argument" that everyone is so worried about. This reminds me of Ultra Low Budget Film - No cash, No one ever sees it. Why not fight for more money there instead?
You're almost there, but you're unfortunately mixing CPM with CPC - the click is only registered if you actually click on the ad. If you don't the advertiser doesn't pay anything for the play. There are mixed CPM/CPC ad buys, but they are very rare, as are pure CPM ad buys online. I'm finishing up a video as we speak (it's publishing to YouTube right now) that explains this. I hope you'll consider what it says.
and the revenue that comes with it. The actor of course deserves a percentage of that revenue, having brought the users there in the first place and generated the advertising $. A replay is a replay no matter what lexicon we invent to disguise it. I am not trying to sound paranoid of big corporate interest, I just sincerely feel that they have a lot of very serious minds thinking much further into the future of this business than you are.
content, I would say 2 things 1. This "linear" understanding will be obsolete very soon; actors should not have their eggs in that basket (which is why the industry is fighting so hard to keep them there). 2. On-demand internet content is all the MORE reason to deserve a residual structure: When I click on a Video on Comedy Central's website and I am forced to watch a 30 second Nike spot, that click is tracked and the Advertiser pays for another play - The actors work brought about that click...
My apologies for not having encountered that use of the term. My understanding of linear vs non-linear comes from my days as an editor when it had an actual technical meaning: Linear = tape2tape, analog editing; non-linear = digital, computer based editing. I will take some time to learn more before furthering this discussion except to make one last point: As regards this new use of the term linear as an attempt to distinguish between single run airtime broadcasts and on-demand internet ...
For all the "there is money on the internet", I would go to yahoo and check the Article from February 19th, posted at 9:14 a.m by Alex Dobuzinskis - I can't put the link here for some reason.
just read the article, thanks for the resource. I have no basis to argue with the notion that the industry is struggling to make wealth on the internet right now. I do not believe for a second however, that they believe "its future as an entertainment medium is uncertain." The entire related world of consumer product production from computer hardware, to monitors/tvs etc is not only embracing it, but ensuring it.
Even if you were correct that the internet market cannot support residual pay then- A. It certainly will be capable soon and B. that is NOT the actors problem. What if this imaginary thing you call "Linear" television has difficulty supporting a residual structure? Does the actor give that up too? You are trying SO hard to justify the industry position rather than thinking like an actor. We are all impressed you're on Heroes right now but this debate concerns the FUTURE. The industry knows this.
Linear TV is what the advertising industry and new media types refer to broadcast, or traditional TV as. This is as opposed to online, or non-linear TV. DVR'd TV also falls into the non-linear arena because you can not only watch it whenever you desire, you can use VOD (video on demand) services to populate your DVR with content. It's not imaginary, it's just a phrase you weren't familiar with yet.
I'm not justifying any position - I'm being realistic.
If you don't believe lunafran33 below about $ in internet marketing then call RIGHT NOW and try and buy add space of the Huffington Post or place an add on comedy central. Also These A-List actors trying to get this contract ratified are all ALSO PRODUCERS (or married to them) is that not a HUGE conflict of interest -- Last time I checked the City Mayor is NOT allowed to sit on the Board of the Fire Department Union -- AND THAT IS FOR A Good REASON! Also, WTF is "Linear Television"??
To follow up and clarify the previous comment, I do think a merger would, in the end, present a solid face to the negotiations, but that the real-world ramifications of a merger are far more reaching than just that point. It would not stop the asinine "Hey, you're a weatherman, you can't possibly vote on acting issues" comments, and there's also Equity to consider. It mekes sense that all three performance unions should join as one. 1 dues payment instead of three, and other economies of scale.
The two unions are divided on more than just recording media. I sometimes wonder why people make a potential merger yet another thing to argue about, and assume that a merger would somehow quiet internal dissension. Just look at SAG - a union divided. I also consider that when I retire, I will have two relatively major pension payments, one from each union, in addition to my own retirement investments at SS. We shouldn't assume that merging would have no effect on those funds, or those payments.
What are your thoughts on merging SAG and AFTRA into one actual union that represents the art/job of acting, instead of the current split which is apparently divided over mediums?
I haven't missed the point. I'm talking about YouTube as an example of an outlet, not a production category. I very much understand that internet marketing is a nearly trillion dollar business, taking the valuation of Google alone. But we're not talking about Internet marketing, we're talking about being able to support a residual structure similar to linear television. That's currently not possible, for several reasons, not the least of which is that video play of any kind is not making money.
You have entirely missed the point. No one is talking about YouTube Videos or independent home videos; the point is 1.You actually referred to "the media is all coming through a digital pipe and where do we draw that line" This contract attempts to pre-emtively draw that line because everyone (accept you - but you really do) understands that internet marketing is already a mutli-billion dollar industry, and TV and Internet ARE merging. Period. (I will continue hahaha...)
oh please. of course you are bragging. and we're supposed to just believe you about new media because you wave your resume at us? and you're the only one that understands it and the rest of us actors are just dumb kids. right. you sound more like a company than an actor. the big companies want new media money all to themselves and are pulling out the stops . that is why we are being offered a bad deal. I don't "just want to act" and "I want to act and be paid for it". radical thinking, huh
No, you'd be better off taking what I have to say into consideration along with what others you respect have to say, along with a healthy skepticism of what anyone, including me, claims as fact. It's not as black and white as you put it vis a vis demonizing the big companies. In any negotiation, you're far better off thinking like your opponent, if for no other reason than to understand their strategies and tactics. I'm an actor that gets paid for what I do, and want that for all of us.
I posted that last reply not to brag, but to point out that some actors actually have experience in new media, and aren't just conjecturing. And I've had a wider range of experience in new media than most of the actors I've met. Most of those that share the sentiments of the SAG Elephant video and nestor20004 are unwilling to actually take the time to learn about the current financial state of new media. It's not their fault: I've heard time and again, "I just want to act. That's it." OK. Enjoy.
this is just another go along to get along apologist who spends the whole clip trying to convince us that there is no money in new media. of course there is, why else would the greedy companies be fighting so hard to screw actors out of it. we need to fight, not apoligize or pretend, to get a fair deal NOW
Yes, of course I am. I have no idea what I'm talking about.. I haven't worked in New Media for the last 25 years, I've produced no content, I don't know how to analyze balance sheets, 10K's and p&ls. I wouldn't know metadata if it hit me in the ass, and I've never built a million dollar property on the web. I"ve never worked for AOL, Yahoo, Google, NBC, ABC or CBS, I'm not an actor, producer or director and I'm really just talking for the hell of it.
Someone who is Informed and not speading his time or energy being a Martyr or blaming fellow actors, or AFTRA or blindly following failed SAG leadership or negotiators. The AMPTP is laughing at us! As a fellow Working Middle Class actor of 15 yrs. I agree with you and I will send this off to my list, enough of this misguided hostility & false information. AMPTP is who we are negotiating with not each other or faction. Each day we are not doing that is a loss to many. Thank you!
OK, I know how Google makes money (and it's not from selling "metadata", which actually is a misnomer when used this way), but Google's not a television network or studio. How does he rationally jump from the conclusion that studios and networks have been lying for years about above- and below-the-line costs to screw actors, directors and writers out of their hard earned money, to demanding to continue that practice and worse on the Internet?
multi-billion dollar company with a product line they give away for free. Selling metadata. When figuring profit from New Media and the Internet, it counts. No profit from the Internet. Ha, good one.
Moreover, if you really want to scare AMPTP companies, say this to them: "I hear you make even more money from "metadata" than almost anything." They'll quickly turn and run. Simply, metadata is the data embedded in New Media. Companies make huge money selling their metadata. (The amount is technically known as "oodles." ) Let's put it this way - how do you think Google became a
and have been completely out of business since 1987. CBS today makes athletic shoes. Paramount runs a chain of muffler shops. Neither, they say, make a profit. By the way, if you had wandered through the recent Consumer Electronics Show, you would have understood how massive a galvanizing profit these companies (and countless other companies) make from the Internet - right now. It's dizzying.
Sorry for the long replies but here's some additional info I found on the topic of Metadata sales: (taken from a post by Robert J. Elisberg via The Huffington post regarding the Writer's Strike)
I hear that the studios and networks say they don't make any money from the Internet. Why should they pay writers for it?
Studios and networks also say they don't make any money from TV and movies. According to studios and networks, they all went bankrupt 24 years ago
I already stated I may have been wrong about WIRED. But I DID read the article. I am not a tech guy so I would never have learned the term metadata without having read it. I thank you for your kind words, David. I will desperately try to recover the issue I read it in. I'll re-read the Pop Mechanics piece and see if I read it THERE instead.
Guys, I know Cutter very well. We've done workshops together, scenes together, and I know he's a standup guy. If he says he saw an article in WIRED, I'm sure he did. I'd sure like to read it to find out what they're saying, but I'm hoping no one here doubts his veracity.
David, you never responded to the question about why NBC would own or fund Hulu and why Warner Bros. would be a major investor in Funny or Die. FOD is a website devoted SOLELY to original programming for the internet. And Network heads have openly talked about using the internet as launching pads for new series. Without protection there, we're screwed. You guys keep talking about "Day 1" three years from now but where has that gotten us previously? Nowhere.
I did respond - they were and continue to experiment to find the right path for anything that makes money. They have yet to find it, and they are going to give it as much time as is fiscally possible, I would think. We part company when you assume that if you don't get something you want right away, you'll never get it. We don't even know how to make money on the net yet, and until we do, we can't do proper math on how be a part of it.
I have no reason to lie about a published piece in a national magazine. As for your clever wording, I never said the advertising was solely for internet programming. It's the internet as a whole. And with commercials and Tv eps running on the internet THAT'S what the issue is about. Not these tiny, small, very specific arguments being made here. You guys are taking this argument down a road very specific to small points instead of the issue as a whole. And that's foolish to me so I'll bow out.
to inquire, they said, "That's the rate." And it was a project funded by Warner Bros. Not some "Mom and Pop" outfit. Those are the facts, sir. This whole concern is the "We've been screwed before and can't let it happen again..." model. And you can't fault people for being concerned with previous history, can you?
based ON internet viewings, and fair wages for stuff produced FOR the internet, actors are left with the short end. Using your own case where it's a role that means something to the series and viewers, of COURSE they're going to pay solid rates because w/o it, they don't have an element. But the issue here is far larger than "One" actor's single experience. it's about the internet as a WHOLE. You have to see that. I did an AFTRA internet episode and was paid $100 for the day. When I called AFTRA
billings are THAT high (and I understand that the field there is a helluva lot bigger than channels available on TV), that means it's definitely something that business people at networks and movie studios are paying attention to. Why not double dip to increase profits? That's just smart business. So that's an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's not going to be many years until it does and if we're stuck in an agreement that DOESN'T call for residuals
Apologies. I can't find the issue of WIRED I have where that was talked about. But I may have screwed up the title. It might have been POPULAR MECHANICS. From Jan. 09: "According to a report commissioned last year by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, online advertising in the U.S. grossed $21.2 billion in 2007, trumping cable ($20.9 billion), radio ($19.8 billion) and broadcast television ($19.2 billion)."
That's something to think about. If it's been shown that internet advertising billings..
When I get home I'll find the issue and guide you to it. You can't have it both ways though. You clearly state there's no money to be made via the internet with programming and that's not the case at all. Why then would NBC partner up with Hulu? Why would Warner Brothers have a major stake in Funny Or Die? There's greenbacks here, sir. Nobody invests money with a purposeful intent to lose it, right? If there are no provisions for internet re-runs and it ALL goes internet, actors are screwed.
Sorry for the triple post. In closing, I think SAG is justifiably concerned with settling for offers now that once established, will be harder than hell to get increased. Use cable rates and VHS/DVD sales as looking points. Once those deals are made the producers/studios have shown very little interest in increasing them later. That's not theory, it's truth. Can't be surprised when someone uses the "Fool me once..." argument, right? Okay. I'm out.
But there are just as many examples of gains made after fighting for them for years, including residuals themselves. They may be concerned about it, but they are expressing that concern by dropping the demand to increase the DVD formula, which the AMPTP was willing to place back in play. Again, if they can't do what our former leaders could throughout the history of the Guild, then I say get out, and let someone in who can.
Please try to find that WIRED article. I'd love to read about it.
I don't have the exact figures for the metadata sales but the whole point of the article was in that's where the profits are made. By providing this data to other companies for targeted marketing and stuff.
You fail to mention that the nets ARE making a profit by selling metadata. Each time someone clicks in and watches it's free, but there's ads on these sites and the nets then re-sell the metadata for LARGE sums of money. Read about it in WIRED magazine. They're not biased one way or another. Saying, "We have plenty of time..." isn't fair either. We haven't made ground for cable and DVD sales we let slip through the cracks with the promise, "We'll make it right if this stuff catches on."
I looked for "metadata sales network tv television" on WIRED and found no articles to actually quote from (if you can find it, I'd love to read it), but selling demographic data is nothing new for networks or any large aggregator of consumer action. If you really want crazy amounts of data to be sold (and not for a huge amount of money, really, compared to ad sales), look to Amazon and Google.
I post because I care. Shill? really? how about someone who works the contract and makes a living and cares that truth is told.
How many TV shows are online right now? Original, advertising driven, promoted, AMPTP company produced, star focused web series are on the networks right now?
Thanks, David. It's nice to see an understandable argument based on facts, leading to a reasonable conclusion. What unfamiliar territory to many of us in our industry!
Continuous play of an episode is just that. And CPCs ALWAYS come into play, either directly measured at the time of the click, recording TOD, play, exact click area/link, where in timeline etc, or in an ROI analysis at the end of the campaign. Nearly all of the ads that you see in online plays are bonused to advertisers who buy a linear package. Online sponsorships like Nissan and Sprint barely cover production costs. And again, how do you handle calculations of residuals?
Thanks for responding, but how much are the networks charging advertisers to place their 30 sec ad in between every 9 minute segment of a heroes episode? in those cases the cpc's never really come into play. WIth the new agreement, they will not have to pay any additional monies as long as the hour long episode is only aired in less than 10 minute segments (I may need to check the exact number of minutes)...
There is money there, true. BUT, I have researched this online advertising that is shown on network sites for these shows. Many of these (not all), but many, are bonus' that are given to advertisers for buying network spots on shows. The value placed on these isn't nearly as great as that of what they can charge for TV and there is a reason for that.
I have spoke to brand managers and ad execs from fortune 500 companies.
There are none, and I'm fine with that. I'm being paid very well, and I am well aware of the limited shelf life of a 5 minute webisode used to promote the show I do get residuals on.
Tell me - how would any of you suggest webisode residuals be calculated? Not on views, I would hope, since views are not commensurate with CPC income, the way network plays are commensurate with spot inventory CPM sales (and if you don't know what that means, you should). But I do wonder what you all think.
Did i say "facts"? Not sure where the quotes came from. Trust me, you're gonna get your way. You have the numbers plus most of the folks who wanna roll over are currently living fat and have more power and voice. And I truly hope your current employment keeps you from having to worry about the life of the working character actor for a long while. But try not to villainize those who are scared for their children's future. You seem like a bully. They have the right to be frightened.
I'm anything but a bully - I just have an open mind and about 20 years experience working the Internet for profit. I"ve seen it turn on a dime, I know what a heartbreak in can be, and I've watched people throw away millions of dollars on hype. That's exactly what's happening here - the hype of the Internet (in it's current configuration) as our future. More power and voice? It's not a race, dude - it's a discussion. And filibustering, filing lawsuits and sending out pathetic emails isn't helping
Yes. Your whole post was designed to contrast the apparent inability of Guild leadership to achieve goals previously rejected as pure fact, the reverse as likely as the clown babies scenario. I tell you what - let's stick to the discussion, rather than verbal jabs that you retire from when someone calls you on it.
I don't think I threw any verbal jabs, much less retired from them. I only questioned you putting quotes around a word I didn't use.
I was hoping you'd see the faces of the actors you're trying to reach instead of referring to them as a herd of cats. It would be way more effective for your agenda. But if getting harangued is what happens for voicing an opinion, I'll leave you to your supporters. I bet if you were a shade more accessible you could change some minds. Honestly. Not a jab.
I didn't put the word "fact" in quotes because you used it. I wasn't quoting you, I was calling out your intent, and you did exactly what I said.
Further, I wasn't referring to actors as a herd of cats, I was referring to the concept that the ability to make money on the Internet was not an elephant, but rather a herd of cats.
I'm completely accessible - not a single person here or offline can't reach me.
You are completely missing my point, and further, are doing it on purpose. We're done.
Like you I also dream of leadership who are able to reverse precedent after three years and get the producers to finally treat us fair. I also dream of evil clown-babies kicking me in the tits.
I hear this a lott (the "fact" that nothing can be gained if not gained immediately, not the clown-babies).
So, if that's the case (and it's not, as we've gained many things over the years that have initially been rejected, like residuals themselves - but don't let facts get in the way of your argument), then the leadership needs to step aside to allow competent people to take their place.
Being treated fairly isn't a "final" thing. It's a process. It's ongoing. It must be constantly defended.
Thank you David. Everyone is fighting for everything now and is losing that this is a never ending thing, but the 'get it now' mentality of actors sometimes is frightening.
better to go forward with NO deal??? you are serious? Really? Please tell me you aren't. You are talking about labor strife vs. labor peace. No deal means all new programming will go AFTRA. that is not a good thing. NO deal means losing minimums. I have done 2 guest stars on SAG shows. I sure would love to have the increases that SAG actors aren't getting now because of NO deal.
Jesus. Get a clue. Read a contract before you spout off about no deal.
We lost this battle due to the fact that membership first alienated AFTRA. When AFTRA signed their deal it was the end of ours! I'm so happy that Doug Allen is out, Now we just need to get rid of a few more: Alan, Anne-Marie, and Kent!!
The Deal on the table is NOT a good one but Membership first made sure that this is the deal we will be left with. I said it when Alan was ripping on AFTRA a few years ago and I'll say it again!! If Alan doesn't stop the "BS" then it will be AFTRA = TV and SAG = Features. 2 years later look at what we are faced with. Can SAG survive without a TV Contract? Thanks Alan R. for running our Union into the ground!!!!
The deal is bad either. It does gain footholds in new media, gets TV increases and protections for the future. I agree 100% on what Doug/Alan and membership first did to put us in this mess. Now we have to get the best deal we can, salvage the union as best we can and move forward. The longer this drags out the more danger we are in of losing SAG.
New episode? Was it actually a full length episode or derivative? I went online and checked. Its not a full, NEW episode. It was a derivative show. Not the argument.
the WGA and AFTRA in support. Not on our own. I am okay with losing a battle, but not the war. We lost this battle due to leadership's failed strategy and now everyone wants to keep fighting. SAG is outnumbered, outgunned, outmanned and can only do more harm by even thinking a strike right now.
you are missing the argument all together. This leadership has F***ked up our negotations and left us holding the check. Wanting to strike and fight. We have NO LEVERAGE. The bosses are money hungry, but the only way to hurt them is in the pocketbook. HULU makes money on re-runs and old shows. Our leadership wasn't fighting that, they are/were fighting for ORIGINAL content. THey gave this fight up. Not saying its not an issue, but its not this negotiation. We can't fight this without
I am not talking about another guild or union. I am talking about the contract points in this. Actors got screwed on DVD's by waiting. They didn't protect themselves. This agreement has a SUNSET CLAUSE. Keep arguing about the future and being screwed, this just in, we negotiate from scratch in 2011. That is what that clause gives us.
If we don't get a deal now there may not be a next time.
Finally a clear and concise answer to that Elephant misinformation video. Thank you for posting this. I want SAG to sign a contract asap. I am losing money with the political mess of MF.
they follow completely different guidelines. i support our unions, i support our right to strike, but i also know that in-fighting that is so public will never lead to a resolution.
Thanks, Elaine - I've watched you struggle a bit trying to find the right path to take, and I think you are also positioned to see it from both an actor's and a producer's perspective. John (SAG Elephant, who won't approve this video as a video response to his) is a decent hard working guy, who probably comes from good Midwestern stock and a union background, but is applying only the rules he knows as a 20 year working actor. The rules are changing as we speak. We have to be agile as we move on.
read the aftra contract (i have about 5 times over to completely understand all the terms). the types of things typically posted on actors access fall under the realm of what i'm producing - original made for new media productions, no money, high hopes - things that are posted on actual breakdowns, if posted at all, are paid for by the network and are called derivative new media programs (like the heroes webisodes).
i'm producing one myself, and it comes no where close to the $25,000 a minute budget that warrants residuals under an aftra contract (try under $1000 per episode). did i decide to go aftra? yes, i want to support our unions and sag doesn't currently have a contract absolutely in place. am i paying my actors anything? no. i can't. i'm financing this out of my pocket (and i'm not even a middle class actor, i have a support job).
if you can't afford to pay actors you shouldn't be producing a show. it's like not being able to afford a camera. you are the problem, not the solution.
this is exactly the type of name calling without offering a solution that i was afraid of. i'm not paying actors because the 3 other actors involved are also producing our show. we all decided to not pay ourselves as actors because we wanted to just make our product. i've met with the assistant national executive director of aftra about our contract, which she approved and helped me with the paperwork.
the reason i decided to go aftra (though i couldn't pay) was so if we sold our product to traditional media, all performers would be compensated fairly. i haven't tried to say i'm part of the solution, just someone who is trying to play by changing rules, and support fellow actors in the long run, even if i'm unable as a low budget producer at the moment.
if you would like to donate $400 or more to our production, i would gladly give it to our actors. no questions asked. so if you want to be part of the solution yourself, let me know.
This is the exact type of NEW MEDIA project that is happening and, I applaud elaine for getting the thing made, but it is not a studio funded project with a big budget. Something very similar to the "short film" boom that happened a few years ago.
i do agree that sag and aftra have to come to some kind of a consensus and a-lilst stars aren't necessarily the ones who have the proper view to tell us what that is, on either side. and i agree that a strike authorization doesn't necessarily guarantee a strike (and i was ready to vote yes, for the record). but i also agree that the overwhelming majority of made for new media productions don't have the type of money that networks do.
first time commenting on a youtube video, and i'm a bit scared that people might call me names for my opinion, but i have to say this... i resonate with both sides of the argument. i watched the elephant in the room, and i said, hmm, that makes sense. i watched david's and i said, hmm, that also makes sense. i've read all the literature posted about the contract negotiations (i'm both sag and aftra), so i'm not uneducated, this is just a complex situation.
There's no such thing. Coterminus is for multiple contracts between the same parties, not different, to end simultaneously, or causing one to end if another between the two does. Back to reality: the various union contracts, if SAG properly negotiates an end date to theirs, would all end within months of one another. And that's all we need. And the DGA didn't take the least confrontational deal, nor did AFTRA. They were very realistic, unlike SAG has been
oh come on David. are you really that naive? the dga has different needs than SAG or WGA. they set the pattern bargaining to screw us all. many of them are also producers. AFTRA will take any scraps offered. they have poached SAG contracts and give away huge windows with no residuals. you think we should all work together? forget it. AFTRA is a sell out union. the DGA is in bed with the AMPTP. we have to fight for our future. sorry to see you're willing to give it all away. AFTRA realistic? bull
You should read the contracts then my friend. No one is saying the DGA is in play. The way the deals are set up the WGA goes first, then the DGA and then AFTRA/SAG. We are synced for the first time a long time to get a deal done together. Not as one union (though I would like that), but when all 3 unions can negotiate near the same time and if they want can walk together and the hurt mgmt. AFTRA has no sold out. They have increased network minimums and got a foothold in the door on Web.
Actor2you - I have worked all the contracts (except Voice overs) and have made a living 4 of my 6 years in LA doing guest stars, movies and commercials. So, yes I have worked the contracts. any more questions?
Yes, I have one more question. Have you worked an AFTRA contract lately that has a huge window of residual giveaway. If you have, then tell me how you feel about not getting residuals when your work is rerun. I know how I feel.
the DGA went first! that set up a huge obstacle for the rest of the unions. are you really that clueless? it's called pattern bargaining and the AMTMP started with the DGA for a reason. they have a history of settling fast.
Naive? No. And I'm not into conspiracy theories either. The DGA set out to screw us? What is this, 8th grade? You obviously have your opinions, and you're not about to open your mind to anything other than what you believe. No worries. But I'm anything but naive. What future are you fighting for? Really. Lay it out. What's the actual future that you're fighting for? Once you define that, then we can see how realistic YOU are.
and you don't seem to be able to open your mind to anything other than what YOU believe. And my question to you is what future are you willing to give away? I'm fighting for the middle class actor. you seem to want to just give in to the amtmp and then wait for all the stars (unions) to align. ain't gonna happen. only SAG and WGA see eye to eye. the DGA are on the producer's side. AFTRA sold us out. do an AFTRA show and you'll see. where's the residuals?
I'm very open, when something makes sense, and repeating the same invective over and over makes no sense. I've worked AFTRA shows. I've worked SAG shows. I've gotten residuals from both. I'm not sure what you envision the future to be, but it's not going to be network level day rates or residuals from webisodes that make no money and cost little to produce.
David, I am confused. We have no Co-terminus agreement with the other unions. What makes you think that we will suddenly have unity between IA, WGA, The DGA in 3 years? There's no movement toward it. If anyone has promised it, I haven't heard it nor is it a truism.
More than likely the same thing would happen that has always happened: every union for themselves, the DGA takes the least confrontative deal and we are screwed. Again. Please tell me how I would be wrong here.
What an awesome self-promoter! This video, case in point. How many times did he mention his credentials? One seems like many... almost seems greater than they are.
Does he appear more appealing to producers? No makeup can cover that brown nose.
He left out that his main work (besides pumping up himself, putting down others, blurring facts) is voiceover, so he touts AFTRA .
The facts are not as he states. NONE OF 'EM.
Just like this video. DL's ever-present ,arrogant attitude. Nothing.
Very well said, David. Glad to have discovered your channel.
~Trav
acmecomedy 2 years ago
Are you still working as FICORE?
easyinstructions 2 years ago
The "...get back to work claim..." point is empty retoric, and half a lie in favor of the AMPTP.
Why? Because I worked almost everyday from August 1, 2008 thru March 13 2009, in NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, and CONNECTICUT. Yes, on the east coast.
The east coast: (where, what... 25% of SAG income is earned) I worked almost every available weekday, and I could name many SAG members who where on sets and locations with me.
"get back to work" is what the AMPTP want you to say.
DrChebutykin 2 years ago
I've been really clear about my motivations. I want SAG to concentrate on negotiating things they have a chance of winning, and allowing there to be time to find out just how much money there is (or isn't) in new media. I'm not looking to be right, I'm looking for SAG's members to make money. We've already lost hundreds of millions by not signing a deal with the AMPTP. Not the deal they presented, but one that would have given us increases in base, P&H and more.
davidhlawrence 2 years ago
If I wanted to go to the trouble of being litigious, I would have already done so. I invite anyone to call SAG, section 12 me and find out for yourself. I'm more than happy to leave them here as a record of your intentions and statements. I am not FiCore - I can't be any clearer than that. And those comments will remain as well. Someone has to be right, and someone has to be mistaken. I'm willing to have people find out. You're simply willing to repeat the same thing over and over.
davidhlawrence 2 years ago
Variety is saying a deal has most likely been reached - SAG/Producers meet again Tuesday.
Remember Actors -- NO NEW MEDIA RESIDUALS - NO CONTRACT! IT IS OUR FUTURE!! THEY'VE TAKEN ENOUGH FROM US ALREADY - NOT MEETING OUR QUOTES, LESS HEALTH CARE, ETC. FIGHT FOR OUR FUTURE!
girlygirlindahood 2 years ago
I love you on heroes, you are really great actor.
mijauww 2 years ago
Did you get residuals on that Heroes webisode? If not, why not?????
This below was IN THE AGENT'S BREAKDOWNS like you are disputing:
Look at the pay -- below scale
ROAD TO THE ALTAR
Webisodes
SAG
Shoot/Start Date: April 5, 2009
Pay Rate: Starring - $400/day; Recur - $200/day; Guest $100/day
Major producer, this even beats AFTRA wages!
girlygirlindahood 2 years ago
This is a system I don't understand at all. The way I see it, Striking=Bad, TV=Good.
ChaoticSupernova 3 years ago
those who dont have healthcare or dont meet criteria to qualify for healthcare will understand. those who fought for pension would understand. the contract is not only about new media, that is one aspect, those who didnt speak up about DVDs now know what its like, that is the point, it is to speak up before something is signed and not be in fear of speaking up for fairness. its about not being fooled and being awake. its not about the easy $ of the moment its about learning thru history.
livejelly 3 years ago
i think theres a misunderstandin here somewhere. rallying is about the current contract thru studios not asking for residuals from revver (i dont think anyone from u tube is even on the amptp.)sag protectors are talking about the major network shows-sites. read the contract to understand the unfairness. places like william morris r trying to make their own deal y shuldnt SAG? those who hav to live with a contract should not be afraid to walk away if it doesnt meet the needs of the majority.
livejelly 3 years ago
The LA Times quoted the Majors saying they are phasing out paying residuals. Fact. We cannot wait 3 years for producers to make a good faith effort given producers track record. Real working actors will not sign a deal that does not include compensation for new media.
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
I sure can articulate a response - vote down any new contract that does not include new media residuals and vote for a strike authorization if it comes to that. How's that for a response, fat pig!
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
Fat pig? Really? Do you need to resort to name calling to try to get your point across? I wasn't questioning your ability to articulate in general, just that I'd love to hear your suggestion for solving the math problem as to funding residuals. As I've yet to hear that here, and you choose to hurl insults instead of constructive alternatives (and simply screaming to vote down the contract and strike is an action, not a strategy), we're done. I've been respectful. You have not.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Comment removed
tragos2 3 years ago
Comment removed
tragos2 3 years ago
Comment removed
tragos2 3 years ago
I don't understand the angry irrational responses to this video post. I am hearing both sides of this argument on many different forums, and I don't in any way feel David is trying to "Grab media attention". I think he's trying to provide a voice of reason and a sound argument against striking. And I hear it. It makes sense.
tragos2 3 years ago
Totally agreed with you. We are human, we all have points of view.
Ze33roX 3 years ago
Think what you want - you couldn't be further from the truth, and declaring yourself the winner, taking your ball and going home is the most childlike behavior possible. But that's OK. The future will be what the future will be.
I have only *been* lobbying for negotiation from a position of strength, as the only way you can do that is to understand what is fact and what is conjecture. Most of what SAG has decided is important is based on conjecture.
And now back to the vigorous debate.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Voting for a strike authorization is the ONLY strength SAG has! Don't get why you cannot see that simple truth!
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
Stop using this debate for your own self-promotion. If your passionate about acting, go study with a good acting mentor, do some stage work, EMBRACE the CRAFT and pursue it seriously instead of sucking on its tit with your media blitz self promotion. And please save me the pain of any denial, your strategy for monetary success and attention in this industry is completely tranparenet and has nothing to do with the craft of acting.
lunafran33 3 years ago
I have come to see several other posters' point here: you are simply seeking attention by countering arguments with disregard for their merit or the big picture to the actor. I do not rush to this opinion; I have been following this post closely: you are simply arguing to gain attention for yourself. You advertise this yourself on your home page: "Feedback and vigorous disagreement with John's premise, logic and conclusions in his SAG Elephant video"
lunafran33 3 years ago
Re your Alec Baldwin response to me. As an A-List, millionaire actor MAKING MONEY RIGHT NOW from the concept of Internet Television (even if it is just "a booking" as you say and he has NO stock investments in the future of this technology), he has completely given up his right ethically to try and convince the struggling month to month actor that there is no money there. What do you think he made on that spot - more than I did all year for sure.
lunafran33 3 years ago
...(cont) There was a time when Acting was a Craft, an Art to be studied and practiced by Artisans. These days, F*#k it, a "personality" will do (or a reality show, or an MSNBC "consultant"). I do not know what your lacking in your psychology that you yearn to hide, but You, sir, are an attention seeking leech ATTEMPTING to be a personality. Forget about this contract, YOU are what's wrong with Acting today.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
I'm not sure what that's all about, but it's entirely unnecessary.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Lastly, I too am going to leave you behind as a legitimate forum for this discussion. I entirely question your motives. Do you just want hits on this site? Who are you exactly? An actor? A Radio Talk show Host? An MSNBC internet scam consulant? OR Joe the SAG & AFTRA Plumber -- just looking for any bit of media attention you can grab to draw attention to yourself. ...
CuHulan33 3 years ago
I'm an actor, mostly seen this season in 8 episodes of NBC's show Heroes, and now in a webisode dealing with my character which will go up in April.
I suck on no teats. But your assumptions about my acting career are as erroneous as your assumptions about my experience with the Net and my experience with negotiation strategies. I know there's no changing yours and other's minds here on that, but there you have it.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
you haven't been in the business long enough to understand, you're still eager, easiliy impressed and star-struck, your credits and your bragging about them mean nothing .... the real issue is saving this union for the future actors plight, which you do not seem to have a clue about.
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
I've been in the business, and have covered the business, for about 35 years, which just might be longer than you've been alive. But that doesn't really matter, does it? Facts are all that matter, and not planning our future based on emotion and misinformation. It's as though you simply disagree, but can't quite articulate an alternative to what I've posed. Let's do that instead of comparing credits.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
...(Cont.) I don't care if no one ever makes a penny on the internet. It is not the Actors Unions job to figure how the industry can make money off our work, it is only our job to protect our rights in ALL arenas where that possibility exists. Period. We do not need to porve they will make money in a certain medium - if they don't then neither will we, and they would not be entrenched the way they are over this issue.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
I looked up your credits - not too many -- obviously why you are desperate to accept whatever BS "your oh-so-mighty" producers throw your way. Wake up dude!
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
I will simply end my posting here with this note: If your posts here represent sincere ideas and not simply self-interested persuasion, then I would never want you negotiating on my behalf for anything. Everything you propose begins from a position of weakness and assumes the need to prove something to the industry. You create a relationship of subordinance right from the start. It is like a kid and a parent or a student - teacher relationship you start with. ...
CuHulan33 3 years ago
you're kidding, right? Like I said -- how can actors trust the producers when they've continually screwed them as history has shown. That is the real issue here -- not whether new media should be paid this or that. If we refuse to remember history, we are doomed to repeat it. STRIKE! STRIKE!! STRIKE!!!
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
...This is a huge problem for the ethics of a Union. This is not to say that all actors at this level forget/ignore they are a part of an "Actors" Union (I sincerely doubt that Sean Penn would agree with anything you say), but many do, and the integrity of a Union is compromised. EVERYONE KNOWS this move is an attempt at Checkmate to dismantle the Union concept in this field, and those that attempt to sell it from within through fear or mis-use of information (you) are disingenuous and disgustme
lunafran33 3 years ago
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, save it for someone who is affected by insults. My aim is not to disgust, but to discuss. I clearly want to create a climate for actors to continue to be paid well in an environment that encourages producers to do so. You can say this is misinformation all you want, but I've never said we should take the deal. Understand that. This isn't about getting people to accept a bad offer, it's about understanding the truth about the situation.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
I have been following this post and want to say that I almost sh*t my pants when I saw that ad by Baldwin. One thing not discussed here yet is that is this particular career (unlike firefighters referenced below), when you reach a certain level you can become a part of the other side in a myriad of ways. If a teacher stops teaching and enters administration she/he is no longer in the teachers union. Here actors of a certain level begin to profit in the same ways as the industry ...
lunafran33 3 years ago
Why would you take Alec Baldwin to task for acting? Where do you draw the line? He's currently starring in one of NBC's biggest shows, he got paid well for the spot, and that's that. He's not their "spokesman," he's an actor in a spot. I'm sure NBC is looking at lots of other options. I would submit that you are so entrenched in your thinking, that every situation you see can be interpreted to be working against you. Try to stop and consider how things really happen: he got a booking. That's all
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
... 2. and I quote CuHulan33 from below: :Even if the industry was willing in the future to give up their current position on this issue AFTER it was worth millions (which is obviously not likely), think for a moment of the magnitude of the bargaining chip you are knowingly giving them now for future negotiations. What will it cost you to get this right back once it is making money? It won't come free, if at all." Furthermore, from my pov, they HAVE NO DOUBT where "the Internet will take us"-you
dhdon999 3 years ago
Since I am tired of coming here, though I feel the debate healthy, I think you are more interested in displaying a level of knowledge than you are in really looking at this in good faith as a negiator on behalf of the actor, I have two last points to make 1: Before you say anything about Hulu being free, understand that free content is how all monetized sites (except porn) work. and ...
dhdon999 3 years ago
So, really? It doesn't bother you at all that one of the major supporters of your position in our "union" is also the Spokesman for HULU? Really? That doesn't strike you at all like the major "Conflict of Interest" cited below by CuHulan33? If Alec Balwin is going to send out these letters in support of this position, I sincerely believe we have a right to know how much he is making now from these guys and how much stock he has in its future.
dhdon999 3 years ago
Well, this guy doesn't seem to have any doubts or worries about where the technology and money is headed: I can't post link I guess but see youtube plus this watch?v=1m71m-LBqFQ
dhdon999 3 years ago
I never said they'd be our friends. Quite to the contrary, they are bound by fiduciary rules to be as ruthless as they can stomach in their negotiations.
I'd really like you to read what I have to say more carefully. It's not so much about the producers being right, it's about our approach and assumptions being terribly, terribly wrong.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Oh, and you are wrong about negotiating in 3 years, and the producers will be our friends -- they are still paying sweetheart deals to the cable networks -- deals that were granted when the networks were "fledglings" much like their internet argument now. It takes courage to strike, and that is what many do not have in socieyt anymore. People are afraid to lose their creature comforts, afraid of sacrifice for the future. Our founders would be ashamed of the moderates lying down attitudes.
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
So, you want less money now is what you are saying?? Not ONLY are we talking webisodes, New Media already has network TV shows airing on the internet with TV ads! And tracking exists, but they don't want to pay internet residuals! The real issue is -- and history demonstrates it with the "DVD" contract never fairly revisited again in 20 years -- how can actors trust producers? With the producers rejecting SAG be in snync with its sister unions??? Short term pain for long term gain! STRIKE!!
girlygirlindahood 3 years ago
I didn't say anything of the sort. Where's the tracking? What numbers do they show? Just simply point them out to us. The DVD contract should be vigorously pursued, but physical media will be coming to an end soon if new media extremists are to be believed. So, which is it?
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Thank you to "xnerg" and "CuHulan33"!!!! The good points David makes may be true of the "current" market on the internet, but they are entirely irrelevant to someone negotiating in good faith on behalf of the actor.
dhdon999 3 years ago
How are they irrelevant? If they're true, they're a starting point, and no one, not me, not you, certainly not Alan Rosenberg can safely predict where the Internet will take us. And you can only negotiate effectively and elegantly from a position of strength. A lack of facts replaced with a fist full of conjecture is dangerous and ineffective.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
david makes several good points, but something he (and everyone who shares his "3 years from now we'll negotiate" view) is naive if he thinks that the producers will be more amenable to giving us our fair share.
trust me, i've seen us get screwed with the cable deal, the video deal, the dvd deal...each time the producers told us "let's wait and see if we make money with this new technology and then we'll give the actors their fair share.
then they screw us @ the next negotiations.
xnerg 3 years ago
that we try to understand and match the thinking of those across the table. Even if the industry was willing in the future to give up their current position on this issue AFTER it was worth millions (which is obviously not likely), think for a moment of the magnitude of the bargaining chip you are knowingly giving them now for future negotiations. What will it cost you to get this right back once it is making money? It won't come free, if at all.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
The 37" tv on the wall already is cable/internet ready - but that's not the point. I am not saying that 100% of people will ever watch tv exclusively on the internet. For example, people don't throw away their desktop pcs and laptops to use the internet on their iPhone or mobile device - it's just another form of media access - just like DVDs (on which the Unions totally missed the boat by saying "Eh, it's not here yet"). I am not trying to scream the sky is falling, I am only suggesting...
CuHulan33 3 years ago
No one is going to throw away their tvs - your tv will be online. - If you're right and no one makes any money off it for a while then fine, but you will have to try and get something back you already gave up. If it happens faster than you think (this site is only a few years old and a household name) actors are locked out. If it is really a non-issue that the industry is willing to give up later when it IS making millions, then why are they so entrenched over it now? btw look up "analog"
CuHulan33 3 years ago
You still have to get people to give up their 37" TV on the wall. Hmm....pretty easy to do with the common folk in the midwest who just are now getting rid of VHS and Analog TV. I looked up analog?? What ? Explain the reason they delaying the transition? Why because they didn't have enough boxes for those wanting to switch!! It will happen, but this guild shouldn't be sacrificed on it now. The SKY IS FALLING screams the ill informed.
yayayarat 3 years ago
I have no argument with the idea that the industry is finding it hard to make wealth off of the internet right now. I simply do not believe for a second that they think "its future as an entertainment medium is uncertain". The entire related world of consumer product production from computer hardware to monitors/tvs etc is not only embracing it; they are ensuring it. How they handle the particulars of making money off our work is their business. Deserving a percentage is ours.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
I agree that it is going there. I don't think anyone is going to disagree, BUT to say that it is NOW media and the guild should fight for this (considering the lack of leverage) is not okay with me. the technology is getting there, but your asking the MAINSTREAM general public to throw away their TVs and watch ORIGINAL content online? Analog TV is going away after 50+ years. IT take a while for people to catch up. People will not turn away from TV for quite a while
yayayarat 3 years ago
You forget the protections we have in place now with a SUNSET CLAUSE - wasn't there with DVD's. The fact that AFTRA has a deal, that has never happened before. WE are out on this alone right now and that means the producers have no incentive to deal. COVERED PERFORMER Clause - That shoots a HUGE hold in the "non union argument" that everyone is so worried about. This reminds me of Ultra Low Budget Film - No cash, No one ever sees it. Why not fight for more money there instead?
yayayarat 3 years ago
You're almost there, but you're unfortunately mixing CPM with CPC - the click is only registered if you actually click on the ad. If you don't the advertiser doesn't pay anything for the play. There are mixed CPM/CPC ad buys, but they are very rare, as are pure CPM ad buys online. I'm finishing up a video as we speak (it's publishing to YouTube right now) that explains this. I hope you'll consider what it says.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
and the revenue that comes with it. The actor of course deserves a percentage of that revenue, having brought the users there in the first place and generated the advertising $. A replay is a replay no matter what lexicon we invent to disguise it. I am not trying to sound paranoid of big corporate interest, I just sincerely feel that they have a lot of very serious minds thinking much further into the future of this business than you are.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
content, I would say 2 things 1. This "linear" understanding will be obsolete very soon; actors should not have their eggs in that basket (which is why the industry is fighting so hard to keep them there). 2. On-demand internet content is all the MORE reason to deserve a residual structure: When I click on a Video on Comedy Central's website and I am forced to watch a 30 second Nike spot, that click is tracked and the Advertiser pays for another play - The actors work brought about that click...
CuHulan33 3 years ago
My apologies for not having encountered that use of the term. My understanding of linear vs non-linear comes from my days as an editor when it had an actual technical meaning: Linear = tape2tape, analog editing; non-linear = digital, computer based editing. I will take some time to learn more before furthering this discussion except to make one last point: As regards this new use of the term linear as an attempt to distinguish between single run airtime broadcasts and on-demand internet ...
CuHulan33 3 years ago
For all the "there is money on the internet", I would go to yahoo and check the Article from February 19th, posted at 9:14 a.m by Alex Dobuzinskis - I can't put the link here for some reason.
yayayarat 3 years ago
just read the article, thanks for the resource. I have no basis to argue with the notion that the industry is struggling to make wealth on the internet right now. I do not believe for a second however, that they believe "its future as an entertainment medium is uncertain." The entire related world of consumer product production from computer hardware, to monitors/tvs etc is not only embracing it, but ensuring it.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
Even if you were correct that the internet market cannot support residual pay then- A. It certainly will be capable soon and B. that is NOT the actors problem. What if this imaginary thing you call "Linear" television has difficulty supporting a residual structure? Does the actor give that up too? You are trying SO hard to justify the industry position rather than thinking like an actor. We are all impressed you're on Heroes right now but this debate concerns the FUTURE. The industry knows this.
CuHulan33 3 years ago
Linear TV is what the advertising industry and new media types refer to broadcast, or traditional TV as. This is as opposed to online, or non-linear TV. DVR'd TV also falls into the non-linear arena because you can not only watch it whenever you desire, you can use VOD (video on demand) services to populate your DVR with content. It's not imaginary, it's just a phrase you weren't familiar with yet.
I'm not justifying any position - I'm being realistic.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Comment removed
CuHulan33 3 years ago
If you don't believe lunafran33 below about $ in internet marketing then call RIGHT NOW and try and buy add space of the Huffington Post or place an add on comedy central. Also These A-List actors trying to get this contract ratified are all ALSO PRODUCERS (or married to them) is that not a HUGE conflict of interest -- Last time I checked the City Mayor is NOT allowed to sit on the Board of the Fire Department Union -- AND THAT IS FOR A Good REASON! Also, WTF is "Linear Television"??
CuHulan33 3 years ago
To follow up and clarify the previous comment, I do think a merger would, in the end, present a solid face to the negotiations, but that the real-world ramifications of a merger are far more reaching than just that point. It would not stop the asinine "Hey, you're a weatherman, you can't possibly vote on acting issues" comments, and there's also Equity to consider. It mekes sense that all three performance unions should join as one. 1 dues payment instead of three, and other economies of scale.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
The two unions are divided on more than just recording media. I sometimes wonder why people make a potential merger yet another thing to argue about, and assume that a merger would somehow quiet internal dissension. Just look at SAG - a union divided. I also consider that when I retire, I will have two relatively major pension payments, one from each union, in addition to my own retirement investments at SS. We shouldn't assume that merging would have no effect on those funds, or those payments.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Great point Mr. Lawrence.
What are your thoughts on merging SAG and AFTRA into one actual union that represents the art/job of acting, instead of the current split which is apparently divided over mediums?
FatLester3 3 years ago
I haven't missed the point. I'm talking about YouTube as an example of an outlet, not a production category. I very much understand that internet marketing is a nearly trillion dollar business, taking the valuation of Google alone. But we're not talking about Internet marketing, we're talking about being able to support a residual structure similar to linear television. That's currently not possible, for several reasons, not the least of which is that video play of any kind is not making money.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
You have entirely missed the point. No one is talking about YouTube Videos or independent home videos; the point is 1.You actually referred to "the media is all coming through a digital pipe and where do we draw that line" This contract attempts to pre-emtively draw that line because everyone (accept you - but you really do) understands that internet marketing is already a mutli-billion dollar industry, and TV and Internet ARE merging. Period. (I will continue hahaha...)
lunafran33 3 years ago 3
oh please. of course you are bragging. and we're supposed to just believe you about new media because you wave your resume at us? and you're the only one that understands it and the rest of us actors are just dumb kids. right. you sound more like a company than an actor. the big companies want new media money all to themselves and are pulling out the stops . that is why we are being offered a bad deal. I don't "just want to act" and "I want to act and be paid for it". radical thinking, huh
nestor20004 3 years ago 2
No, you'd be better off taking what I have to say into consideration along with what others you respect have to say, along with a healthy skepticism of what anyone, including me, claims as fact. It's not as black and white as you put it vis a vis demonizing the big companies. In any negotiation, you're far better off thinking like your opponent, if for no other reason than to understand their strategies and tactics. I'm an actor that gets paid for what I do, and want that for all of us.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
I posted that last reply not to brag, but to point out that some actors actually have experience in new media, and aren't just conjecturing. And I've had a wider range of experience in new media than most of the actors I've met. Most of those that share the sentiments of the SAG Elephant video and nestor20004 are unwilling to actually take the time to learn about the current financial state of new media. It's not their fault: I've heard time and again, "I just want to act. That's it." OK. Enjoy.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
this is just another go along to get along apologist who spends the whole clip trying to convince us that there is no money in new media. of course there is, why else would the greedy companies be fighting so hard to screw actors out of it. we need to fight, not apoligize or pretend, to get a fair deal NOW
nestor20004 3 years ago
Yes, of course I am. I have no idea what I'm talking about.. I haven't worked in New Media for the last 25 years, I've produced no content, I don't know how to analyze balance sheets, 10K's and p&ls. I wouldn't know metadata if it hit me in the ass, and I've never built a million dollar property on the web. I"ve never worked for AOL, Yahoo, Google, NBC, ABC or CBS, I'm not an actor, producer or director and I'm really just talking for the hell of it.
My friends might tell you a different story.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Finally!
Someone who is Informed and not speading his time or energy being a Martyr or blaming fellow actors, or AFTRA or blindly following failed SAG leadership or negotiators. The AMPTP is laughing at us! As a fellow Working Middle Class actor of 15 yrs. I agree with you and I will send this off to my list, enough of this misguided hostility & false information. AMPTP is who we are negotiating with not each other or faction. Each day we are not doing that is a loss to many. Thank you!
jimmydime 3 years ago
OK, I know how Google makes money (and it's not from selling "metadata", which actually is a misnomer when used this way), but Google's not a television network or studio. How does he rationally jump from the conclusion that studios and networks have been lying for years about above- and below-the-line costs to screw actors, directors and writers out of their hard earned money, to demanding to continue that practice and worse on the Internet?
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Sorry for adding them backwards. Start 4 posts below this one and read up. My apologies.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
multi-billion dollar company with a product line they give away for free. Selling metadata. When figuring profit from New Media and the Internet, it counts. No profit from the Internet. Ha, good one.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
Moreover, if you really want to scare AMPTP companies, say this to them: "I hear you make even more money from "metadata" than almost anything." They'll quickly turn and run. Simply, metadata is the data embedded in New Media. Companies make huge money selling their metadata. (The amount is technically known as "oodles." ) Let's put it this way - how do you think Google became a
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
and have been completely out of business since 1987. CBS today makes athletic shoes. Paramount runs a chain of muffler shops. Neither, they say, make a profit. By the way, if you had wandered through the recent Consumer Electronics Show, you would have understood how massive a galvanizing profit these companies (and countless other companies) make from the Internet - right now. It's dizzying.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
Sorry for the long replies but here's some additional info I found on the topic of Metadata sales: (taken from a post by Robert J. Elisberg via The Huffington post regarding the Writer's Strike)
I hear that the studios and networks say they don't make any money from the Internet. Why should they pay writers for it?
Studios and networks also say they don't make any money from TV and movies. According to studios and networks, they all went bankrupt 24 years ago
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
I already stated I may have been wrong about WIRED. But I DID read the article. I am not a tech guy so I would never have learned the term metadata without having read it. I thank you for your kind words, David. I will desperately try to recover the issue I read it in. I'll re-read the Pop Mechanics piece and see if I read it THERE instead.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
Guys, I know Cutter very well. We've done workshops together, scenes together, and I know he's a standup guy. If he says he saw an article in WIRED, I'm sure he did. I'd sure like to read it to find out what they're saying, but I'm hoping no one here doubts his veracity.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
David, you never responded to the question about why NBC would own or fund Hulu and why Warner Bros. would be a major investor in Funny or Die. FOD is a website devoted SOLELY to original programming for the internet. And Network heads have openly talked about using the internet as launching pads for new series. Without protection there, we're screwed. You guys keep talking about "Day 1" three years from now but where has that gotten us previously? Nowhere.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
I did respond - they were and continue to experiment to find the right path for anything that makes money. They have yet to find it, and they are going to give it as much time as is fiscally possible, I would think. We part company when you assume that if you don't get something you want right away, you'll never get it. We don't even know how to make money on the net yet, and until we do, we can't do proper math on how be a part of it.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
I have no reason to lie about a published piece in a national magazine. As for your clever wording, I never said the advertising was solely for internet programming. It's the internet as a whole. And with commercials and Tv eps running on the internet THAT'S what the issue is about. Not these tiny, small, very specific arguments being made here. You guys are taking this argument down a road very specific to small points instead of the issue as a whole. And that's foolish to me so I'll bow out.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
to inquire, they said, "That's the rate." And it was a project funded by Warner Bros. Not some "Mom and Pop" outfit. Those are the facts, sir. This whole concern is the "We've been screwed before and can't let it happen again..." model. And you can't fault people for being concerned with previous history, can you?
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
I will look at the article, but to say that Network TV has been surpassed by internet advertising for programming is odd.
Can I ask what the webisode was for?
yayayarat 3 years ago
based ON internet viewings, and fair wages for stuff produced FOR the internet, actors are left with the short end. Using your own case where it's a role that means something to the series and viewers, of COURSE they're going to pay solid rates because w/o it, they don't have an element. But the issue here is far larger than "One" actor's single experience. it's about the internet as a WHOLE. You have to see that. I did an AFTRA internet episode and was paid $100 for the day. When I called AFTRA
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
billings are THAT high (and I understand that the field there is a helluva lot bigger than channels available on TV), that means it's definitely something that business people at networks and movie studios are paying attention to. Why not double dip to increase profits? That's just smart business. So that's an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's not going to be many years until it does and if we're stuck in an agreement that DOESN'T call for residuals
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
Apologies. I can't find the issue of WIRED I have where that was talked about. But I may have screwed up the title. It might have been POPULAR MECHANICS. From Jan. 09: "According to a report commissioned last year by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, online advertising in the U.S. grossed $21.2 billion in 2007, trumping cable ($20.9 billion), radio ($19.8 billion) and broadcast television ($19.2 billion)."
That's something to think about. If it's been shown that internet advertising billings..
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
When I get home I'll find the issue and guide you to it. You can't have it both ways though. You clearly state there's no money to be made via the internet with programming and that's not the case at all. Why then would NBC partner up with Hulu? Why would Warner Brothers have a major stake in Funny Or Die? There's greenbacks here, sir. Nobody invests money with a purposeful intent to lose it, right? If there are no provisions for internet re-runs and it ALL goes internet, actors are screwed.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
Sorry for the triple post. In closing, I think SAG is justifiably concerned with settling for offers now that once established, will be harder than hell to get increased. Use cable rates and VHS/DVD sales as looking points. Once those deals are made the producers/studios have shown very little interest in increasing them later. That's not theory, it's truth. Can't be surprised when someone uses the "Fool me once..." argument, right? Okay. I'm out.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
But there are just as many examples of gains made after fighting for them for years, including residuals themselves. They may be concerned about it, but they are expressing that concern by dropping the demand to increase the DVD formula, which the AMPTP was willing to place back in play. Again, if they can't do what our former leaders could throughout the history of the Guild, then I say get out, and let someone in who can.
Please try to find that WIRED article. I'd love to read about it.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
I don't have the exact figures for the metadata sales but the whole point of the article was in that's where the profits are made. By providing this data to other companies for targeted marketing and stuff.
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
You fail to mention that the nets ARE making a profit by selling metadata. Each time someone clicks in and watches it's free, but there's ads on these sites and the nets then re-sell the metadata for LARGE sums of money. Read about it in WIRED magazine. They're not biased one way or another. Saying, "We have plenty of time..." isn't fair either. We haven't made ground for cable and DVD sales we let slip through the cracks with the promise, "We'll make it right if this stuff catches on."
CutterGarcia 3 years ago
I looked for "metadata sales network tv television" on WIRED and found no articles to actually quote from (if you can find it, I'd love to read it), but selling demographic data is nothing new for networks or any large aggregator of consumer action. If you really want crazy amounts of data to be sold (and not for a huge amount of money, really, compared to ad sales), look to Amazon and Google.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Comment removed
prosceniumgirl 3 years ago
I post because I care. Shill? really? how about someone who works the contract and makes a living and cares that truth is told.
How many TV shows are online right now? Original, advertising driven, promoted, AMPTP company produced, star focused web series are on the networks right now?
Go ahead and do some counting. I'll wait.
yayayarat 3 years ago
I posted the video. I don't know who yayayarat is. Please point to solid data about where the "lots of money" ia.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Comment removed
prosceniumgirl 3 years ago
Thanks, David. It's nice to see an understandable argument based on facts, leading to a reasonable conclusion. What unfamiliar territory to many of us in our industry!
E pluribus unum! [for real this time]
damenbrazen 3 years ago
Continuous play of an episode is just that. And CPCs ALWAYS come into play, either directly measured at the time of the click, recording TOD, play, exact click area/link, where in timeline etc, or in an ROI analysis at the end of the campaign. Nearly all of the ads that you see in online plays are bonused to advertisers who buy a linear package. Online sponsorships like Nissan and Sprint barely cover production costs. And again, how do you handle calculations of residuals?
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Thanks for responding, but how much are the networks charging advertisers to place their 30 sec ad in between every 9 minute segment of a heroes episode? in those cases the cpc's never really come into play. WIth the new agreement, they will not have to pay any additional monies as long as the hour long episode is only aired in less than 10 minute segments (I may need to check the exact number of minutes)...
dmcrabby 3 years ago
There is money there, true. BUT, I have researched this online advertising that is shown on network sites for these shows. Many of these (not all), but many, are bonus' that are given to advertisers for buying network spots on shows. The value placed on these isn't nearly as great as that of what they can charge for TV and there is a reason for that.
I have spoke to brand managers and ad execs from fortune 500 companies.
yayayarat 3 years ago
but what are your residuals like on the webisode of heroes?
dmcrabby 3 years ago
There are none, and I'm fine with that. I'm being paid very well, and I am well aware of the limited shelf life of a 5 minute webisode used to promote the show I do get residuals on.
Tell me - how would any of you suggest webisode residuals be calculated? Not on views, I would hope, since views are not commensurate with CPC income, the way network plays are commensurate with spot inventory CPM sales (and if you don't know what that means, you should). But I do wonder what you all think.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
from a man who knows the web world better than almost anyone.
yayayarat 3 years ago
well put david
amirtalai 3 years ago
Thanks David. Well said. And from someone who actually works it.
What a concept.
CWUINC 3 years ago
Did i say "facts"? Not sure where the quotes came from. Trust me, you're gonna get your way. You have the numbers plus most of the folks who wanna roll over are currently living fat and have more power and voice. And I truly hope your current employment keeps you from having to worry about the life of the working character actor for a long while. But try not to villainize those who are scared for their children's future. You seem like a bully. They have the right to be frightened.
jimmisimpson 3 years ago
I'm anything but a bully - I just have an open mind and about 20 years experience working the Internet for profit. I"ve seen it turn on a dime, I know what a heartbreak in can be, and I've watched people throw away millions of dollars on hype. That's exactly what's happening here - the hype of the Internet (in it's current configuration) as our future. More power and voice? It's not a race, dude - it's a discussion. And filibustering, filing lawsuits and sending out pathetic emails isn't helping
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Yes. Your whole post was designed to contrast the apparent inability of Guild leadership to achieve goals previously rejected as pure fact, the reverse as likely as the clown babies scenario. I tell you what - let's stick to the discussion, rather than verbal jabs that you retire from when someone calls you on it.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
I don't think I threw any verbal jabs, much less retired from them. I only questioned you putting quotes around a word I didn't use.
I was hoping you'd see the faces of the actors you're trying to reach instead of referring to them as a herd of cats. It would be way more effective for your agenda. But if getting harangued is what happens for voicing an opinion, I'll leave you to your supporters. I bet if you were a shade more accessible you could change some minds. Honestly. Not a jab.
jimmisimpson 3 years ago
I didn't put the word "fact" in quotes because you used it. I wasn't quoting you, I was calling out your intent, and you did exactly what I said.
Further, I wasn't referring to actors as a herd of cats, I was referring to the concept that the ability to make money on the Internet was not an elephant, but rather a herd of cats.
I'm completely accessible - not a single person here or offline can't reach me.
You are completely missing my point, and further, are doing it on purpose. We're done.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Agreed.
But I still think you and I should have the tickle-fight you were talking about before.
jimmisimpson 3 years ago
Like you I also dream of leadership who are able to reverse precedent after three years and get the producers to finally treat us fair. I also dream of evil clown-babies kicking me in the tits.
jimmisimpson 3 years ago
I hear this a lott (the "fact" that nothing can be gained if not gained immediately, not the clown-babies).
So, if that's the case (and it's not, as we've gained many things over the years that have initially been rejected, like residuals themselves - but don't let facts get in the way of your argument), then the leadership needs to step aside to allow competent people to take their place.
Being treated fairly isn't a "final" thing. It's a process. It's ongoing. It must be constantly defended.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Thank you David. Everyone is fighting for everything now and is losing that this is a never ending thing, but the 'get it now' mentality of actors sometimes is frightening.
yayayarat 3 years ago
Comment removed
amirtalai 3 years ago
Thank you for a very fair, truthful and classy response. You are a breath of fresh air.
cathartt 3 years ago
better to go forward with NO deal??? you are serious? Really? Please tell me you aren't. You are talking about labor strife vs. labor peace. No deal means all new programming will go AFTRA. that is not a good thing. NO deal means losing minimums. I have done 2 guest stars on SAG shows. I sure would love to have the increases that SAG actors aren't getting now because of NO deal.
Jesus. Get a clue. Read a contract before you spout off about no deal.
yayayarat 3 years ago
We lost this battle due to the fact that membership first alienated AFTRA. When AFTRA signed their deal it was the end of ours! I'm so happy that Doug Allen is out, Now we just need to get rid of a few more: Alan, Anne-Marie, and Kent!!
corthree 3 years ago
The Deal on the table is NOT a good one but Membership first made sure that this is the deal we will be left with. I said it when Alan was ripping on AFTRA a few years ago and I'll say it again!! If Alan doesn't stop the "BS" then it will be AFTRA = TV and SAG = Features. 2 years later look at what we are faced with. Can SAG survive without a TV Contract? Thanks Alan R. for running our Union into the ground!!!!
corthree 3 years ago
The deal is bad either. It does gain footholds in new media, gets TV increases and protections for the future. I agree 100% on what Doug/Alan and membership first did to put us in this mess. Now we have to get the best deal we can, salvage the union as best we can and move forward. The longer this drags out the more danger we are in of losing SAG.
yayayarat 3 years ago
well said!
corthree 3 years ago
New episode? Was it actually a full length episode or derivative? I went online and checked. Its not a full, NEW episode. It was a derivative show. Not the argument.
yayayarat 3 years ago
the WGA and AFTRA in support. Not on our own. I am okay with losing a battle, but not the war. We lost this battle due to leadership's failed strategy and now everyone wants to keep fighting. SAG is outnumbered, outgunned, outmanned and can only do more harm by even thinking a strike right now.
yayayarat 3 years ago
you are missing the argument all together. This leadership has F***ked up our negotations and left us holding the check. Wanting to strike and fight. We have NO LEVERAGE. The bosses are money hungry, but the only way to hurt them is in the pocketbook. HULU makes money on re-runs and old shows. Our leadership wasn't fighting that, they are/were fighting for ORIGINAL content. THey gave this fight up. Not saying its not an issue, but its not this negotiation. We can't fight this without
yayayarat 3 years ago
I am not talking about another guild or union. I am talking about the contract points in this. Actors got screwed on DVD's by waiting. They didn't protect themselves. This agreement has a SUNSET CLAUSE. Keep arguing about the future and being screwed, this just in, we negotiate from scratch in 2011. That is what that clause gives us.
If we don't get a deal now there may not be a next time.
yayayarat 3 years ago
very interesting points you made david
makoto3838 3 years ago
Finally a clear and concise answer to that Elephant misinformation video. Thank you for posting this. I want SAG to sign a contract asap. I am losing money with the political mess of MF.
broadwayladyandrea13 3 years ago
they follow completely different guidelines. i support our unions, i support our right to strike, but i also know that in-fighting that is so public will never lead to a resolution.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
Thanks, Elaine - I've watched you struggle a bit trying to find the right path to take, and I think you are also positioned to see it from both an actor's and a producer's perspective. John (SAG Elephant, who won't approve this video as a video response to his) is a decent hard working guy, who probably comes from good Midwestern stock and a union background, but is applying only the rules he knows as a 20 year working actor. The rules are changing as we speak. We have to be agile as we move on.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
read the aftra contract (i have about 5 times over to completely understand all the terms). the types of things typically posted on actors access fall under the realm of what i'm producing - original made for new media productions, no money, high hopes - things that are posted on actual breakdowns, if posted at all, are paid for by the network and are called derivative new media programs (like the heroes webisodes).
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
i'm producing one myself, and it comes no where close to the $25,000 a minute budget that warrants residuals under an aftra contract (try under $1000 per episode). did i decide to go aftra? yes, i want to support our unions and sag doesn't currently have a contract absolutely in place. am i paying my actors anything? no. i can't. i'm financing this out of my pocket (and i'm not even a middle class actor, i have a support job).
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
if you can't afford to pay actors you shouldn't be producing a show. it's like not being able to afford a camera. you are the problem, not the solution.
actor2you 3 years ago
this is exactly the type of name calling without offering a solution that i was afraid of. i'm not paying actors because the 3 other actors involved are also producing our show. we all decided to not pay ourselves as actors because we wanted to just make our product. i've met with the assistant national executive director of aftra about our contract, which she approved and helped me with the paperwork.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
the reason i decided to go aftra (though i couldn't pay) was so if we sold our product to traditional media, all performers would be compensated fairly. i haven't tried to say i'm part of the solution, just someone who is trying to play by changing rules, and support fellow actors in the long run, even if i'm unable as a low budget producer at the moment.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
if you would like to donate $400 or more to our production, i would gladly give it to our actors. no questions asked. so if you want to be part of the solution yourself, let me know.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
This is the exact type of NEW MEDIA project that is happening and, I applaud elaine for getting the thing made, but it is not a studio funded project with a big budget. Something very similar to the "short film" boom that happened a few years ago.
yayayarat 3 years ago
i do agree that sag and aftra have to come to some kind of a consensus and a-lilst stars aren't necessarily the ones who have the proper view to tell us what that is, on either side. and i agree that a strike authorization doesn't necessarily guarantee a strike (and i was ready to vote yes, for the record). but i also agree that the overwhelming majority of made for new media productions don't have the type of money that networks do.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
first time commenting on a youtube video, and i'm a bit scared that people might call me names for my opinion, but i have to say this... i resonate with both sides of the argument. i watched the elephant in the room, and i said, hmm, that makes sense. i watched david's and i said, hmm, that also makes sense. i've read all the literature posted about the contract negotiations (i'm both sag and aftra), so i'm not uneducated, this is just a complex situation.
elaineinspain02 3 years ago
There's no such thing. Coterminus is for multiple contracts between the same parties, not different, to end simultaneously, or causing one to end if another between the two does. Back to reality: the various union contracts, if SAG properly negotiates an end date to theirs, would all end within months of one another. And that's all we need. And the DGA didn't take the least confrontational deal, nor did AFTRA. They were very realistic, unlike SAG has been
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
oh come on David. are you really that naive? the dga has different needs than SAG or WGA. they set the pattern bargaining to screw us all. many of them are also producers. AFTRA will take any scraps offered. they have poached SAG contracts and give away huge windows with no residuals. you think we should all work together? forget it. AFTRA is a sell out union. the DGA is in bed with the AMPTP. we have to fight for our future. sorry to see you're willing to give it all away. AFTRA realistic? bull
actor2you 3 years ago
You should read the contracts then my friend. No one is saying the DGA is in play. The way the deals are set up the WGA goes first, then the DGA and then AFTRA/SAG. We are synced for the first time a long time to get a deal done together. Not as one union (though I would like that), but when all 3 unions can negotiate near the same time and if they want can walk together and the hurt mgmt. AFTRA has no sold out. They have increased network minimums and got a foothold in the door on Web.
yayayarat 3 years ago
You should read the contracts before you spout off how much of a sell out the union is.
yayayarat 3 years ago
you should work a contract and see what you get with residuals.
actor2you 3 years ago
Actor2you - I have worked all the contracts (except Voice overs) and have made a living 4 of my 6 years in LA doing guest stars, movies and commercials. So, yes I have worked the contracts. any more questions?
yayayarat 3 years ago
Yes, I have one more question. Have you worked an AFTRA contract lately that has a huge window of residual giveaway. If you have, then tell me how you feel about not getting residuals when your work is rerun. I know how I feel.
actor2you 3 years ago
Go read the AFTRA Exhibit A (NETWORK TV) contract.
You are digging a hole. you don't know your facts.
NETWORK TV CONTRACT
yayayarat 3 years ago
the DGA went first! that set up a huge obstacle for the rest of the unions. are you really that clueless? it's called pattern bargaining and the AMTMP started with the DGA for a reason. they have a history of settling fast.
actor2you 3 years ago
Are you sure about that? Google DGA and WGA contracts. The DGA didn't do a deal until after the WGA.
Keep digging your hole.
yayayarat 3 years ago
Naive? No. And I'm not into conspiracy theories either. The DGA set out to screw us? What is this, 8th grade? You obviously have your opinions, and you're not about to open your mind to anything other than what you believe. No worries. But I'm anything but naive. What future are you fighting for? Really. Lay it out. What's the actual future that you're fighting for? Once you define that, then we can see how realistic YOU are.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
and you don't seem to be able to open your mind to anything other than what YOU believe. And my question to you is what future are you willing to give away? I'm fighting for the middle class actor. you seem to want to just give in to the amtmp and then wait for all the stars (unions) to align. ain't gonna happen. only SAG and WGA see eye to eye. the DGA are on the producer's side. AFTRA sold us out. do an AFTRA show and you'll see. where's the residuals?
actor2you 3 years ago
I'm very open, when something makes sense, and repeating the same invective over and over makes no sense. I've worked AFTRA shows. I've worked SAG shows. I've gotten residuals from both. I'm not sure what you envision the future to be, but it's not going to be network level day rates or residuals from webisodes that make no money and cost little to produce.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
Comment removed
yayayarat 3 years ago
David, I am confused. We have no Co-terminus agreement with the other unions. What makes you think that we will suddenly have unity between IA, WGA, The DGA in 3 years? There's no movement toward it. If anyone has promised it, I haven't heard it nor is it a truism.
More than likely the same thing would happen that has always happened: every union for themselves, the DGA takes the least confrontative deal and we are screwed. Again. Please tell me how I would be wrong here.
Sparkylulu 3 years ago
There is an elephant in the room...Right here. In the video above. AND HE'S FULL OF GAS.
quietingloudmouths 3 years ago
Substance, please. Argue the facts, don't hurl insults. It helps no one, especially you.
davidhlawrence 3 years ago
What an awesome self-promoter! This video, case in point. How many times did he mention his credentials? One seems like many... almost seems greater than they are.
Does he appear more appealing to producers? No makeup can cover that brown nose.
He left out that his main work (besides pumping up himself, putting down others, blurring facts) is voiceover, so he touts AFTRA .
The facts are not as he states. NONE OF 'EM.
Just like this video. DL's ever-present ,arrogant attitude. Nothing.
quietingloudmouths 3 years ago