There were rumors all weekend about how the AMPTP wasn't making its second half of the offer, and how the WGA wasn't making a New Media counter-offer. Both proved to be false, thankfully. So here's the reality. The WGA has been informed that the AMPTP is indeed on Tuesday going to make the second-half of its proposal when contract talks resume for Talks Day #5. And the WGA will indeed make a counter-offer tomorrow.
I'm told by a WGA board member tonight that the writers' negotiating team have agreed they will accept the approach of the networks and studios and use a flat rate "with modifications" (with numbers that will be much much higher) while trying to come to terms with the producers on streaming. The flat rate could wind up being a good change-up in the long-term. As an AMPTP insider explained to me when I asked why they moved off a percentage, "The reason we went with a flat-rate for streaming is because they're always complaining about our funny accounting, so we thought rather than give them a percentage of a percentage of funny accounting, we'll give them a flat rate." (Point here is that even the studios know their accounting is bogus.)
The WGA's board and negotiating team visited the picket lines today to explain to members how they planned to respond in Tuesday's resumed talks about the AMPTP's hilariously titled New Economic Partnership made last Thursday regarding streaming, content made for new media and programming delivered over digital broadcast channels. (Left is David Goodman, WGA negotiator and board member, holding an informational meeting for strikers at Paramount. Photo by Jim Stevenson.)
It wasn't exactly helpful to the goal of ending the strike last week when the producers attempted to lowball the writers with an insulting offer on New Media and inflame a volatile situation where the studios and networks keep holding back the semi-decent deal they know, and the writers know, could move these negotiations closer to a speedy settlement. Nor was it helpful when the WGA not surprisingly threw a temper tantrum within minutes of receiving the lousy offer. But I received a call from an AMPTP insider suddenly realizing that perhaps his organization had not used the most productive of negotiating tactics this time. He asked quietly, "Have you heard if the WGA is going to make a counter-offer on Tuesday? They understand that this is just a starting point for negotiations, right?"
Well, apparently, the WGA does. Hallelujah. Let the haggling begin.
Back when even the pre-strike talks were going on, the major criticism I've heard from both the AMPTP and the WGA is that the other side won't haggle. One side makes a proposal, the other side simply says no. And vice versa. There's no back and forth.
Until now.
Just as the WGA was issuing emails urging all its members to join in union solidarity, the AMPTP took out full-page ads in tomorrow's trades trying to sound all conciliatory. Since there's no wall between editorial and advertising at either Variety or The Hollywood Reporter -- toldja! -- both trades had early access to the ad.
The showbiz papers claim the gist of the AMPTP ad is that this latest proposal isn't a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer. "It is designed to allow both sides to engage in the kind of substantive give-and-take negotiation that can lead to common ground. The WGA leadership asked for five days to respond. So with the ball in the WGA's court, we look forward to what they have to say when we meet today." [However, the WGA claims it was the AMPTP that suggested both sides get back to the talks on Tuesday. So right there is a squabble.] "This is not a zero-sum campaign where there is one winner and one loser," it said. "We need the writers and the writers need us. And we need to work together if we are to navigate the rapids of this increasingly complex, high-tech economy."
That's all well and good. But consider what a Hollywood mogul told me by way of summing up the negotiations so far, "We're tough, and they're stupid." And consider what a WGA board member emailed to members this afternoon about 'The Playbook Of The AMPTP'. Again, I ask, how is this helpful? I'm constantly reminding both sides that Hollywood is a collaborative business, and that the archetypical union movie screenplay Norma Rae was greenlighted by a studio. Obviously it may be too much to ask that the resumed talks, which started under friendlier circumstances last week, take place this week in a less acrimonious atmosphere. Cuz these guys can't get along for 5 minutes.
First there was the pre-strike bickering over the chairs. Then the site of the negotiations. Late last week, the AMPTP and WGA found a whole new set of ridiculous issues to argue over that have nothing to do with the substance of the contract negotiations or even the strike. Really, I'm getting fed up here. Starting Thursday and continuing over the weekend, they argued incessantly over whether the news blackout was violated. And they argued just as ferociously over who first suggested the WGA have until Tuesday to counter-offer. I refused to report the ins and outs of this because it's irrelevent and it makes my head hurt. Such petty squabbling has to stop. This minute. Shut up.
Now both sides can argue all they want about flat rates tomorrow. (That just makes my eyes glaze over.) And remember, the operative word here is, "Haggle".
Thank you Nikki.
Comment by punch drunk writer — December 3, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
so what happened to the federal arbitrator? shouldn’t he be in there crackin skulls? where’s the crowd control up in that bitch?
Comment by jizza — December 3, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Nikki,
As always, you are the real voice of reason in all of this.
All I can say is “Everyone grow up and negotiate!” You both hold the lives of too many people in your hands to continue bickering. Forget about chairs, forget about who broke the news blackout and act like the professionals you claim to be.
Now that the issue of percentages and bizarre accounting practices are out of the way with the agreement on a flat rate, I see no rational reason that this shouldn’t be resolved this week(at least in principle).
Here’s hoping that we can all enjoy this Christmas without the spector of a continued work stoppage lingering in the air.
Hooper
Comment by HoopersX — December 3, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Nikki, you write: “[C]onsider what a WGA board member emailed to members this afternoon about ‘The Playbook Of The AMPTP’. Again, I ask, how is this helpful?”
It’s helpful insofar as it reveals the AMPTP’s tactics last week for what they were: A form of psychological warfare whereby they try to damage Guild morale by raising expectations (”a great deal is coming”) only to dash them with an insulting, and incomplete, deal. The best defense against the psychological warfare that the AMPTP has been engaging in is knowing that it’s psychological warfare to begin with.
Comment by Marc Guggenheim — December 3, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Name: Joe Gillis
The CEO’s comment is precisely backward. We’re tough. They’re stupid. They’re just not used to us being tough and (because they have money) nobody ever points out to them they’re stupid.
Comment by Joe — December 3, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
In all fairness, it’s really the AMPTP triggering the petty squabbling. Then the WGA has to respond, and then both sides get accused of being petty.
The comment, “We’re tough and they’re stupid” is totally predictable and suuuuuuch a cliche. These studio heads are such dinosaurs with their dinosaur mentality.
Such a colossal waste of time, energy and resources, this dinosauric game of haggle. These studio guys thrive on the fight.
Times are changing. The digital age will usher in a hipper, fresher approach just like it did in Silicon Valley with all its hip, young upstarts supplanting fossilized business guys.
Comment by insider — December 3, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
The reason we went with a flat-rate for streaming is because they’re always complaining about our funny accounting, so we thought rather than give them a percentage of a percentage of funny accounting, we’ll give them a flat rate.
In other words, “We’d really rather not have to reveal our funny accounting to anyone, and this way (thank heavens) we wouldn’t have to.”
Comment by b!X — December 3, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
they switched to a flat rate because the heat on them is intensifying re: accounting methods, and a growing likelihood of investigation
Comment by DL — December 3, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
“[C]onsider what a WGA board member emailed to members this afternoon about ‘The Playbook Of The AMPTP’. Again, I ask, how is this helpful?”
It’s helpful to us. It means when writers read ANYTHING positive from the AMPTP in the media that WE WILL NOT BELIEVE IT.
RAISE EXPECTATIONS, THEN DASH HOPES - THAT IS THE AMPTP CURRENT GAME PLAN.
divide and conquer
divide and conquer
divide and conquer
Comment by DA in LA — December 3, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
“I refused to report the ins and outs of this because it’s irrelevent and it makes my head hurt. Such petty squabbling has to stop. This minute. Shut up.”
Good for you, Nikki!
All this petty bickering makes my head hurt too and I want to read about it even less than you want to write about it. Haggle about the issues or STFU. Both sides. Get down to business already.
Comment by Chris — December 3, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Insider writes: “In all fairness, it’s really the AMPTP triggering the petty squabbling. Then the WGA has to respond, and then both sides get accused of being petty.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Well done.
Comment by Marc Guggenheim — December 3, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
The elephant in the room — far more important than every issue previously mentioned — is internet juridiction. Without it, the WGA will cease to exist within years. No negotiations on this point so far. It’s the reason why this strike will continue.
Comment by chammax — December 3, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Haggle. HAGGLE! Make it work!
Comment by e — December 3, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
“We’re tough, and they’re stupid.”
Yup. Jeff Zucker and Jeffrey Katzenberg are real tough for a couple of 4′11″ guys.
Comment by ThanksForTheLaugh — December 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
What so many of you fail to grasp — as you urge/cajole/demand both sides go back to the table and negotiate — is that one side has been completely willing to negotiate the entire time and the other has not brought an ounce of good faith to any part of the process. There has not been a negotiation yet and there won’t be tomorrow or the day after et cetera until BOTH sides are there to negotiate in good faith. But — while one side (okay — the Writers) has an economic imperative to talk, the other side (the 7 companies) does not have such an imperative yet. Until they do (or until they realize they do) this is pure, unadulterated masturbation. And it is not the writers who are causing it to happen. Sorry but it’s a fact of life.
Comment by ALK — December 3, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am a former studio president, a former showrunner, and a WGA member since 1998. I know this is not going to be a popular stance, but Pat Verrone and David Young are outgunned, overmatched and will not get the best deal for us, regardless of strike length. The truth is, our guys are not professional media industry dealmakers, it is not what they do for a living. If you understand the internal workings of how deals get made at these companies, and as a former high level studio exec for both Disney and Fox I do, then you know that you must engage the studios in a way that our current leadership could not possibly fathom.
The smart play here would be for our union to appoint Peter Benedek, Jim Wiatt, Steve Lafferty, Chris Silbermann and, yes, Ari Emanuel to negotiate for us. This is what they do. They are professional dealmakers. They are creative and ingenious about finding new and innovative ways to structure deals that are beneficial to their clients. They talk to these guys everyday so emotion and hurt feelings and posturing doesn’t even enter into the conversation. They understand the concept of leverage and how to use it. It is in their own interest to get us a great deal as they commission it, all of it, in the end.
Let me put it another way: If there was a $200M content deal on the table at News Corp and negotiating on behalf of the company is Peter Chernin, who do you send in that room to get you the money? Pat Verrone? John Bowman? A labor organizer with no media dealmaking experience? No, you send your agent and your lawyer. Or in this case five agents.
To be clear: I am not trying to play “divide and conquer” from within, although I would not rule out that strategy as a mainstay of the AMPTP playbook. Our real concern should be getting a deal closed. Whether it’s 3 months or 6 months or 9 months away, we all know a deal will close eventually so let’s keep our resolve but let’s get professionals in there to make it happen sooner rather than later.
Comment by Pete Aronson — December 3, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
The one concern about flat rates is that they’d be awfully vulnerable to inflation, and thus you’d want to renegotiate them more often. But it could be a good starting point, at least for streaming content. I’d have to see a number.
Comment by Evan Waters — December 3, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Nice work Pete “Divide” Aronson.
Comment by DA in LA — December 3, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Bring back Sidney Korshak.
Comment by outofworkIAmember — December 4, 2007 @ 5:32 am
“Nice work Pete “Divide” Aronson.”
Oh, please. This isn’t the Bush administration bellowing “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Some people, shockingly enough, do believe in solidarity while having a difference of opinion. Frankly, Pete Aronson is right — these negotiations are like David vs. Goliath, only without that sweet killer slingshot.
Comment by an annoyed WGAer — December 4, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Come on, guys. Nikki’s simply saying yet another post more or less just bitching about the AMPTP isn’t necessary, and how do you respond “Well, they started it!” “We’re perfectly willing to talk!” “We’re right and they’re wrong!” And, yes, all those things are true. But the point is, saying them over and over isn’t going to get anything done. And informing of the enemy’s scheming is good, but I’m getting a bit tired of hearing how evil they are in every single blog post. I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m just saying it doesn’t need to be repeating ten ways till Sunday. You are right and they are wrong. But, this is American business. Like it or not, you have to negotiate. And if you negotiate, you will win. Please focus on that above complaining. That’s all Nikki’s saying.
Comment by Caitlin — December 4, 2007 @ 5:56 am
“Such petty squabbling has to stop. This minute. Shut up.”
I have to side with Nikki on this one. All this back and forth reminds me of haggling between toddlers over who started “it” first, who touched whose side of the room, or who played with whose toys without asking. C’mon, guys. Let’s get down to the nitty gritty and settle this thing. No more temper tantrums and no more power trips.
Comment by Truthinista — December 4, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Pete is right, and as Nikki would say, “you’ll remember I said this after the first week of the strike.”
The negotiations right now have become a game of whose dick is bigger, and they don’t respect us (on both sides). It’s time for professional negotiators to come in and get this thing done…the issues are too complicated for this to be a PR war, or for it to have become personal.
What some of you are failing to understand is the networks are literally fighting for their lives here because television won’t exist in its current form 10 years down the line. You won’t need networks since you will program your own viewing schedule when you want to watch. Ads will be customized to your viewing habits and your needs. This scares the crap out of the networks because in essence you will be eliminating the middleman from the audience/advertising/creator relationship.
What the WGA should be fighting for is to not do a deal with the AMPTP with regard to original programming for the internet, since in all liklihood they won’t be controlling content on that medium anyway.
What should be happening is the WGA should be working with his high-level creators to put together funding for an Internet presence of their own. Can you Imagine the clamor on the internet to program exclusively for the Kelley, Lindelof, Cherry, etc…project, especially if I can find all of the new shows on-line, in HD, that I can watch whenever and wherever I want.
Hey, WGA, you want ad-revenue, cut out the middleman and go directly to the companies themselves. You want to put the fear of God into the AMPTP then cut them out of the process completely. Forget their books, while they are programming Discovery shows on NBC, the next big shows will be on showrunnerchannel.com.
Comment by agentatanotheragency — December 4, 2007 @ 8:00 am
I had a meeting once with Pete Aronson and his partner at the time. This was for a comedy and they were both unfunny, arrogant doofuses. The kind of not-so-bright people you always run across in this business.
How brilliant does this lummox think he is that he has to repeat the same bad idea over and over again on this blog. It’s an awful idea that makes no sense. Ain’t gonna happen.
Everyone’s allowed to speak their mind about this, whether Polone or Aronson or a befuddled Carlton Cuse. But Pete, stop using the word “us.” Doesn’t matter if you’re a WGA member, you’re not the kind of writer that any real writer would ever consider a writer. You’re yet another producer who wished he was a writer, and when you finally got enough clout as a producer to force yourself on everyone as a writer, you did just that. You’re them, not us. You’re a suit, not a creative. You’re terribly unfunny, not funny.
Now shut up.
Comment by Blah,blah,blah — December 4, 2007 @ 8:24 am
Men are such emotional creatures.
While men are warring with each other, and our society is unraveling financially, politically, environmentally, etc, women could be in there getting the job done.
Men first and foremost are concerned with dick-measuring and “winning”, such stagnating, inefficient creatures.
Irrespective of the ultimate resolution, there will be no “winners.” How myopic. AMPTP shareholders should be very concerned they have entrusted their dollars to such emotional, self-serving “leadership.”
Women first and foremost are concerned with getting things done well and efficiently and evolving.
Too many men making a mess of this, and certainly too many OLD MEN, so OUT OF TOUCH, helming these congloms during this technological revolution.
The lifeblood of these congloms has already shifted to a new paradigm - online - regardless of these negotiations. These companies are carcasses, and the current CEO’S are accelerating their obsolescence with their old school games and silly tactics.
In the digital age, thankfully, there will be more diversity of age, gender, ethnicity.
Comment by SS — December 4, 2007 @ 9:11 am
This negotiation is between the media congloms and the WGA. To think that these massive companies will not have their own presense on the internet is pollyana-ish. The issue remains, will they use Guild writers when they do. If not, the WGA will go away. Why would Google and Yahoo use Guild writers if the big media giants won’t?
The studios want to remain competitive in the net. I get that. Here’s an idea… For all low budget ventures on the net (say under $1.5 million), no guild jurisdiction. For anything above that, WGA minimums, pension, health, etc. will apply. That will keep the media congloms from creating big content (like TV shows) for the net without paying us. But will also allow them to experiment and compete with the smaller ventures on the net. Simple, no?
Comment by chammax — December 4, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Sorry, no. The writers’ proposals represent the bare minimum of what constitutes a fair deal in 2007. I won’t accept a contract that “haggles” them down to some fraction.
Comment by Fly on WGA Wall — December 4, 2007 @ 10:49 am
chammax, you are missing the point.
Right now the congloms control television and every part of it, the internet is like the wild west to them. If not google, then facebook tv, or someother site that hasn’t been conceived yet.
You are right the networks will have a presence on the net, they just won’t be the ONLY presence, and that scares them.
Google cannot be bought, what’s to stop another company to come up and generate the same kind of financial wearwithal as google. Call me polly-anna all you want, but this is the nets biggest fear, as they recognize the future is all about content and marketing and not about distribution.
You are missing the point, this isn’t about low-budget content, or high-budget content. This is all about the power of distribution…if anything the AMPTP should be begging the WGA to deal with them on Internet so they can control giving them a small piece of the pie. If the writers are smart THEY TAKE ORIGINAL CONTENT ON THE INTERNET OFF THE TABLE, and let the market dictate what their percentages are.
In an open market for content these minimums are going to mean a hill of beans in 10 years, as writers will be pitching directly to Lexus, Proctor & Gamble, Starbucks, etc…for their series ideas.
Remember television exists because of advertising. Original programming is a by-product of companies needing to sell shit. Networks exist because of ADVERTISING DOLLARS and they aren’t going to give that up…so what do you do as a creator…GO GET THE MONEY YOURSELVES!!!
With television distribution is controlled by a handful of people, with the Internet it is controlled by the creators.
This whole negotiations is an exercise in futility since the points being discussed about jurisdiction isn’t going to mean anything in a decade. You want to see the future, look up IPTV.
Comment by Agentatanotheragency — December 4, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Dear SS,
Your claims that men are inferior and women superior would be offensive if they weren’t so utterly ridiculous. My husband, brothers, father and most of the men I know or have known are nothing like the bizarre portrait that you have painted.
As for women being superior, look in any history book and you’ll find that women are just as likely to abuse their power as men. Take a monent to examine the legacies of Catherine the Great, Tz’u His, Ranavalona I, Agrippina the Younger, Valeria Messalina, Elena Ceausescu, Queen Mary I, Isabella of Castile, etc., etc., etc., and then explain to us how and why women are superior to men.
Sincerely,
wifeofWGAwriter
Comment by wifeofWGAwriter — December 4, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Agent,
With all due respect, I get the point. What I’m talking about is the future of our guild. Jurisdiction is key to any and all of the guilds. To say that the internet will be “the wild wild west” forever and will exclude major congloms is, I think, short sighted. The congloms will use the internet just like small businesses (including us writers). Jurisdiction means that when the congloms want to use us for their big projects (like tv shows made for the internet), they must include the guild. It preserves our middle class. And it’s worth the fight… for as long as it takes.
Comment by chammax — December 4, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Again you are not hearing (or reading) me:
1. I never said the Internet will “exclude” the major congloms. What I am saying is right now they are the ONLY show in town when it comes to original programming. With the Internet, they are in competition with whatever new entity that pops up.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have the money to start a brodcast or cable network, nor the reach. I do however have access to enough money to get advertising for Internet (in its current state) programming.
2. The fact that you are only looking at the “Internet” as something the congloms roll out for their “small businesses” shows you are completely missing the point.
The future is an all broadband, wireless platform. The distribution system isn’t going to be network signals, satellites, cable, antennas (at least coat hanger types). The future is delivery over what we now call the Internet (which is an outdated term). IPTV, VOD, its all going to be one giant package.
You won’t tune into ABC, NBC, CBS, etc…entertainment will come in bundles with no timeslots, and personalized advertising. The WGA is looking at the Internet as an ancillary solution rather than THE SOLUTION.
What you need to stop doing is worrying about the future of the guild, and start worrying about the future of entertainment.
I know several employees at Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc…who could give two shits about the unions and they seem to be doing pretty damn well.
Comment by Agentatanotheragency — December 4, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Dear Blah Blah Blah,
You’ve obviously read my “Zoe, Duncan, Jack and Jane” drafts so I will not bother to defend my writing skills, or the lack thereof. However, I am proud to have been a member of the guild for 10 years and my current deal with ABC Studios is under suspension so I feel like I’m part of “us” even though you have deemed me unworthy of guild membership status due to one alleged meeting wherein I was a showrunner and did not give you a job. I say “alleged” because I don’t know who you are as you do not have the courage to stand behind your mutilated grammar and reveal your identity.
Perhaps you could offer a cogent argument as to how we solve this crisis? Instead of taking shots at me and my admittedly less than stellar writing acumen, why not be part of the solution and present something that moves the process forward instead of being a whiny bitch who clearly lacks the c.v. to enter the fray and try to make a difference.
Lastly, I was not trying to be funny in any of my posts including this one, as quite frankly I fail to see the humor in this entire fiasco.
Comment by Pete Aronson — December 4, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
“What you need to stop doing is worrying about the future of the guild, and start worrying about the future of entertainment.”
You make my point. Right there. The WGA is there for the working class writer. Providing health benefits and retirement. In this “wild west” that is the internet, we want that money paid to us, as writers, whether we develop it on our own, or work for some huge media conglomerate. If the capital investment is big enough (no matter who invests it) — the investors need to share the wealth, no matter hoe it is distributed!
I do realize the future is the internet. I also know that TV shows will be made for the internet. When they hire me o any other writer to write for one of these shows, the need to pay my guild. They need to support the other working class writers who are between jobs. End of story. I’m sorry you don’t get that. I understand you. Loud and clear.
Comment by Anonymous — December 4, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Agent,
I am aware of the issues. And I know that one day, the show I am working for may suddenly become a made for the internet program. Gone are pesion and health contributions for the struggling writers who have come before me. So, when I sell my future show to Fox or Google or whomever, I’ll make sure they are a signatory to my WGA. So they will keep the pension and health plans alive for whomever needs them. Thanks for all your support.
Comment by chammax — December 4, 2007 @ 5:49 pm