Web Pilot

As we expand UH into a resource for the talent community exploring the creative and business aspects of new media, we will post bits of news about what's going out there. Comment, question, send us posts about what you know and what you're doing, and look for the new UH: Artists l Audience l Business in the coming weeeks. -TES

NewTeeVee writes today about UNDER THE ARCHES, a "reality" show that began as a series of short videos online and is now being turned into a "pilot" by a company called Madwood Entertainment.

NYU student Sean Patrick Murray, who created the show, describes it on Facebook as "8 college kids in NYC, the real "Gossip Girl." You can see the 7-minute pilot there or get a taste here on the Gawker post, which described the show as "reality schtick - [all] about the fast-moving-cloud shots, the angsty Z-100 soundtrack and the whiny blond chicks" and creator Murray as "either a complete genius or a total tool."

According to NewTeeVee, the distribution plan is "to launch a video destination site that will stream ad-supported shows for free" and then �hyper-distribute the show to other video sharing-sites and social networks."

I like that plan to build audience, but whether it's already the big win Murray suggests or just the beginning of a strategy still to be tested, we'll see. What do you think?

Two Sides to Every Story: The Truth...and Everything Else

As the strike continues and things heat up around the DGA negotiations, apparently the multi-national media mega-corps and their $100K a month crisis management flaks are ramping up their online psy-ops and misinformation campaigns.

Deadline Hollywood Daily, in a post detailing a range of less than savory actions taken by AMPTP members against WGA supporters, reported that "AMPTP staffers, consultants and members (especially corporate publicity departments) are busily posting comments on WGA-friendly websites and blogs that Hollywood visits regularly and filling them with hate-filled rants against the WGA leadership, the A-list actors, and the companies who've made WGA side deals. The goal is to turn off readers and drive traffic away and in the process spread pro-AMPTP propaganda and make it look as if the strike is breaking apart."

Well, we at UH.com can certainly confirm the hate-filled rants. How bad has it gotten? Well, what are the most vile things you can imagine? Did you include references to Hitler, comparisons to the 9/11 terrorists, the "C-word" and every conceivable variation of the F-bomb? Okay, now imagine someone posting that, oh... 40 or 50 times a day, sometimes 10 times in the span of 10 minutes. In fact, it's that kind of stuff - not the obvious trolls - that caused us to turn on comment moderation.

And now we can add a new tactic: pretending to be WGA members in online comment sections.

DHD had a post last week reporting on a Fox employee instigating an altercation with Law & Order showrunner Rene Balcer (and by "instigate," we mean trying to hit him with his SUV). There were witnesses galore confirming the despicable actions of the Fox employee, pictures taken, and a formal police report. Pretty black and white, right?

Apparently not for several "commenters" on DHD, including one "Ben Tramer" who said "there are two sides to every story." Including this one.

Now, usually when a person driving an SUV pushes a person legally walking in a crosswalk with the fender of his vehicle, that is the side of the story. But not to this commenter. According to him, the pedestrian "had it coming" from the SUV and "deliberately stepped in front of cars."

Just one problem with "Ben Tramer's" comment: UH.com talked to Ben Tramer, and he didn't write it.

The real Ben/Bennett Tramer is a WGA member and a strike captain who pickets at Fox. And he was quite surprised - and pissed - to start hearing from friends who read a comment using his name to "advance views the exact opposite of [his] own."

Coincidence? Maybe. John Carpenter, a friend of the real Mr. Tramer, named a character after him in "Halloween II." So maybe the person who left that comment just happened to be a huge "Halloween II" fan... and just happens to work at Fox... and just happens to be intimately familiar with the incident outside the gates... at the exact same place where the real Mr. Tramer just happens to be a WGA strike captain. So we're trying to do a little Internet detective work to track down the person who put up the comment.

But if somebody out there is using names of WGA members to post anti-WGA comments, the real Mr. Tramer said, "It's a sad comment on the strength of their position if they have to use identity theft to make their point."

Hollywood Suffers, Viacom Spas

Finally, a solid and completely understandable explanation has emerged for why certain members of the AMPTP are unable to return to the negotiating table.

It turns out that next Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the hardworking heads of all Viacom, CBS, and Paramount Entertainment Divisions will be enjoying "award-winning accommodations," "world-renowned" spa treatments," "AAA Five Diamond" gourmet dining, and round after exhilarating round of "championship quality" golf during an executive retreat at The Boulders Resort and Golden Door Spa.

Oh, and anybody wanna guess where Boulders is located?

No really, go ahead and guess. Because even if we weren't three months into a painful strike, pounding the pavement of our picket-lines, fighting for a fair deal, struggling to make our rent and feed our families...you definitely still can't write this kind of thing.

Ready?

Carefree, Arizona.

That's right. CAREFREE. Maybe you've heard of it? It's a little town somewhere between Footloose and Fuckem.

Now, hopefully, as soon as Sumner, Les and the gang are finished luxuriating in a cucumber sea-grass body wash, using some of their Internet profits to pay for foie gras, or just telling writer jokes at the spa -- they'll find time in their busy schedules and be relaxed enough to come back to the negotiating table. All of those in the entertainment industry put out of work and hurt by the strike sure would appreciate it.

Of course, if you'd like to leave a personal message at the front desk so the staff can pass that along, beginning Sunday, January 13, they can be reached toll-free at:

The Boulders Resort
34631 N. Tom Darlington Dr.
Carefree, AZ 85377
(866) 397-6520

Enjoy your stay, folks.

Dear Ben Silverman: Prom Is Not Canceled

Apparently NBC co-chief Ben Silverman is still thinking like a high schooler.

Talking to E! News anchor Ryan Seacrest yesterday about the cancellation of the Golden Globe telecast due to the ongoing strike, Silverman said, "Sadly, it feels like the nerdiest, ugliest, meanest kids in the high school are trying to cancel the prom. But NBC wants to try to keep that prom alive."

So sorry to hear the "ugly nerds" have caused Mr. Silverman's big prom plans to fall apart. Then again, maybe it's the fault of the "big, jock bullies" who won't return to the bargaining table.

Of course, we certainly don't want to deny Ben a prom. And to prove it, UnitedHollywood.com and Hot in Hollywood cordially invite you to:

BENJAMIN SILVERMAN HIGH WINTER PROM

When: Thursday, January 17th from 11am-2pm
Where: BS High School (located at 3000 West Alameda in Burbank - often referred to as NBC Studios)
Dress: Prom Formal

As a fundraiser for the Industry Support Fund, we are working on printing Benjamin Silverman High School t-shirts. You know, "BS HS."

The Strike Is a Lawyers' Game: How to Play to Win

This piece is by WGA strike captain Alfredo Barrios, a former corporate attorney turned writer. It offers insight into what the AMPTP methods and rationale for undermining the writers' resolve. Thanks to Ashley Gable for submitting this to us. -JA

We�re two months into the strike, and I�ve noticed a certain confusion and fear emanating from certain quarters about how things have been �handled� by our �leadership.� Some ask: are we being too militant with our demands and �rhetoric� and all this picketing and chanting? Isn�t that what�s keeping the studios from �coming back to the table?� Shouldn�t we be nicer guys and gals? If we were, surely they�d come back, right? I mean, we have to show we�re �reasonable.�

From other quarters, people pose the question: why are the studios acting so insanely? Our demands are reasonable. Don�t they understand that they have a lot to lose? Surely, it�s the hardliners who are holding things up, right?

Regardless of what camp you fall in, everyone is grasping for an explanation of why the studios are acting the way they are. That�s because with the exception of a few carefully prepared press releases, a trade ad or two, and some supposed �leaked� stories, we haven�t heard directly from any of the CEOs about the strike. We�ve only heard from Nick Counter � their point man. Their lawyer.

I�m here to tell you, as a former litigator who spent several years at one of the biggest corporate law firms in the world, that we�re all in engaged in a huge lawyering game, and things are proceeding accordingly. For the record, I have never met Nick Counter, but I spent all of my years as a lawyer working for guys like him, in service of the types of conglomerates he now represents, against people like us.

So I�ll briefly spell out the rules of the game and my view of what it will take to win the strike � and by win, I mean accelerating toward a resolution with the studios on terms that are favorable to us.

BASIC RULES

First, understand the relationship between Nick Counter and the studios. It�s essentially a lawyer-client relationship. The AMPTP is run by lawyers like Nick Counter and Carol Lombardini. Think of it as an in-house law firm. Their goal is to �negotiate� deals with unions on behalf of their clients � the studios.

As lawyers, Counter and Lombardi have to justify their paycheck. What does that mean? They have to add value. They�ve promised to deliver a more favorable labor deal than the studios would get without them. Otherwise, there would be no point in hiring them (or more aptly, keeping them around). So our loss is their gain. And the bigger our loss, the bigger their gain.

Now here�s the thing to remember, fairness and reasonableness have NOTHING TO DO

with their approach. No corporate lawyer I�ve ever known has ever met with a

client and promised to get them the most �fair and equitable deal� possible.

That�s not their goal. Instead, they promise to save them a lot of money �

remember, added value. If the studios were genuinely interested in reaching a

fair and equitable deal, the CEOs and their CFOs would talk directly to our negotiating committee and financial people, and a deal could be reached today � by the way, this is what we�re driving towards. We will know we will have won when the CEOs and their CFOs talk to us directly � more on this later. Back to Counter�

So, what exactly have Counter and Lombardi promised their clients � the studio heads? Two things: a specific outcome by a certain point in time and peace of mind.

CEOs hate uncertainty. They run their businesses based on long-range plans that are based on long-range assumptions. So as a lawyer, you do your very best to put their mind at ease when faced with an inherently unstable situation � be it a lawsuit, a takeover deal, or a strike. You say to them, �You don�t have to worry about a thing. We have this under control.� Then you spell out what you believe (more often hope) is the most likely outcome. �We feel confident that we can
�get this suit dismissed at the pre-trial stage.�
�� get this deal closed by Christmas.�
��resolve this strike by_______ on ________ terms.�
The CEOs nod their heads happily, confident that their well-heeled, well-paid lawyers are looking out for their interests, and then go about their business.

So what is that timeframe and what are the terms? My guess is that Counter and Lombardi promised to hold the line on DVDs (still a significant source of revenue for the studios at $15.7 billion in U.S. sales last year) and to rollback residuals and the attendant pension and health contributions that flow from them. By now, we all know that no payments on new media equals a rollback in residuals. And given pattern bargaining, getting rid of our residuals means getting rid of residuals and attendant P and H contributions industry wide. A huge cost savings. Fairness and equity have nothing to do with it. Remember, added value.

By when? My guess is just short of killing pilot season. Writing off the rest of this season may have been worth the gains that Counter promised. We�re talking about rolling back residuals and P and H contributions not only in this year, but also well into the future.

So why not write off pilot season also? Remember, CEOs hate uncertainty. They can quantify the losses from writing off this season. But they can�t do that with a write-off of the entire upcoming pilot season. Too many variables. How will reality do? How will their advertisers react? How much audience will they lose permanently? On top of that, they forego a huge revenue injection from the upfronts � over $18 billion was reportedly taken in by the TV industry as a whole in 2007 (nearly double the box office take on movies for all of last year). And they face a second labor strike in June � SAG. Shareholders are only so patient� or forgiving. And remember, they like certainty, too. That�s why they�ve already been taking their money elsewhere � shares of media companies have been falling at a greater rate than the market at large (check out TheStreet.com�s December 20, 2007 article, �Strike May Rewrite Stocks� Script�).

Going back to CEO peace of mind. This comes in a couple of forms. First, lawyers tell their clients that they won�t have to get their hands dirty. Lawyers will be the bad cops on their behalf. They�ll serve as a shield for their clients. Lawyers always want their clients to feel comfortable � that�s part of what�s promised. �Go about your life. Don�t worry about a thing.� Second, it comes in the form of laying out how things will play out. �You can expect that the plaintiffs will engage in several months of discovery�� ��the company you�re hoping to acquire will seek a white knight,� ��the strike will lose steam and the writers will fragment.� All things that have a very good chance of happening. And when they do, the lawyer looks like a genius, and his client thinks, �Man, I�m in really good hands. I have nothing to worry about.� It�s about managing expectations.

THE LAWYER�S STRATEGY

Lawyers try to do three things to their adversaries: (1) get them to doubt the validity of their position; (2) undervalue whatever cards they�re holding (in other words, underestimate whatever leverage they have); and (3) kill their resolve.

How does a lawyer get an adversary to doubt his position? Well, in litigation, it comes by spinning the facts. In transactional deals, by spinning the financial numbers. And in a strike situation, by spinning both. One common technique is making a nonsensical argument so many times that it begins to take on the air of a legitimate one and eventually some people (judges, jury, the public in general and sometimes even your adversaries) begin to accept it as truth. Lawyers are masters of this. Think of these doozies: �If the glove doesn�t fit, you must acquit,� �Smoking doesn�t cause cancer,� and my personal favorite, �We don�t have a business plan for or any real revenue from the Internet.� Or how about that $130 million offer that the studios supposedly made us several weeks back? The one that didn�t actually add up. Facts and numbers are spun every day in the courtroom, in the negotiating room and in the press by lawyers.

Now, here�s the thing to remember. It�s the lawyer who does the spinning. No CEO wants to do it. Why? Because so many of them want to be known as �straight shooters� � i.e., guys who don�t lie. Plus, they like to be liked. And going out and spinning facts and numbers� well, that�s like acting like a lawyer. Like Nick Counter. That�s why they hired him to do it. They want to be comfortable. Notably, neither Counter nor any of the CEOs has actually done any real press interviews to defend their position. Not hard to see why: it�s utter nonsense. So they spin in press releases or �leaked� stories that are regurgitated by mouthpiece trade papers and other seemingly �unbiased� but wholly bought off parties.

And how does a corporate lawyer gets an adversary to lose confidence in whatever leverage he has? One way is to engage in positional bargaining. That means anchoring your negotiating position to an extreme and unprincipled number over such a long period of time that your adversary starts to doubt the cards he�s holding and eventually moves off of his number and gets closer to yours. That�s what the AMPTP has been attempting to do with its new media proposals � or actually, lack of proposals. They�ve anchored to basically zero payments for new media in the face of our fairly principled new media proposals. They�re hoping that doubt will creep into our psyche � �Wow, man, those companies are really holding to that number, maybe our bargaining position isn�t as strong as a I thought. Maybe we should take whatever the DGA gets.� And so on�

Once you start down that path, you�re losing your resolve. The corporate lawyer knows you�ll start to rationalize why you should take a really bad deal. And you start to buy into the arguments he�s making � �That lawyer of yours isn�t doing you any favors.� �I hate to tell you this, but you�re wasting a lot of time and energy with this case. It�s a loser.� �As a guy who knows, you should take what we�re offering you because it�s not going to get better.� Sound familiar? It�s the sort of stuff being put out by the AMPTP�s PR guru, Chris Lehane, who, by the way, is also a lawyer � and a classmate of mine from law school. Small world, huh? Couple this psychological warfare with the increasing expense of fighting� and people will crack.

Posture and overwhelm with superior power � or the semblance of power. That�s Corporate Lawyering 101.

So� how do we win?

OUR STRATEGY

In my experience, the guys that win against corporate lawyers and their clients � and believe me, I�ve seen it happen � are the guys that (a) never lose sight of their cards � in other words, aren�t fooled into believing that they�re holding garbage, and (b) play lots of offense.

I�ll begin with playing offense. That means taking the fight to the other guy�s client � the decision makers � the CEOs. Remember, THEY LIKE TO BE COMFORTABLE. That�s what their lawyer promised them they would be. So how do you take the fight to them? Well, in litigation, you bring them into the game by making them the target of discovery � you depose them, go through their papers, ask them all sorts of question. You take them out of their comfort zone. You make them the focal point of the case� they�re the bad guy. In transactional matters, say a takeover attempt where you represent the buyer, you go after the �entrenched management� that wants to deprive the shareholders of the real value of their holdings� they�re the bad guy. In a strike, you hold the CEOs accountable. Why? Because they are ultimately the bad guys� the buck stops with them, and they need to be reminded of that always. Counter is just their hired gun.

And by taking the fight to them. I mean, maintaining picket lines at the studios at peak levels, relentlessly picketing locations, continuing to put out creative videos that entertain and inform people about the strike, denying waivers to award shows and picketing those shows, seeking alternative ways to put out creative work on the Internet for pay, etc.

Playing this kind of offense serves a couple of purposes. First, when a CEO drives through the studio gates, or hears about how a location shoot was impacted by picketing (like for example, when an actor leaves the set or a day has been added to the schedule), or sees how his untenable bargaining positions are being ripped apart on websites, or is told about how his award show is falling apart, or reads how Google is about to form a competing entertainment powerhouse, it all collectively begins to call into question the promise that Counter made � i.e., that we would crumble. It�s a daily reminder that we are not losing our resolve. It makes him worry. His expectations aren�t being met. Things are uncertain again. And it begins to chip away at Counter�s credibility as the guy who could resolve the strike with minimal inconvenience to the studio CEOs.

This last point is important. Why? Because the way you win is by taking the lawyer out of the equation. Deny him the promise that he made to his client � i.e., that he would add value by battering all of us down. Once the CEOs begin to believe that we�ll stick to our guns until we get a fair and equitable deal, that�s when we�ve won. That�s when the CEOs and their CFOs will step in and begin to deal directly with us. Why not Counter? Because his job wasn�t to deal with real and fair numbers; it was to screw us. Once he fails at that, it�s time for others to step in. Trust me, it happens.

But it requires believing in the cards you�re holding � your leverage � and sticking it out. The bigger the show of resolve, the faster the CEOs will dispatch Counter. As profit losses mount and their share prices take bigger hits, the studios will realize that holding out for Counter�s promise looks increasingly like a fool�s game.

But the CEOs will only step in if they believe a fair a reasonable deal can be reached. That�s why it�s important to always maintain principled bargaining proposals on the table � as I believe we have throughout. Unlike Counter, I don�t believe we�re engaging in the positional bargaining. Having said that, I think we made one very serious mistake in continuing to keep our DVD proposals off the table. Bad faith bargaining � like the type that Counter has engaged throughout � can never be rewarded, and I have heard no compelling reason to keep our DVD proposals off the table. As I mentioned above, DVD sales in the U.S. alone were nearly a $16 billion revenue stream for the studios in 2007. I understand that DVD sales are declining, but they still dwarf revenue from the Internet � which is forecasted to total $4 billion over the next 3 years. And that�s the length of our contract: 3 years. So we gave up a piece of that greater pie for what? Nothing. Some might say: but it was either a DVD bump or a new media deal. Really? Says who? We have principled arguments to get an increased share of DVDs and a fair slice of new media � and, I believe, the leverage to get both.

As the upcoming DGA talks proceed, I predict that Counter will try to ram a really bad deal down the director�s throats. And he may succeed, given the makeup of that union�s membership and their historic appeasement of studios during labor talks. I suspect that whatever deal is reached will be slightly better than what was offered us (it certainly couldn�t be worse) and will be wielded like a stick to beat us into taking it as well. The DGA leadership will certainly have every incentive to spin it as a huge win for them and the industry. How could they not? It costs the studios nothing to take this approach. If we don�t take the same deal, they�re back to dealing with us, and the DGA is the only loser.

As for acting like �nicer� and �more accommodating� guys and gals� Well, let me just say that in all of my years as a corporate lawyer, �nice� and �accommodating� adversaries who never stuck to their guns and didn�t bring the fight to us never got better deals. They only get worse ones. So don�t buy into the our-leadership�s-too-militant line of argument. They�re not. They�re being appropriately tough. Trust me, you wouldn�t want it any other way. Now it�s up to the rest of us to hang tough with them.

WGA Says No Golden Globes Waiver

The Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) issued the following statement regarding the Golden Globe Awards today. So despite rumors to the contrary, it certainly does look like the Globes will be held behind a picket line.
Personally, I am still voting for the black tie pickets, and coverage on the Internet of anyone who choses to join us. Of course, since the Internet is so new-fangled and confusing, I'm sure no one will be able to find anything we broadcast. Certainly not with celebrities.

Dick Clark Productions is a struck company. As previously announced, the Writers Guild will be picketing the Golden Globe Awards.

The WGA has great respect and admiration for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, but we are engaged in a crucial struggle that will protect our income and intellectual property rights for generations to come. We will continue to do everything in our power to bring industry negotiations to a fair conclusion. In the meantime, we are grateful for the ongoing support of the Hollywood talent community.

NBC Comes Clean: The Strike DOES Matter

I'm not only a writer, I'm a GE shareholder! And I think GE's CEO Jeff Immelt deserves a lot of credit for telling the truth yesterday: The strike is hurting NBC. The negative buzz about NBC's fortunes had built for days, and Jeff Immelt faced it directly with a minimum of spin:

While some media companies have denied the "Hollywood" writers' strike will hurt profits short-term, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt said Tuesday that it's already having an impact at NBC Universal--and GE cut profit projections for the fourth quarter there. ... GE had projected a 10% to 15% growth in segment profit at its NBCU unit in the fourth quarter, but Tuesday Immelt said it will come in at the 10% low end, citing the "impact of the strike." ... GE's downgrade was striking, since NBCU competitors have denied the strike would have a negative impact for some time. News Corp. COO Peter Chernin even said: "My guess is that during fiscal '08, a strike is probably a positive for the company."

Separately, this Reuters article claims that CBS and ABC are also in trouble, just not as much. Of course, come "Idol" season, the other networks' situation could become catastrophic. With minimal competition from original programming, "American Idol" seems poised to demolish the other networks as never before. The Reuters piece includes, finally, an assessment of the strike from Shari Anne Brill, The Most Quoted Woman in Media™! I can't believe I haven't seen her show up in strike coverage until now.

Shari Anne Brill, senior vice president and director of programming for media buying agency Carat USA, said advertisers are growing increasingly worried about the ratings impact of a prolonged strike.

"Clients are in an upset state without knowing what's six weeks away. We have (programming) schedules through January, but nothing is really set for the month of February," [Aaron] Cohen said.

"Ad agencies have to negotiate with networks for revised schedules based on current strike replacement programming and get client approval for the revised schedule. We're working on a month-to-month basis," he added.

Brill said the advertisers placed their money on different expectations.

"If the networks are in this ratings under-delivery situation now, it could only worsen in the event of a prolonged strike," Brill said.

"Advertisers generally prefer to be in scripted content, and will not readily accept being put into lower-quality reality fare when their upfront dollars were spent on the expectation of being placed in quality scripted content," she said.

AMPTP: "Union Busting" is Our Middle Name

Tim Lea wrote an email which Mike Royce and Steve Skrovan made us aware of. We�ve excerpted his analysis of the strike to highlight his truly inspired perceptions.

Hey all --

So the AMPTP has responded. Four days of 'meetings', and the resulting offer is a strange hybrid of calculated low-balling, contempt and picaresque fantasy that would better become a Voltaire novel than an early 21st-century labor negotiation.

The AMPTP and the studios and corporations they represent are not yet ready to negotiate. They calculate that they have time before this year's TV season is irrevocably damaged...and they want to create fatal divisions within our membership.

There is nothing irrational or random about any of this. The first entry in a Google search of the term Union Busting provides a link to the home page of a union-busting firm. They're quite up front: "It's about winning," they say:

"Since 1987, Adams, Nash, Haskell & Sheridan has
assisted hundreds of employers in thousands of engagements always protecting the employers' rights to continue to manage�unobstructed by unions or other outside third parties that can destroy productivity, profitability, and the joy of the direct relationship between an employer and its employees."

The point is clear: there is an entire industry devoted to union-busting with refined strategies for dealing with union activity.

The AMPTP strategy�is to gain control over 'New Media' by breaking the unions. First us, then the rest. Then the Internet will be a non-union town.

In his book Confessions of a Union Buster, Martin Jay Levitt details the techniques he learned in his many years attacking unions. A key element is the demoralization of the union members during any industrial action against the company. Taking away people's hopes, their aspirations for a quick resolution to any labor dispute � that was Levitt's job. "If you can, make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope."

According to Robert Muehlenkamp, an SEIU Local 1199 organizer at Harper Grace hospital in the 70's, where Levitt was hired to consult management:

"Union busters wield great power through a program of terror and manipulation � people don't, can't possibly know what's going on and who's telling the truth.... The first time this happens to regular people, they're terrified."

And terror is the goal. The union buster hopes to control employees by employing terror.

This is, of course, precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. We are the example that is being used to intimidate the other unions. The studios want the actors, the directors, the Teamsters, IATSE, all to look at our struggle and see us lose. See us fractured and divided. With the hope that they will be frightened by what they see, and accept whatever deal the studios offer.

The idea is also to make us appear demoralized, then divided. To the public, and to ourselves. Diminish the pickets (LA Times: the "relentless picketing" which was one element in bringing the AMPTP back to the table); split off core groups (oh no! Carlton Cuse has gone back to work! The Showrunners are all abandoning us!); fragment the internal leadership (the Captain's meeting Friday, although generally cordial, did show signs of strain as one writer, concerned for his laid-off production team asked "What do I tell them?" to be admonished by another member that "We are on strike!"); and create a sense that our strike is useless.

The most powerful tactic in strike-breaking is propagandistic. The union (and particularly the leadership) is portrayed as power-hungry, control-seeking, strike-happy, aloof. Leadership is described as detached from the membership and inaccessible to their demands (Patric responded to over 500 e-mails over the Thanksgiving break.) The strike is described as rudderless and futile, with declining numbers on the picket lines. The creation of a Strike Rules committee is described as fascistic. The companies are portrayed as avuncular and concerned: "We're just trying to get everyone back to work."

Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. That's the union buster's strategy.

But unions have their own strategy. At the SEIU rally on Thursday, the marchers began and ended with a prayer. They bowed their heads and prayed for direction and guidance and thanked their God for the opportunity, the voice, the courage, the belief, to express themselves in their struggle.

They connect their struggle with their belief. They believe, and we must believe.

There is the obvious physical expression of the belief of the membership in being out in force, vocally, on the picket lines, and there is the emotional power of belief that underpins the leadership's work. The leadership can focus on the exhausting work of facing down the employers at the negotiating table because they are sustained by the knowledge that the membership is behind them.

While we may all have notions of tactics or strategy or choices of which gate to picket or whether to have Christmas lunch on Peter Chernin's front lawn, it all boils down to this:

What are we striking for? What do we believe? Is our purpose singular and clear?

These are the questions that will decide whether we win or lose. Do we believe that this struggle, this sacrifice we are all making, is worthy? Are we of one heart? One mind? Do we look at each other on the picket lines and see brothers and sisters? Is our belief strong enough to carry us through to the end?

Only we can know. The companies hope the answer is no, and they will wage a psychological war to make us think the answer is no. The companies will try to convince us that we do not believe. And each of us, as individuals, must decide. Because if the answer is no, we have already lost.

Belief is victory.

In peace and solidarity,

TL

AMPTP: New Proposal Will Include Coupons!

A video update from our friends at MegaPictures BFD.

"What We Have Here Is a Failure to Negotiate"

(With all the best to Frank Pierson and thanks to Jon Avnet)

The latest AMPTP offer, Thursday's "groundbreaking" proposal, certainly wasn't what any of us hoped for. If we assume the AMPTP sincerely wants to end the strike, then everything they've done so far is counter-intuitive. Given the stakes, their behavior is crazy-making. Most members were shocked and demoralized that the offer was so inappropriate.

But when has anyone enjoyed a negotiation?

Personally, I hate negotiating. At first it feels good when I'm thinking about what I want. My mind's racing with the possibilities. But when the process starts and the first counter-offer comes in, I go through the seven stages of grief. If I want a deal that I can live with, I have to tough it out.

Of course the companies are trying to get the cheapest deal they can. Of course they're trying to humiliate us so we'll lose our will and accept their low-ball offer. Of course they'll use everything in their PR arsenal to encircle us with unflattering press.

That's the business of business. We have to take the process in stride.

Not to get all-motivational about it, but both sides are playing for big stakes. We are fighting for the future. That's how they see it too. To get what we want, we have to be determined.

Just like any negotiation, nobody is going to fight our fight for us.

We've got to take care of ourselves.

Going back to the picket line is our opportunity to show the AMPTP that we're in the game. They volleyed, now we'll return.

The AMPTP wants to demoralize the membership with school yard psychological warfare. They want to isolate us and drive us back to our rooms.

The picket line is the antidote to all their manipulation.

With the picket line, we show the corporations that we're not cowed. The picket line is the visible symbol of the membership's determination. The picket line is where we get recharged by walking with other writers and our supporters.

We have strength in numbers. Let's use them.

Story Notes for Nick Counter

(Nick Counter and the AMPTP (The Media Moguls) paid for an expensive ad in yesterday's "Variety" -- for those of you who don't work in the industry, "Variety" is an entertainment business magazine that is in the pocket of the Media Moguls.

For further information on "Variety's" biased reporting, check out Nikke Finke's post.

Since we don't have tons and tons of money like the Media Moguls do, we'll have to respond here - on the Internet - which they don't entirely own and control ( but they sure would like to).

Below, WGA member Phil Alden Robinson gives Nick Counter "story notes" on his advertisement and general "script".)

From: Story Department

To: Nick Counter

Dear Nick:

While we are still very excited about your project "Stonewall", we feel there are still some serious script problems that need to be addressed.

1) As every writer knows, the first rule of fiction is to at least SOUND believable. But you have a character saying dialog like "writers do receive residuals for digital downloading (regardless of whether the download is temporary or permanent)". Then why do you have the WGA character have to arbitrate to get what's already in the contract? Wouldn't the AMPTP character have more credibility if he just told the truth and did the right thing?

2) You also have a character say "the notion that we are not sharing new media revenue with writers is simply not correct." Wow. If that's what you want him to say, then we suggest you delete all the scenes in which entire episodes of TV shows - with COMMERCIALS - are streamed on the internet for millions of users, and the studios earn advertising revenue, but pay the writers nothing. This is a major logic problem with your script, and needs to be fixed.

3) Major typo: you've got a character saying "the Writers Guild is asking that writers get a percentage of what the Internet site owners receive in advertising revenue". But it's not. The WGA's proposal is for a percentage of "company's accountable receipts". It has nothing to do with Internet site owners.

4) In earlier pages (the Sunday night negotiation scene), you had the AMPTP character say that progress was being made, and then you have that character abruptly walk out of negotiations. We've asked you to fix that, but you still haven't made sense of it. This sort of behavior is usually reserved for the villain. Is that your intention for this character?

5) The WGA character keeps saying they're ready to return to the bargaining table, but you still haven't had the AMPTP character respond. Suggestion: why not have the AMPTP character call the WGA and return to the table? Along these lines, we suggest you put a pin in the 1st and 2nd act problems, and just concentrate on the ending.

In short, we still have high hopes for you, so please don't be discouraged. We're looking forward to the next set of pages.

Warmest regards,

Your friends in the Story Department.

p.s.: Aren't you glad we didn't give you a one-draft deal on this?

The Faces of the Strike

Two articles in the New York Times today (11/16/07) put a personal perspective on the strike. Bill Carter's "Late Shows Move to Help The Workers Not on Strike" and Jennifer Steinhauer's "Writers' Strike Opens New Window on Hollywood".

Carter reports about efforts by Talk Show Hosts to keep their staffs paid, even if they can't be on the air. Steinhauer profiles the personal stories of writers, costumers, assistants, electricians, and thousands of others who are now or who will soon be out of work.

What these stories have in common is one underlying fact: the AMPTP won't sit down with the WGA.

Notwithstanding the AMPTP's full page ads, they'd rather spend their energy and money on avoiding talking to the writers and negotiating a fair deal. And why?

Simple. They don't want to give up revenue. Since they've been using writers' work on the internet at a devalued rate or, even better, at no cost, they have ZERO interest in giving away any portion of that money.

That's understandable. If someone is used to getting something for free, they'll fight like a mad dog when they're told that they need to pay up. Surely some accountant in one of the AMPTP companies has worked up a spread sheet showing how much they'll make, the longer the strike continues.

The writers say they want a fair deal, but to the AMPTP what's not fair is having to pay fair-market rates for "product".

How do we get out of this mess and get back to work?

The AMPTP needs to come to its senses and give up on their unreasonable demands.

Videologblog: Writers Strike (Colbert Report writers)

"Misleading Investors Is a Federal Crime"

The shameless double talk by the conglomerates' top management could well be what loses them this strike. Our message resonates with the nation, while the CEOs lose ground each additional day they let this painful situation drag on. But could their double talk also cost them their jobs?

In today's Variety, Dave McNary's article "Writers Are Winning Over the Public" puts it in simple terms:

"On one hand CEOs of major media congloms are selling Wall Streeters on the fact that their digital offerings are growing like gangbusters and driving the bottom line. On the other hand, those same execs are holding out their hands and saying, a viable business model just doesn't exist and profits just aren't rolling in yet to give striking scribes what they want.

The problem is the congloms are stuck in the precarious position of angering shareholders: tell them that your company isn't growing and the stock plummets. Let the strike continue for six months or more and you anger those same shareholders, because in reality, companies will be losing revenue, as a result."

It's a very questionable business practice to bully the people who create your product, but when the way you do so calls into question the integrity of what you're telling shareholders, that's big trouble. That's flirting with something called fraud, and the Securities and Exchange Commission frowns on that.

So now, thanks to this strike, the CEOs have to answer a simple question: Whom are they lying to? Both stories can't be true. And that's the subject of our latest video:


Perhaps fired up by viewing a previous video, "Voices of Uncertainty," an anonymous supporter drafted the following letter and sent it to United Hollywood. It is addressed to Rob Feckner, the President of the CalPERS Board. CalPERS is the massive pension and retirement fund for California's public employees. According to Wiki, CalPERS is the largest pension fund in the U.S. with over $254.8 billion in assets. An investor like CalPERS following up on a letter like this is what keeps CEOs awake at night.

Dear Mr. Feckner and Colleagues:

As you are likely aware, the Writers� Guide of America has declared a strike against the entertainment conglomerates who employ its members. While there are many points at issue in this labor action, the foremost is the companies� unwillingness to commit to a plan by which writers -- and presumably, their colleagues throughout the entertainment industry -- can meaningfully participate in the revenues to be reaped from the Internet, mobile phones, and other new media.

The companies contend that their studies reveal the Internet and mobile phones to be untested distribution models with minimal revenue potential, and they therefore cannot commit to any revenue-sharing plan. There are two possibilities. One is that the companies are lying. The other is that they are telling the truth. In either case, we call upon CalPERS to divest its portfolio of these companies� stocks.

If the companies are lying, and web and mobile technologies are the multi-billion-dollar gold mine we believe them to be, then this is a pure case of unmitigated greed, in which workers will be prohibited from sharing the benefits of their work. If forced through, this brazenly tight-fisted policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on the incomes, health care prospects, and pensions of thousands of Californians. CalPERS has a strong and powerful history of board activism, and we would ask you to exercise it on behalf of an important cause close to home.

If, on the other hand, the companies are telling the truth, then we humbly recommend you reconsider your investment in their stocks on purely fiduciary grounds. If the largest holders of video content in the world seriously cannot find a way to monetize it using the dominant distribution technologies of the coming decade, they are likely doomed to failure, and you would be doing your pensioners a favor by divesting yourself of their stocks immediately.

Many of us are the children, parents, spouses, and siblings of CalPERS members. We admire the fortitude and thoughtfulness with which you have managed their futures and hope you will consider using your considerable clout to help the working men and women of the entertainment industry secure ours.

The complete list of struck companies can be found at: http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2537

Best regards,
XXX

Many creative professionals are also shareholders in the conglomerates, and none of us want to see stock prices plummet in the way McNary describes. But unfortunately, the CEOs are playing a dangerous game. Not only with our careers, but with their own.

Not the Daily Show, With Some Writers

Fear, Intimidation and the Politics of J. Nicholas Counter III

Hey, folks. Long time no blog. But I just had to add something to the WGA official response to this lovely piece of... disinformation.

As per AMPTP President J. Nicholas Counter III today:

"The WGA is using fear and intimidation to control its membership. Asking members to inform on each other and creating a blacklist of those who question the tactics of the WGA leadership is as unacceptable today as it was when the WGA opposed these tactics in the 1950s."

Well, he got one thing right: It was the WGA who opposed blacklisting in the 1950's. Not, for example, any of the antecedent companies in the 1950's that spawned the conglomerates he currently serves. They were as silent, and callously unconcerned, about defending people's rights then as they are now.

Meet the new boss. You know.

But that's not what I'm here to point out. It's something a little more galling, at least from where I'm sitting.

People coming to this blog may have noticed that we now have people posting anonymously with fair regularity. One of our most popular and often-viewed pieces of content, "Heartbreaking Voices of Uncertainty", was created anonymously.

Care to guess why? I'll give you a hint: Our contributors are scared.

They worry about losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their reputations -- in other words, about being blacklisted. But not by the WGA.

They worry about being blacklisted by the conglomerates that Nick Counter works for, the 6 monoliths that control almost everything you see and hear in the media.

So when Nick Counter shows up with his sudden, touching concern for our emotional well-being -- Don't worry, writers, we here at the AMPTP are your friends, we feel your pain! The WGA is being so mean, but we care about you! -- you'll forgive me if I'm less than moved. More like nauseated.

In his statement, Counter apparently is referring to rumors about writers unhappy with the WGA leadership. But we hear rumors as well: that the conglomerates are the ones doing the threatening, both privately and openly. There are rumors that network executives have told showrunners that if any of their writers are seen speaking up during the strike, they expect them to be fired when the strike is over. We all know showrunners are being threatened with lawsuits for respecting the picket lines. And there's another rumor that one showrunner in particular has been told that the AMPTP is going to use him as "an example," that they're planning to sue him and then see that he doesn't work again.

Gosh, that sounds kinda like... blacklisting.

Mysteriously, big lies are leaked to Variety and printed -- like the "story" that two writers for The Young and the Restless have gone "fi-core" and are, in effect, abandoning the strike effort. And, of course, that isn't true. [Since people are asking in the comments -- later today we'll be publishing the Y&R response today from the writers themselves, but apparently a non-writing producer who has WGA membership from previous work has chosen to go fi-core and become, effectively, a scab. Not multiple members of the writing staff of Y&R choosing to abandon the strike effort, as Variety reported. Just a producer who wasn't writing to begin with choosing to cross the picket line to the detriment of all the writers on that staff, and in this effort. Again, we'll post the full story today.]

If I were a person with a dim view of human nature, I might suspect that there's an organized attempt to break writers' spirits. That the threats and the rumors (you know, the ones about how some writers are breaking ranks to screw the rest of us over) are somehow related.

But since I have a sunny and pleasant outlook on life, I'm sure that these are just coincidences. I'm sure that all the people who are worried about signing their names to what they post here are just paranoid, and the AMPTP really is the benign, generous, concerned entity they make themselves out to be.

But just in case Mr. Counter is still confused about the strike rules: Most members understand that joining the WGA comes with rights, but it also comes with obligations. And one of them is, if there's a strike, you have to abide by the strike rules. Most of us -- if not all of us -- understand the concept of both honor and obligation, and we're abiding by it.

Who knows, now that I've written this, maybe I'll be blacklisted. But if I am, there's one thing I can promise you: It won't be by the WGA.

Laeta Kalogridis
(and yes, that's my real name)

The Heartbreaking Voices of Uncertainty

From an anonymous striking writer. Pass it on! -JA

What We're Up Against...

This was sent to me by a writer who wishes to remain anonymous. -JA

So, did you hear about the big WGA rally Friday? Unfortunately, if you weren't there, the answer is probably no.

After attending Friday's very inspiring and impressive event two days ago, I sat down at 11 p.m. that night to watch the Channel 4 news. I couldn't wait to see the coverage.

But wait I did.

And wait.

Past the segment about stolen copper causing a street light to be out on a popular bike path.

Then I waited some more.

Past some story about cats brought in to chase rodents at a police station (I'm not kidding). Until about 11:29 when they had -- no joke -- a 15 second snippet.

Yeah, yeah, I know KNBC is owned by one of the companies on the other side of the negotiating table. But come on!

You're telling me when 4,000 people show up in the streets of LA, shut down a main thoroughfare in the city, a laundry list of celebrities are on hand, Jesse Jackson addresses the crowd and the subject is an industry-wide strike some experts say could cost the local economy hundreds of millions of dollars, such an event only warrants 15 seconds at the end of the newscast?

Wow. I mean... wow.

You think if 4,000 striking UAW members took to the streets of Detroit after shutting down the automobile industry, it might make the local news before the high school football scores?

On the positive side, you'll be happy to know the cats are proving to be very successful at catching the rats. I know this because that segment was about four times longer than the one 20 minutes later dealing with a story that could affect the entire economy of Southern California.

Just my two cents... because four cents would be a stumbling block.

----
The author of the above is but one of many people be outraged by the lack of coverage. Darling Nikki called out the LA Times. I received email reports on how the other channels' news fared. Jeffrey writes:

Channel 7 and Channel 2 were no better. Each gave the rally less than 30 seconds of air time. But hey, Channel 2 did devote five minutes of air time on a segment about a rare killer amoeba. So in the larger scheme I guess Hollywood writers are lower than amoebas.

Elaine writes:

We saw something far more compelling as the lead story on our 6:00 news broadcast. Dangerous Glass Coffee Tables. Now that's news!

Taken from TV Week

For your consideration, an article taken from TV Week today.
The concerns about terrible costs that make it impossible to pay writers any part of new media seem oddly downplayed in this article. Not just revenues, but net earnings are referenced as being incredibly high.

And dang it if it don't sound like Sumner R. has a plan for "cultivating and monetizing new opportunities" (wait -- like internet????) "on every available platform."

Are those all the platforms that you can't possibly find a way to pay us anything for? Mobisodes, webisodes, internet, digital downloads -- you know, that stuff?

Quick, someone call Nick Counter and the AMPTP -- someone's got a business plan! Eureka!

Viacom Q3 Net Rises 80%, Revenue Up 24%

By Jon Lafayette

Viacom�s third-quarter earnings jumped because of gains from the sale of its Famous Music division and the strong performance of the movie �Transformers.�

The company�s cable networks�including MTV, Comedy Central and BET�reported a 2% increase in operating income to $796.8 million. Revenues increased by 9%, but they were partially offset by a 13% increase in expenses. Domestic ad revenues were up 5%.

�Our slate of original programming across our media networks is gaining traction with ratings showing steady improvement,� said Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman. �We are also expanding our presence in the digital arena as we offer richer entertainment experiences, which are engaging more fans.�

Mr. Dauman said the MTV Networks division was working on a number of ways to increase viewer retention through commercial breaks, including �squeezes,� which combine program and advertising content on the same screen. Viacom networks including MTV and VH1 are among those with the highest rates of viewers switching channels during commercial breaks.
Including the sale of the music division, Viacom�s net earnings were up 80% to $641 million, or 96 cents a share, from $356.8 million, or 50 cents a share. Net earnings from continuing operations were $449.9 million, up 27%.

Revenue rose 24% to $3.3 billion.

�Viacom continues to deliver strong results for its shareholders by attracting loyal and valuable audiences around the world and connecting with those audiences on every available platform. We are very well positioned to grow our core businesses while cultivating and monetizing new opportunities,� said Sumner Redstone, executive chairman of Viacom.

Analysts said the gains were mostly bigger than expected.

To see the original article:
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/11/v...80_revenue.php

MEMBERSHIP MEETING

As always, the following content is brought to you by a mouthy woman who's desperate for labor peace, but not afraid of labor war. Everything below is my opinion, and not official WGA anything.

Well, the whole world knows we had a membership meeting last night that was SRO, about 3,000 writers. The leadership informed us in detail of the state of the negotiations, then told us they were unanimously recommending that we strike. The meeting was about our response to that recommendation.

And I'd like to point out, because this is an issue I see brought up in the blogosphere and the mainstream press frequently:

Some people said that leadership never intended to check back in with membership once they had the strike authorization vote. That the leadership would call a strike -- as they constitutionally can -- without discussing it with us as a membership, and in defiance of our wishes if we didn't want a strike.

So let me put this as clearly as I possibly can. Patric Verrone and the leadership did exactly what they promised all of us they would do. They came back to us, reported, made a recommendation and asked us what we wanted to do.

Verrone said more than once in the meeting that, despite the authorization, if the writers in general in the membership didn't want to strike over these issues, there wouldn't be a strike.

After being updated on the negotiations, however, it was very clear that the membership wants a fair deal, and we're prepared to do what we have to do to get it. For myself, personally -- we don't have a choice.

State of the negotiations

It can be boiled down to this: we took 9 of our 25 demands off the table in an attempt to jumpstart Nick Counter's refusal to negotiate. Young went through what we took off the table -- it was real, substantive stuff. The NegCom, regardless of what you hear in the mainstream press, has bent over backwards to be the adults in the room and avert this strike.

Counter came back with his fascinating "we've decided dvd's are really internet downloads, and you will obey" dictum that I've talked about before -- basically, a complete refusal to negotiate on internet and new media. He said that they would not negotiate further with us unless we agreed there would be no negotiation about internet. Which is the single biggest - the watershed -- issue on the table.

Translation: the AMPTP are willing to negotiate, provided we agree beforehand that there's no negotiation.

I have, of late, begun to feel like I've fallen into a Kafka short story, or possibly Cold-War era Russia.

Q & A session

Q & A took up most of the rest of the meeting, with members asking specific questions about the negotiations, the strike rules, Teamsters, etc.

I won't recap all of it -- it was over 3 hours -- other than to say, once again, the leadership was transparent and levelheaded. And frankly, so were the members. We know what we're up against. We don't want to strike, but we're not going to walk away from the most important issue of our generation, the one issue that could potentially determine if the majority of working writers can make a basic living off what they do, because the AMPTP is determined that rich isn't good enough, they have to get richer.

What now?

The leadership is meeting today to decide when the strike will be called, now that the membership has weighed in. When they've chosen the time/day, they'll announce it.

There's still time for the AMPTP to actually start bargaining. We all want them to. We want to avert this. All they have to do... is negotiate.

Later, I'll be posting on some aspects of the strike rules, and hopefully we'll be hosting lots of different posters on the site over the next days and weeks, as well as links to some video interviews.

All I can say right now, though, is this: if you don't have a contract captain, get assigned to one, or even better, become one yourself. If there is a strike, let's all do everything we can to make it as short as possible, for our own sake and for the town's -- and that means mobilizing and impacting the AMPTP in the only place they seem to have any feeling at all. Their wallets.
L.