WGA Supports New Bill To End Underselling of TV Series and Movies

(This was emailed to Captains by the WGA.)
California State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) introduced Senate Bill 1765, the "Fair Market Value Bill," to end the practice by some major studios and networks of �underselling� television series or movies. Since the major media networks in the United States have come to own many cable channels, the practice of selling TV series or movies for less than the fair market value of the content has become more and more prevalent.

"The WGA West wholeheartedly supports this bill and we applaud Senator Kuehl for authoring it," said Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West. "This important piece of legislation will help ensure reliable accounting among the major Hollywood studios so that creative talent and all entertainment employees that rely on residuals will be fairly compensated for the contributions they make to the industry." Read entire press release here.

The End of Hollywood Accounting?

Will 1+1 someday = 2?

The WGA, the Teamsters and California State Senator Sheila Kuehl have just announced the introduction of the "Fair Market Value Bill." The bill seeks to prevent studios from selling programming to sister companies for below market value. This particular strain of Hollywood accounting is designed to shift profits away from the studios (where they must be shared with talent and producers and serve as a basis for pension and health contributions) to networks, where they may be enjoyed without the pesky need to pay one's "partners."

Press release below. We'll have more soon on the bill in particular and Hollywood skulduggery in general.

And if you're a studio accountant or lawyer looking to go all Michael Clayton on the Big Six, send us a tip or a post.

NEW BILL TAKES AIM AT HOLLYWOOD ACCOUNTING

California State Senator Sheila Kuehl Introduces Bill to End the Practice of Selling Television Series and Films for Less Than Fair Market Value

Los Angeles and Sacramento � California State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) has introduced Senate Bill 1765, the "Fair Market Value Bill," to end the practice by some major studios and networks of �underselling� television series or movies.

Since the major media networks in the United States have come to own many cable channels, the practice of selling TV series or movies for less than the fair market value of the content has become more and more prevalent. In many cases, the product is sold or licensed from one entity to another entity within the same parent company. This creates a problem for actors, writers, and performers who rely on the amount of a sale of material for their residuals � payments made to the creators or performers of a work for showings or screenings after an initial use. Other union members in the entertainment industry, including the Teamsters, also rely on the amount of a sale price to determine contributions to their health and pension funds.

"As a SAG member I care deeply that creative talent is treated fairly and that all workers in the entertainment industry receive the compensation they deserve," said State Senator Sheila
Kuehl (D- Los Angeles). "Many of my constituents work within the entertainment industry, and I have recently heard more and more about the growing practice of selling entertainment content, such as television series or films, for less than their fair market value. This practice has a deeply detrimental effect on the amount of compensation for creative talent like writers and actors. But the damage goes further because so-called below-the-line staff, like the Teamsters, rely on the proceeds from such a sale of content to fund their health and pension plans. This bill simply ensures that workers in the entertainment industry have the protection they need."

"The WGA West wholeheartedly supports this bill and we applaud Senator Kuehl for authoring it," said Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West. "This important piece of legislation will help ensure reliable accounting among the major Hollywood studios so that creative talent and all entertainment employees that rely on residuals will be fairly compensated for the contributions they make to the industry. The WGA is excited about the bill, and we look forward to involving our members in the process of educating elected leaders about the need for it."

In the last few years, there have been many high profile court cases on this issue. Creative talent from TV series, such as The X-Files, Will & Grace, and Home Improvement, among others, have filed suit to prevent the practice of selling television programs from one network to another for less than fair market value.

The bill is coauthored by State Senators Darrell Steinberg and Carole Migden and Assembly Members Fiona Ma and Sandre Swanson. The bill is supported by International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Writers Guild of America, West. Each union represents workers in the entertainment industry, and each union negotiates for compensation derived from the sale of television programs and films.

The Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable, and new media industries in both entertainment and news. For more information, please visit: www.wga.org.

NBC U Exec: $1 Billion in Digital Revenue By End of Year

Apparently some of the mega-corps that make up the AMPTP don't need the same three year study they offered the WGA in order to figure out how they can make money in the digital age. A lot of money.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, NBC Universal's president of Integrated Media Beth Comstock said she expects her company to hit $1 billion in digital revenue by the end of this year.

Yes, you read that correctly: one BILLION dollars. As in Dr. Evil money. A number not pulled out of a hat by some Wall Street analysts (as in the analysts who estimated NBC U made the paltry sum of $700 million in digital revenue in 2007) but an estimate of ONE BILLION DOLLARS straight from the mouth of the NBC U's president of Integrated Media.

All to be generated in a far off, distant time futurists call "this year."

But that's impossible, you say. It can't be. There's no money to be made on the Internet. Isn't that what Big Media keeps telling the Hollywood creative community?

Sure, that's what they're saying to some people (I'm talking to you, WGA). But according to the must-read Variety article linked above, shockingly, that might not be entirely true:

"The most high-profile bet NBC U has made is Hulu.com, the joint Internet vid venture with News Corp. that is still in beta mode but expected to be ready for primetime in the not-so-distant future. Hulu is stocked with ad supported, free web-streaming titles, from contempo NBC and Fox hits to scads of vintage product from both studios. (If you've just got to see the episode of "WKRP in Cincinnati" where Les Nessman tries to end it all by jumping off a ledge, Hulu is where you outta be.)"

You know, ad supported "promotional" showings of past, "vintage" shows like WKRP in order to promote the current season of WK-- uh, never mind. The article continues:

"Feature film content so far pretty is limited, though it does include cult faves such as 'Weekend at Bernie's' and 'The Breakfast Club.'"

Again, I'm sure these are "promotional" showings promoting, uh, ad revenue for NBC U and its partners (but not those who created these movies). Is there more? You bet:

"Unlike past studio-backed 'Net efforts, the partners aren't banking so much on making Hulu.com a destination unto itself, but rather the hub from which to syndicate free, ad-embedded content through its formidable distrib partners including MSN, AOL, Yahoo and MySpace, among others. Hulu in October garnered a $100 million equity investment from a major player in the private equity world, Providence Equity Partners."

Gee, no wonder these giant media companies bolted from the negotiating table after offering writers $250 for their work on the Internet. It was probably out of embarrassment at being so greedy. That or they were simply having too hard a time trying keep a straight face.

Lost Moguls: Have You Seen Them? Reward Offered.

It's tragic when a dog runs away. It's even worse when a media mogul runs away. Back on December 7th, someone left the door open, and the moguls all dashed out of negotiations into the street and haven't been seen since.

Our friend "Rubber Poultry" designed a series of Missing Mogul posters to help us track them down. And a reward is offered! If anyone can lure these moguls back to the table, he or she will receive the respect and gratitude of the entire entertainment industry.

Our first poster features an old but loveable mutt, "Sumner."



Printable pdf file.

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.

Wall Street: Congloms Let Town Suffer Rather Than Make Fair Deal

Last week, Wall Street firm Bear Stearns issued a report stating that even if the Writers Guild got every single provision it has been asking for in a new contract, the impact on the conglomerates' bottom line would be "negligible." It's encouraging to see Wall Street saying what we've known all along: that the WGA's proposals are fair, reasonable and affordable. (They don't even keep up with inflation!) On the other hand, it is absolutely infuriating that the companies would walk out of negotiations and happily keep thousands of people out of work and wreak havoc on the LA economy over something... "negligible." It is not negligible to countless families in our industry and our region.

MediaPost.com has a summary of the Bear Stearns report here (reg. req.) The highlights:

"From Wall Street's perspective, we estimate the impact of accepting the [writers'] proposal is largely negligible," Bear Stearns wrote in a report last week.
The firm estimates that the $120 million figure would carry an average impact of less than 1% on annual earnings per share for the media companies. That does not factor in any concessions by the writers' side (the WGA), where the principal issue is a desire for a piece of ad dollars from new-media distribution.
The potentially small financial impact suggests that studios (Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers) are more concerned about setting a precedent in new-media revenue sharing. However, Bear Stearns wrote that the writers' forecast for that market "strikes us as fairly aggressive." The firm hinted that studios are looking to the future. They are concerned that a favorable settlement would embolden directors and actors in their coming renegotiations.

UPDATE: FCC Continues to Push Media Consolidation - Act Now!

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seems dead set on pushing through a wildly unpopular media consolidation policy that would allow media moguls to gobble up more local news, radio, and newspaper outlets. The American people aren't happy about it, and neither are many leading politicians.

How, you ask, is this directly related to the writer's strike against the giant media conglomerates? This policy would consolidate more power in the hands of few. There is already too much media consolidation, too much vertical integration, and too much abuse of power by the few who own these companies: Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, New Corp., GE, Sony...



To read posts and conversations from Sen. Kerry and Rep. Louise Slaughter regarding their disappointment with Martin's actions, check out:
http://freepress.net/actionnetwork/node/335

And to sign a petition urging your Senators and Representatives to ask Congress to stop media consolidation,
click here.

UPDATE: FCC Media Consolidation - Act Now!

From Free Press:

The Federal Communications Commission approved new rules that
will unleash a flood of media consolidation across America. The
new rules will further consolidate local media markets -- taking
away independent voices in cities already woefully short on
local news and investigative journalism.

Congress has the power to throw out these rules -- and if
100,000 people demand it, they'll have to listen. Click on the
link below to sign the open letter to Congress urging them to
stop the FCC and stand with the public interest.

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/sbmopenletter/

Writers and Advertisers Talking

Last week a coalition of WGA members went to NYC to talk with the seven largest media buyers on Wall Street.

These ad buyers are the large corporations (like Proctor & Gamble, Johson & Johnson, etc.) who advertise on TV and pay the networks' bills.

Our WGA crew, lead by Matthew Weiner, showrunner of "Mad Men," laid out our position to the advertisers -- who for some reason might not be getting entirely accurate forecasts from their corporate customers like CBS.

The event was a success. The coalition of media buyers agreed that our demands are reasonable and that it was "irresponsible on the part of the networks not to settle this dispute immediately."

Our hope is to enlist advertisers as our allies -- settling the strike is in their interest as well as ours. They agreed to put pressure on the conglomerates to do the only thing that will end the strike: come back to the table and negotiate a fair deal.

Jack Myers reported in his article "Advertisers and Agencies Meet with Writers as Long Strike Seems Pre-Ordained" about the meetings, and quotes Sarah Fay, CEO of Carat U.S. and Isobar:

"The strike is a huge issue for advertisers. It seems like the networks are intent on burning their own house. And ours! Not only that, but it also appears that the industry press, and of course the news channels, won't cover the writers' side fairly because of politics. They [The Writers] are now talking to people like me because they want us to know how dire the situation is."

Myers goes on to discuss deals that Writers are making directly with advertisers as they migrate away from the studios and networks, and to the internet.

In the interim, Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane has contracted with Google to develop a series of sponsored five-minute mini-programs. Rather than residuals, McFarlane will retain 50 percent ownership of the copyright. Other WGA members are forming ventures to take their work directly to the internet, allowing them to deal directly with advertisers.

The media buyers get it. The public gets it. The congloms appear to be the only ones who don't understand -- their determination to keep internet revenues all to themselves is damaging their own businesses, and even the rosiest predictions about ad revenue are starting to be questioned.

Sooner or later, Wall Street is going to get involved -- advertisers shareholders, media conglomerate shareholders. Burning down the house -- everyone's house -- for the sake of corporate greed isn't going to fly.

The AMPTP needs to come back to the table and negotiate in good faith. And we're not the only ones telling them to do it.

MoveOn.Org Petition - Bring Back "The Daily Show"

The political website moveon.org has started a petition to bring back "The Daily Show":

Why are The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and other TV shows in re-runs? TV studios are refusing to pay writers fairly--causing them to strike.

The studios will make over $120 million in ad revenue this year showing TV programs on the web. But they want to give writers a one-time payment of $250�that's right, $250�for unlimited use of their content online. This unbelievable greed is keeping Jon Stewart and his team off the air.

Can you sign this petition to the studio executives--and then ask all your friends who love "The Daily Show" to sign it too?

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to the major studio executives.

Nick Counter's Nickel Counter

This animated comparison of how many nickels the conglomerates have made off of "new" media vs. how many nickels writers have made was sent to us by a mysterious supporter known as "Four Cent." Thanks for the hard work, FC.

Congloms Fiddle While California Goes Up In Flames

The holidays are beginning. Writers are on strike. Productions are shutting down. Thousands are out of work. The talks are stalled.

For writers it doesn't feel as if the talks ever really started.

In any negotiation, it's important to see the other side's point of view, but that hasn't been very easy to do. Rollbacks of benefits. No compensation for re-use. Exclusion from future markets.

Those don't feel like starting points.

We all understand the gamesmanship that goes into negotiations. Theatrics can be expected. But reasonable people try to keep the process under control.

As they walked away from the table, the congloms slammed the door behind them, muttering darkly about unprofessionalism. But during the six weeks of the strike, the AMPTP has not yet presented a fully detailed financial proposal.

Strikes are supposed to have a sense of urgency.

Both sides understand the damage created by a work stoppage. We all know the hardship created by people losing their jobs. The impact of the strike is felt in the city and the state.

This couldn't be a worse time to put added strains on the economy of California.

In the last week, the state has issued a series of reports that project a $14 billion dollar deficit for the next year. Either taxes have to be raised or expenditures will have to be slashed 10-12%. That means less money for schools, health care, and essential public services.

There's never a good time for a strike, but the state is telling us this is a really bad time.

What's needed now is to have the negotiations restart with focus and a determination to end the strike as quickly as possible.

The chant has been heard plenty of times before--"Come back to the table"--but the sense of urgency is greater now than ever before.

Stop Big Media Before Christmas

Freepress.net announces:

[Yesterday] in the Congress, powerful US Senators from both parties berated FCC Chairman Kevin Martin about his plans to open the floodgates of media consolidation across America on December 18th. ... Free Press launched a 3-minute "Junk Media" video to sound the alarm, and rally opposition to the December 18th vote. www.stopbigmedia.com.

We Extend Our Condolences to Les Moonves

United Hollywood is keeping CBS mogul Les Moonves in its thoughts and prayers. As Bloomberg news reports, Moonves signed a new compensation package worth, on the low end, $30 million dollars per year. But shockingly, his base salary was cruelly cut from $5.6 million in 2006 to a mere $3.5 million in 2007. Such a devastating loss of income must be particularly difficult around the holidays. It certainly is for all of us on strike or put out of work.

Perhaps when this strike is resolved -- and we writers, below the line crew, actors and directors have our income restored -- we can all chip in to help Les Moonves through his time of need. Until then, Les, if you need a place to crash, I have a futon.

UPDATE: Okay, ha ha, joke joke, vitriol. Hijack! The point here is that the companies can not claim poverty or claim that compensating workers fairly will "destroy the industry" while, in the case of CBS, they are compensating one man -- in one year -- twenty-one times what it would cost CBS to compensate the entire union everything in its proposal over three years. (The WGA propsal would cost CBS only $4.6 million per year.)

As I've written before, somewhere Nick Counter's elementary school math teacher is shaking her head.

MTVN Freelancers Win One for the Little Guy!

Something wonderful happened yesterday: A walkout by employees at MTV Networks successfully forced the company to restore most of the benefits it had announced would be rolled back. United Hollywood, and I personally, congratulate those who organized (yeah, I said it) this inspiring effort.

MTVN, part of megacorp Viacom, had announced the benefit rollback in a cartoonishly heartless way, as the New York Press reported:

The offense that originally prompted action on [the employees'] part occurred December 4 when they were instructed to pick up their holiday party invitations. They were then instructed to fill out �additional paperwork,� that was due two days later on Thursday, December 6. This paperwork contained the news that they were no longer entitled to their 401(k) plans, dental insurance, paid vacation days (of which they had five, and now have 0), holidays, and that the 50-hour workweek would become the norm, after which hourly wage earners were eligible for overtime. Says one freelancer, �They�ve just informed us that if we entered the company less than one year ago and work for an hourly wage (as most people under management-level do), we will not get paid for one day off.�

The affected employees were "permanent-freelancers" (CEOs sure hate the word "employees") at MTV and VH1. The workers walked out Monday through yesterday and chanted, "We want teeth," in reference to their slashed dental plan. CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO.

The New York Times reports that so called "permalancers" are often subject to exploitation. If you have questions as to whether these mega-corporations should be calling you an "employee" instead of a "perma-not-really-works-for-me-helper", then visit this site, where you can download a "Determination of Worker Status" IRS form. Several employees have filed class action suits against their large corporate employers. These corporations are then forced to pay back taxes and penalties, and redefine their "independent contractors" as "employees" - providing them benefits, etc. (UH's Kate Purdy co-wrote this post.)

Union Solidarity - We're All on the Same Page

What Do the Moguls Want from the FCC?

The short answer: more power.

The longer answer: a ruling that would allow them to own all the media outlets in a city. Currently, they can't own the newspaper, the TV stations, and the radio stations all in one town. That makes life complicated for them - they just can't... own everything. Which must be quite frustrating.

Check out this video from a November 2nd, Bill Moyers broadcast. Despite the public response to the media consolidation proposal, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin still wants to push it through:



However, public outcry, and concern on Capitol Hill has led to this:

Two key House lawmakers announced Monday that they were investigating the Federal Communications Commission, accusing its chairman of "possible abuse of power" and a failure to operate fairly and openly in handling proposed cable TV and media ownership regulations.
--As reported by Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, December 4, 2007.

Add your voice to this public debate by visiting:
Reclaim the Media, where you can send an email to Congress.

Or visit Stop Big Media and Free Press.

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.

Tonight on their action network at 8:00 p.m. ET (5:00 p.m. PT) you can join Jason Ross, of the "Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Kate Purdy (me), of "Cold Case," and Marty Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at University of Southern California, for a live online discussion on how media consolidation has hurt writers, silenced independent voices, and eroded quality entertainment.

The Playbook of the AMPTP

(The following is from WGA Member Tom Schulman.)

Fellow Members,

A few years ago, I was on the WGA Negotiating Committee. As negotiations with the AMPTP were drawing to a close, I went to a dinner party where I happened to be seated next to a gentleman who until recently had been for decades the chief negotiator for the Companies in another segment of the entertainment industry. He was a wiry guy, and he had a sense of humor. When I asked him if he was the Nick Counter of that particular part of the industry, he smiled and said wryly that he thought he was better than Nick but, yes, that was a fair comparison. He said he knew Nick and admired him. For an hour and a half, sprinkled in with the small talk, he told me about his negotiating strategy. After the party, I went to my car and jotted down as much of it as I could remember. I thought it might be useful to share it with you now:

Strategy for Hardball Negotiations:

Piss off the leaders and spokespersons for the other side. A leader who loses his temper loses something in negotiations. Why?

1) Anger clouds judgment.

2) It�s human nature to want to be liked, even in a tough-as-nails negotiator. A person who loses his temper is embarrassed, usually comes and apologizes, and always gives something away to get back into the good graces of the other side.

The end game is the money, but hardball negotiations aren't about money, until the end. The real game is dividing and conquering.

Tactics:

* Lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.

* Raise and lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.

* Do everything possible to destroy the credibility of the other side�s leadership, divide and conquer.

* Use confidants and back channels to go over the heads of the stronger leaders to the softer targets. Divide and conquer.

* When you figure out the other side�s bottom line, offer a fraction. It�s surprising how many times that stands.

Sound familiar? If you examine the recent "leaks," comments, and press releases from the other side, you'll realize this is exactly the strategy the Companies are employing against us today. And why not? It's worked for them for the last 20 years! They are putting us on an emotional roller coaster by raising and lowering our expectations, attacking our leaders, trying to pit the town against us, refusing to move on the issues that matter to us, bragging about their generosity when the opposite is true, fear mongering and claiming we're going to ruin this industry � hoping we'll splinter, lose faith in and attack each other, negotiate against ourselves, and cave.

As events unfold in the next several days and weeks, we should have no doubt about what the Companies are really up to and what to expect from them. But this time, in every way possible, we must let them know we're on to them and their strategy won't work. We understand their game, our solidarity and resolve are greater than ever, and we're going to stay strong � and reasonable � until we get a fair deal.

Let's return to the picket lines every day with a powerful show of force. As Patric says, we're all in this together.

In solidarity,

Tom Schulman

WGAW Board of Directors

"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.

Joss Whedon Looks Into A Crystal Ball...

(From WGA Member Joss Whedon, originally posted on Whedonesque)

We're a week away from Mutant Enemy Picket day! Since the AMPTP have generously offered us a thimble of sputum in exchange for everything written ever, I think it's fair to say it won't be a picnic.

And in two weeks, I'll be in Boston, speechifying (look for some long, fancy words, yo) and rallying shoulder to shoulder with, among other people, my dad, who somehow lived through both the '88 strike and my adolescence. Word. (Long fancy.)

And after that? Well, we might take this to the streets of some other cities. Get the word out, remind everyone that corporate greed (it's nothing but) is hurting everyone in this country. Not just because they're robbing people of entertainment (and, on occasion, art) and strangling an entire (non-writing) community, but because they're sending a message to every union in the country: you're next. The actors know that in their case, it's literally true, but it's also true for the concept of a unionized workforce. We get a lot of flack for being well-fed, glamorous, rich and powerful. We've worked hard to dispel that stereotype but in fact, a select few of us are wealthy and influential. And we have the support of some of the most famous and beloved (and wealthy and influential) people in the country: TV and movie stars! So the fact that the studios feel perfectly comfortable SPITTING IN OUR FACES in front of the whole world cannot bode well for any other union that works under them -- or under anyone who sees how easy it is to deny the basic rights of workers even so public as we. This is bad for writers, bad for actors, teamsters, teachers, nurses, dockworkers... the shape of this country is changing. The middle class is being squeezed out. We're trundling back to the middle ages, people, and all we can do is lie there and take it.

But of course, that's not what's going to happen. The studios mean to starve us out. They can't. We know what's at stake. We take care of our own, and those around us who aren't our own. We dig in. And eventually, if after months of deadlock we still can't make an equitable deal, you will start to see real change. Change in the way we entertain you, change in the essential structure of America's most popular export. (Unless it's corn. Is it corn?) The fact is, the studios have been robbing us for twenty years. (Actually, it's been much longer, but the statute of limitations says I should let 'em off easy.) This grotesque insult of a negotiation is the end of an era. It will be remembered as the stupidest move the conglomotainment empires ever made. WE ASKED FOR PRACTICALLY NOTHING. And they...

Something snaps. Something changes. Chaos, meet opportunity. Let them try to starve us out. We won't just survive. We will THRIVE. We're known as a creative community, and those numb f#$%ing frost-giants are about to find out we're a lot more of both than they knew.

If they come back to the table this very Tuesday next with the deal we need (and they won't), the change will still have come. The snap. The thing that broke, that can't be fixed. The eye, still wincing from the light, but finally wide open.

Good going, guys! Way to think it through.