ABC joins the cut brigade

ABC has joined most of the other broadcast nets in opting to cut back some of its scripted development for the 2008-09 season.

Alphabet telegraphed its intention to reduce its script roster last week, but until today, it hadn’t made any moves in that direction. In the meantime, CBS, Fox and the CW all informed dozens of scribes that their projects were no longer wanted.

NBC Wednesday said it wouldn’t trim back any of its script orders for next season.

--Josef Adalian

Comments

[Frank Sr.]

Nothing like enlightend leadership to keep the wga working and strong

[Shill Spotter]

Nothing like ignorant know-nothings to unwittingly help the despotic AMPTP

[shillspotterisadonkey]

^^^^^^^
...nothing like donkeys like you that think anybody that doesn't agree with the wga leadership is a plant...

sorry asshole but people actually do have minds of their own and can make their own assupmtions..

i wish my union leaders would say stipid shit like " i go to these rallies and i'm treated like a rock star..i lay back and look at all the havoc i wreaked .."( on the ecnonomy?)

or how about stuff like saying the wga's struggle is the same as the naacp's.????? ( another great one!!)

well when people unleash police dogs and spray you with fire hoses when you're picketing then maybe you can say something to that effect. bcause that is really ignorant to compare the two.

but ignorance seems to be the pre-requisite for wga leadership.

people that praise david young and verrone remind of the imbociles that still drive around with " bush/cheny " stickers.

[Shill spotter]

Don't get the wrong idea, folks. The above poster didn't call me a donkey because he's trying to put me down, God no. He's just pointing out the fact that I can go long distances without needing water.

[Peggy]

The other misinterpreted quotes aside, when did anyone from the guild say that thing about the NAACP? Link, please.

[The Devil Can Quote The Bible For His Own Purposes]

Yes, David Young wants to wreak havoc on the economy. Or maybe he was talking about using the strike for the purpose it's meant -- to "strike at" AMPTP and slow their productivity since they refuse to offer a fair deal to their employees. But keep throwing that quotation around like David Young purpose here is the annihilation of Los Angeles, because sure, that's what the WGA is fighting for. "shillspotterisadonkey "? What a tool.

[Geena]

Although this strike is killing me financially, I have stayed fairly silent while these two groups work it out. But I do think that to call people a "shill" for having any opinion that doesn't perfectly coincide with one's own, is ridiculous. No matter how open minded I try to be, the minute I read this I completely disregard every other post made by this individual as it demonstrates a lack of objectivity and therefore credibility.

[The Shill Spotter]

I do not make these accusations lightly, Geena. Nor is it universally applied. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the methods by which writers are trying to get a fair deal. Only after repeated avoidance of any true debate, repeated disinclination to recognize that the AMPTP may have even the tiniest culpability towards the writers having to strike, and repeated immature and callous posts that illustrate this behavior, do I act in a like fashion. Frank Jr., Joe, Fi Core, Stewart Creque, they've earned this label. Check it out for yourself. Until then, welcome and godspeed...

[Stuart Creque]

Yes, Geena - by all means, read the various posts I've made on the threads in this blog. Then, if you take issue with them, I will be happy to discuss them with you here or privately (since I use my real name, I am not that hard to locate).

Until then, you can observe how, rather than engage in "true debate," a lot of folks who disagree with me or take issue with me ignore the opportunity to give me new information that might change my opinion and instead dismiss me as uninformed, a shill, a troll.

Here's an example: I posted the suggestion that the WGA use the period between this contract negotiation and the one three years down the line to build a strike fund sufficient to carry the members through another prolonged strike -- on the principle that if the AMPTP sees a union prepared to endure a long strike, they'll be more likely to bargain in good faith to avoid one. The response on this board: "If you knew anything about the industry, you'd know the WGA has a strike fund."

What I know about the industry is that the WGA's strike fund is not so fat that it can keep the striking members from worrying about their financial solvency. On this blog, in the thread "WGA's Friday picket at NBC: 'All we've seen is the press release,'" a picketing WGA member drove the point home in an unguaraded moment:

"'Why didn't they offer this to the writers,' asked screenwriter Tom Flynn, who was candid in discussing his financial straits. 'We're about two months away from leasing out our house.'"

And the WGA is running a benefit concert for the strike fund next Friday, Feb. 1, at Buzby's East on Wilshire. A good cause (I personally donated to the Actors Fund, which disburses to actors and crew members as well as writers). However, my suggestion is simply that, once the strike is over, the WGA actively fund its strike fund at a much higher rate and encourage other Hollywood guilds and unions to do the same. Having large strike funds on hand across all unions makes labor solidarity a lot easier to maintain.

To make this suggestion, however, I must be some sort of shill or troll, uninformed, anti-labor and subject to vague threats that I'll never work in Hollywood. At least, according to the individuals whose mission in life is to neutralize my one-man threat to truth, justice and the American labor movement (the latter of which some of these people might not recognize if it bit them on the backside).

[The Shill Spotter]

You're a troll, Stuart, because you post ill-informed suggestions and observations instead of asking questions. If you asked about the health of the fund, you would know that the fund is well-funded and no one in true need has been turned away. Do you know if this ONE person you're citing has applied for aid from the fund? Do you have insider info that the fund is dwindling? No. You simply suggest that the fund is underfunded and needs to be looked at. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a troll, Stuart, because you have not once discussed the possibility that this strike was forced and orchestrated by AMPTP. That they have an agenda. That despite the best efforts of the WGA, we're being played by ruthless cutthroat corporations. Not saying that's definitely the case (though I believe it is), but you've never even recognized the possibility. You simply hammer away at the perceived ineptitude of the guild. You've contradicted yourself on threads I've read, blaming the guild for getting screwed by the home video formula because they didn't have the foresight to recognize the future of home video, then chiding the guild for attempting to recognize the future of the internet, labeling it a "future model" that the guild shouldn't be striking over. Your anti-guild rhetoric couldn't have rung any clearer.

You are inexplicably biased, and you never, ever recognize any positive actions of the guild. You act as if they don't exist. You are undermining a guild of which you desperately want to become a member, but have been unsuccessful in doing so. It's not too difficult to understand what's going on here.

You're a troll, plain and simple. A well-versed troll, but a troll nonetheless. Using your real name is not always the smart move, Stuart, no matter how honest and brave you think you're being. In this instance, it's actually incredibly stupid.

So, yes, Geena, look at Stuart's posts and decide for yourself.

[Stuart Creque]

"You're a troll, Stuart, because you have not once discussed the possibility that this strike was forced and orchestrated by AMPTP. That they have an agenda. That despite the best efforts of the WGA, we're being played by ruthless cutthroat corporations."

Of course the AMPTP has an agenda. Of course the AMPTP is going into every contract negotiation thinking of how it's going to maximize profit -- including, surprise, surprise, at the expense of compensation to labor (not recognizing that maybe short-term cuts to labor costs might result in long-term declines in revenues and profits).

My criticism of the WGA is not that it has refused to grab its ankles and take whatever the AMPTP offers. My criticism is that the WGA hasn't always made the best moves in the face of a well-funded and, dare I say, ruthless adversary.

If you look at what the exec director of the SAG said in response to the question of whether the SAG will go on strike, his response is dead solid perfect:

"Having the capacity and will to strike when companies are intransigent is something a union has to have; otherwise, you're engaged in collective begging," Allen responds. "Given what's going on, we'd be shortsighted not to be prepared."

If you are going to tell me that the WGA was as prepared as it could ever have been before it went on strike, and that it chose to start the strike at the optimum moment for maximum leverage, then tell me so -- and tell me why you believe that to be true. If you think I am going to cause the strike to collapse from stating a different opinion, you have (a) a far higher opinion of the value of my opinion than I do, and (b) far less faith in the solidarity of your union's rank and file than I do.

But please, don't let me puncture your self-importance as the Masked Defender of the WGA. As you can plainly see, I am all for self-importance.

Oh, and please direct me to the WGA's Political Officer in Charge of What Members of the Public Are Allowed to Say in Public Forums. I will happily send him or her advance copies of my posts, if you think that will help.

[The Shill Spotter]

The collective opinion of the WGA is that AMPTP has yet to truly negotiate with us in good faith. At all. At meetings we are given information that supports this assertion. It's difficult to be prepared for that kind of entity when it sits across from you, and strategy is relatively inconsequential when your opponent has no intention to reasonably engage you. Then, to add insult to injury, trolls like you never recognize the possibility that this is what we're up against, you only continue to dig and dig at the WGA. It's unbelievably frustrating.

As far as the timing of the strike, yes, I feel the timing was right. The AMPTP expected us to wait for the SAG contract to expire. They were planning to stockpile accordingly. We couldn't allow that. Additionally, when you make a huge concession and get nothing in return as promised, it's time to strike.

I stand by my accusations. Saying that you agree that the AMPTP has an agenda is like saying you understand Hitler doesn't like Matzoh. You're understating their union-breaking intent to a huge degree. There are posters on this site who have stated unfavorable opinion of the WGA, and they don't get attacked. You do, because you are incessantly all over this board all the time and many of your opinions are ill-informed and harmful. Don't you have anything else to do, Stuart? You post and post and post and post, all anti-WGA. Everyone has the right to their opinion. When it's forced on us over and over again by the same blowhard, pardon us if we start taking offense. This is our life. You're playing non-stop color-commentator for reasons I can't fathom.

However, keep blathering on all you want, you of course have the right. I have the right to assess your opinion as biased, uninformed, and unfair. And the fact that you said you are for "self-importance," even mockingly, is the first thing you've said that makes sense, Stuart. This is your chance to play with the grown-ups. When the strike is over, you'll fade away with all the other trolls.

[Geena]

The word "shill" in itself is offensive to me as it has been misused so often towards innocent, yet seriously effected people who only wish to state their feelings, ideas and opinions on the situation. This word is used with the intention of insulting and bullying anyone who doesn't love each and every step that the WGA has taken.

[Geena]

I feel the same way about "troll". Name calling is a good way to alienate people who may find areas of agreement with you and support you overall. Hardworking people who don't deserve the financial hardship that they are suffering but might be willing to suck it up and take the screwing just to support you if it weren't for this kind of thing.

[Stuart Creque]

"It's unbelievably frustrating."

Can you please explain to me why you would feel frustration because I don't agree with you, or at least agree to shut up when you tell me to? Why, if my crime is being ill-informed, do you simply repeat the charge instead of providing information to cure my condition?

You know that the WGA has strike rules in place that promise retribution against non-member writers who scab for struck companies -- that is entirely as it should be, and I abide by those rules. I wasn't aware there was also a strike rule that says non-members can't say anything critical about the WGA.

Oh, wait -- you said that other people who post criticism of the WGA here may not deserve to be shadowed and denounced at every turn. I can't fathom why you think I'm any more noteworthy that they are.

Since you responded to my question about the strike's timing, perhaps you will inform me a bit further. If the WGA membership had slowed down script delivery through the summer and not rushed to deliver scripts at the last minute to beat the strike deadline, it could have stretched out the strike deadline by "working to rule" -- and then struck on Jan. 1, in plenty of time to hold the awards shows hostage while being two months closer to the SAG's contract deadline. Is that incorrect? Is it not possible to slow down scriptwriting while still meeting the letter of the contract, so as to prevent stockpiling? If it had been possible, might it have had some strategic benefit? Just asking.

[The Shill Spotter]

We're not frustrated because you don't agree with us Stuart. We're frustrated because the AMPTP is taking us for a ride, and we have little control over the situation. So for you to tell us over and over again how badly we're driving when, in our opinion, we have no control of the vehicle, it's maddening. And by the way, I'm not telling you to shut up. I'm not telling you you have to agree with me. Blather away. Keep harping on the areas I pointed out above in my post of 2:37. Additionally, tell us how our past efforts to organize reality "sucked." (I loved that one). As I explained, the difference between you and the others is the sheer volume of your anti-WGA posts. Go ahead, keep posting them. I, and a lot of other posters on here, will continue to counter your posts by letting you know they're often (certainly not always) uninformed and unfair. To your credit, at least you present your anti-WGA bias cordially, unlike many of the trolls (sorry Geena) who sound like they're writing ransom notes.

I and others have provided you information. You never agree. You use doublespeak, inaccurate numbers ($20 for a 1000 hits? When TV and the internet converge, when all content is delivered via the web, do you think the collective advertising take per episode for shows like CSI and Gray's Anatomy is going to be $20,000 per rating point (roughly a million viewers)? Are you out of your mind?!?!?!) Like a child who incessantly asks "Why" over and over again, you don't listen to the answers, you just post and post and disagree no matter what the answer, often to the point where you contradict yourself.

I'll give you one more piece of info: you can't dictate a "script slowdown" to 12,000 people. It sounds nice in theory, but the truth is, writers are desperate for success, and as long as they think another writer isn't slowing down, neither will they. When I left the November meeting, a friend of mine informed me she was going to be writing all night in case we struck the next day. I didn't like that, but I understood it. I don't like admitting that, but mass human behavior has to be factored into the equation. Also factor in contractual deadlines, and the fact that TV shows shoot every week and have to have scripts, and the only truly effective work slowdown for writers is a strike. So there you go, an ugly fact about us as a group. One that I'm not proud to admit, but I did anyway.

So that's it Stuart. Like some other posters who have engaged you and then stopped because you always have to have the disagreeable last word, I'm finished with this exchange. It'd be great if you surprised me and acknowledged a sliver of anything I said, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, the floor is yours, go ahead, I'm done.

[Stuart Creque]

Shill Spotter, or Caroline Bender, or whoever else: I am sorry that you feel the AMPTP is taking you for a ride and that you have no control over the situation. It seems to an outsider that you are standing up to the AMPTP and making it deal with you in order to get its businesses back into production. That speaks to a degree of control over the situation -- that is, it says you are taking the actions you have control over to try to obtain the best outcome you can.

That's what a strike is. Maybe ride isn't such a bad metaphor -- it's like a ride on a unbroken bronco, and you have no choice but to hold on until the bucking stops and the horse gets reasonable. Because if you let go -- if you break solidarity in the strike -- you'll land on your ass and the horse will trot one more lap around the corral.

Your Guild's leadership has done a tremendous job of maintaining solidarity among the striking members and of building an alliance with SAG. Verrone and Young both deserve personal kudos for their willingness to give up reality and animation jurisdiction (I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they obtained an undisclosed but vital commitment from the AMPTP in return), because both of them had strong personal reasons to keep those demands on the table. The strike sure looks like the main reason the DGA was able to get the AMPTP to concede two points -- distributor's gross and opening their books for deal verification -- that they had told the WGA to drop as a precondition of returning to the table.

There are other tools that unions traditionally use that amplify the value of the strike weapon -- sometimes so much that the mere threat of a strike achieves their goals. Your observation about the difficulty of getting the rank and file to slow down script delivery means that one of those tools isn't being used. It would be a good thing to have that tool available in future contract rounds, and the experience of this strike may make it easier to convince your brothers and sisters in the Guild of the value of that kind of pre-strike solidarity.

I still say that David Young had not shown much success as an organizer for WGA West in the two years before the strike. I still say the effort to organize America's Next Top Model was a high-profile failure. Are there many reality and animation shows that Young organized that weren't publicized?

Yes, $20 CPM seems to be where video pre-roll ads line up on the Internet today. Will the revenue model for TV-over-Internet be different from this? Sure -- and it will also be quite different from the revenue model of traditional network broadcast. There's consumer research that says that adding too much ad content to streamed video content on the Internet causes viewer fall-off. It's just possible a viewer on the Internet won't be willing to sit through six ad blocks of two minutes each in an hour-long streamed program, but maybe they can tolerate four or six 15-second spots.

I am willing to be proven wrong. Just so you know where I get my figures, here's some of my source data:

Adweek, August 22, 2007

In shunning pre-rolls for targeted ad invitations, Google is borrowing a page from several startups, including VideoEgg and ScanScout, which have tried overlay video ad features.

Google has signed up 3,000 professional content providers (such as CBS) and 70 independent YouTube creators for the overlays; it will split revenue with those producers, Seth said. Google has no plans to place advertising on user-generate clips, he added.

It is launching with six advertisers, including New Line Cinema and Warner Music, at a cost-per-thousand viewer rate of $20. In one execution running in a music clip, 20th Century Fox promotes The Simpsons Movie with an animation of Homer chasing a doughnut across the screen. Clicking on the spot brings up the movie's trailer in a small video player.

TragetSpot.com - online ad buying service:

Cost & Pricing

TargetSpot enables advertisers of all sizes and budgets to reach their target audience. Starting with as little as $50.00 USD, you can purchase ads by CPM (cost per thousand impressions) through our easy-to-use online bidding tool.

The bidding process is simple. You set a maximum CPM (how much you want to pay for every 1000 ads delivered) and we'll instantly provide you with an estimate of total impressions your ad can receive. Then you can set your bid and overall budget based on your campaign goals.

Minimum bids are listed below, but you can choose to bid higher to increase your likelihood of reaching your audience.

Ad Type Minimum Bid
10 second Audio $2.50 CPM
15 second Audio $3.75 CPM
30 second Audio $7.50 CPM
60 second Audio $15.00 CPM
Video Pre-Roll* $15.00 CPM
Text Ad* $2.00 CPM
Graphic Ad* $2.00 CPM

* Coming soon

[Jim]

Anyone who uses the word 'shill' or 'troll' while posting is a total moron. Anyone who actually is stupid enough to use it as their pseudonym is even worse. I mean, could you make yourself any more of a joke?

It seems that anyone who dares to disagree with how the WGA has handled this strike is a shill or a troll. But when called on it, idiots like shillspotter suddenly backtrack and start with the "I don't use the term lightly!" Give me a break - it's your pseudonym, dummy.

Like I've said since the beginning of the strike - I am for the WGA making the best deal they can against the conglomerates. But with idiots like shillspotter on our side, attacking anyone who dares to disagree with the direction the strike has taken - it makes me queasy to be a member.

[Frank Sr.]

To Jim,Thank you for your candor,its refreashing and instills in me(a below the line worker) and I hope others ,that peace can be achieved,and a settlement soon,today is my sabbath so I'm on my way to Mass,I'll pray and ask first for my forgiveness,but I will also pray(among many other things) for EVERYONE touched by this strike I also ask for anyone I have offended to forgive me I am truly sorry

[The Shill Spotter]

I've already addressed that this isn't about "anyone" who disagrees with the WGA. So "Jim" it's hard to believe you're a writer since you clearly can't read. Or maybe you write for "Reader's Digest" since you subscribe to capsulized anthologies that omit/disregard important statements and passages, just like your posts. Anyway, if God is in the details, you're clearly an atheist, you asswipe.

To Stuart -- nice post. Sincerely.

[Peggy]

I believe this whole thing started with a snarky and sarcastic potshot by frank at the top. But Jim attacks the guy who calls him on it instead. Sort of like everyone who's attacking the WGA for standing up to the AMPTP. Keep keeping people honest, shill spotter. A lot of us love your posts.

[Jake]

Has anyone actually read the posts that this Shill Spotter guy responds to? Have you, Jim? Shill spotter is right, they do sound like ransom notes. With the exception of Stuart Creque, who sounds like an adult, they're not just disagreeing with the WGA, they're attacking them in a petulant and unfair manner that doesn't deserve a respectful response. It's not my style, but all Shill Spotter is doing is giving as good as he (or the WGA) gets.

[shortgirl]

Stuart says above "It's just possible a viewer on the Internet won't be willing to sit through six ad blocks of two minutes each in an hour-long streamed program, but maybe they can tolerate four or six 15-second spots."

Let me get this straight, a TV viewer will sit through 20 minutes of ads for an hour show but they won't sit for 12 minutes of ads online. Makes total sense to me.

[Stuart Creque]

shortgirl: Google did a study -- viewers online on YouTube are reluctant even to sit through a 15 second pre-roll.

Same Adweek article I cited above:

"While 15- and 30-second pre-roll spots, most often repurposed TV commercials, make up the overwhelming majority of video ads, YouTube said consumers find them irritating and distracting. A 15-second spot placed before YouTube videos resulted in a 75 percent abandonment rate, said Shashi Seth, a YouTube group product manager. The overlay style generated just a 10 percent drop-off, he said.

"'We found that with pre-roll and any video advertising that interrupts the viewing experience itself, the abandonment rate was so high we didn't feel comfortable launching with it,' he said."

That's one of the differences between the online world and the traditional broadcast/cable world. It's one of the reasons TiVo boxes are popular: no one really WANTS to sit through 15 minutes of non-prgram content in a one-hour drama, but unitl now they've had no choice. TiVo lets them skip commercials. Their expectation is that the Internet will give them the same freedom.

From Adweek, Oct. 31, 2007:

"Hulu, the newly launched video platform from NBC Universal and News Corp., is experimenting with different ad formats for short- and long-form content. One tried-and-true tactic it is not using: 30-second units running before clips and full-length shows.

"For the 90 half-hour and full-hour programs it carries, Hulu runs sponsor introductions (rather than pre-roll commercials) at the start of the shows. Many have a single sponsor, with half-hour programs running two minutes of ads—about 25 percent the amount shown on traditional TV. (Hulu's practice discourages advertisers from running the same spot several times per episode.)

"'We think it's a higher quality experience for users and advertisers alike,' said Jason Kilar, the former Amazon.com executive who is Hulu's CEO.

"In Web video's early days, pre-roll spots have been the dominant form of advertising in both short- and long-form content, despite surveys that show high user annoyance with the format. Google tested pre-roll ads before launching its AdSense video network earlier this month and determined they provided a poor user experience."

This is the new world we are all going to live in. One reason that the Internet has made a number of people like Sergey Brin of Google or Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com immensely rich is that it's enabled them to replace "traditional" business processes with more efficient ones. That means that they get very rich by making a whole lot of other businesses poorer. What TV viewers did when their only options were three broadcast networks and two local independent stations does not dictate what they will do when they have instant on-demand access to all filmed entertainment ever made, and the revenue models will be very, very different.

[Stuart Creque]

Shill Spotter: "To Stuart -- nice post. Sincerely."

Thanks. Please understand that I am very pro-union. It's in my heredity, going back several generations.

The future is about to look very, very different from the past -- like 1948, when the motion picture industry had no idea of what would happen to them when the radios in people's homes were suddenly able to show moving pictures. All of the entertainment industry unions will face the challenge of finding their place in this new world.

[SCOTT SUMMIT]

I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE OF ONLINE REVENUE STREAMS WILL BE DRIVEN BY A PAY TO PLAY REVENUE STREAM, IF YOU WANT THE SHOW YOU MUST PAY FIRST. PAYMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED THROUGH PAY PAL. THE WRITERS' UNION IS CURRENTLY IN A VERY UNIQUE POSITION. THE WORLD IS BEGGING FOR PROGRAMMING AND THE WRITERS ARE THE ULTIMATE CREATORS. THE W.G.A. COULD INSTANTLY TURN THE TABLES IF THEY CREATED THEIR OWN ONLINE NETWORK AND CONTINUED PRODUCTION ON STRIKING SHOWS.

[An observer]

Scott--
The writers, actors and others can get together to put shows online, but not the striking shows because they do not own any part of those (the idea, the sets, the technical equipment)-- the production costs for most of the shows is exorbitant and that's what people seem to be demanding for most scripted shows (hour long dramas, in particular). So they can put other shows online but they are not going to earn even a fraction of what they earn working for studios. That's why the studios are still relevant-- most people still want to work with and for them in order to reap the benefits of the big bucks the studios will throw at shows and the talent that creates them. I'm truly all for more independent shows popping up online, and think there may be a big future for short shows that are creative but low-budget, but even a low-budget show will cost a fair amount of money (if it involves more than one or two people are expensive and need backing by someone with some money -- and I don't think shows like Wayne and Garth's independent cable broadcast are really the future -- although one such internet show marketed virally could be very funny), but that's not where this fight is. People are fighting for a bigger piece of the studios' pie, and that's it. We can all be very angry at the greedy studios, but the writers' depend on them as much as they depend on the writers.
I support the idea of people using this time to come up with an alternative model and some shows that have nothing to do with the studios, but that's just not what the strike is about. Frankly, I also wish the WGA did represent and help the cause of up-and-coming writers who had not yet sold a script to someone, but it doesn't-- you have to succeed in some measure to achieve membership and success has to do with selling your stuff to someone).

On another subject, in relation to other comments here, I support the writers getting a share of residuals from internet, but don't think people are thinking about the amounts involved all that realistically. That money is not going to equal the money writers have received in the past from TV reruns. The studios don't get that money and neither will the writers, actors, directors. There should be a share for writers, but screaming about "pay cuts" based on the amounts involved doesn't seem productive in this discussion. There is obviously a good deal of money being earned on internet downloads, but nobody has figured out how best to quantify or how to get internet users, who prefer to view/listen to things without commercials and without paying for them, to pay a "fair" amount. Remember Radiohead's sale of their album directly to internet users -- all the money would go to them and not to record producers, and they were trying to make a point and get fans to pay what they considered a fair amount, but more than half the people who downloaded the album opted to pay nothing at all. We like free content on TV and the internet. And most of us do what we can to watch fewer commercials on TV (like Tivo). And we have less tolerance for internet time-- we've developed an expecation that the internet is the quickest way to get to the content we want, and we don't like unnecessary delays or costs in getting there. Internet piracy is such a problem partly because people expect content to be cheap and fast, and they have a low tolerance in terms of what they'd be willing to pay to stay "honest". SO many people are sympathetic to the writers and artists against the conglomerates, but few are willing to adjust their behavior in any way to help the cause of the artists.

The internet is the future, at least to some extent, but nobody (in the short term) is going to make as much money from internet content as from TV broadcasts. A fair share for writers of internet profits actually made by the studios makes sense, but blaming studios for teh "pay cut" from lower rerun residuals coming in seems unrealistic. And people have argued here that the base pay amounts the writers make for the services are irrelevant to the residuals argument, but that's unrealistic, too. Given the uncertainty of actual amounts, and the near-certainty that TV-related revenues are curving downward, the amount writers negotiate for their minimum basic payment is (and has been) one way of making up the difference. You'll attack me for not having any hard numbers here, and I would love for us all to have such numbers. But in the absence of those, people should at least adjust their expectations to their experience and knowledge about how the world uses the internet and where the money really is there.

For example, I was suprised at the disdain some expressed for the DGA deal -- The DGA had some numbers and came up with a formula for residuals FOR NOW and will revisit the issue as it evolves. A deal like that along with a salary raise upfront seems like a good place to start.

[Frank Sr.]

To;An observer,well said and reasonable

[David Riley]

My critisms of the WGA (not that I like the sleazy producers either) are as follows:

1) Bunch of spoiled rich kids who trot around in red T-shirts holding red flags as if they were downtrodden mining workers or something. They need to get a life - what they do is not labor, and they are not a labor union; they are a trade organization at best.

2) It seems hypocritical to demand revs from reality TV. Isn't reality TV supposed to be spontaneous and by definition does not use any writers? What am I missing here?

3) Hard to feel sympathetic for a bunch of people who sit around bouncing superballs in writers' labs all day, or irritating us in Starbucks with their clickity-clack laptops. Of course, producers are even worse, being among the lowest forms of life on the planet in terms of how the treat other people. Indeed, neither group attracts much sympathy from the general public.

4) It is about time the Ivy League and Seven Sisters English majors found another way to supplement their trust fund incomes.

[ed]

Uhhh, you're a little late to the party, David. Everyone has gone home. But if you wouldn't mind helping clean up some of the bottles and stuff, that'd be great! Maybe next strike you could jump in a little earlier and stir things up. Oh, and you might want to avoid Starbucks. I'm guessing the clickity-clacks will be in full force.