What's to come of the WAG strike? Let's hope for credit where it's due for those on the writer's block
(The Strand's writers are still in office, but we were never getting paid in the first place)
By Jackie Linton
Issue date: 11/15/07 Section: Editorial
| |
|
Unfortunately for audiences and networks alike, it has been impressive so far to witness the casts and crews of many of primetime's most-watched shows banding together on the picketing lines, putting the finales of shows like Heroes, Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives into question. Almost every late night talk show will revert to repeats, such as Late Show With David Letterman, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Late Night With Conan O'Brien, and The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, which rely on guild writers to produce their monologues and sketches.
"I've been working with these people for 20 years. Without them I'm not funny," said Leno, who came to the headquarters of NBC to support his writers. "I don't know what we're going to do."
Over the course of the past two weeks, many faces have come forward to deliberate on the impact the strike could have both economically and in terms of future programming until 2009. Political figures such as democratic candidate Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stepped forward to weigh in on the implications of the strike, with rumours that even Bill Clinton would be willing to intervene to draw the situation to a close before the repercussions become too devastating to both sides.
As the WAG continues its negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), it would seem beneficial for both sides to end things as quickly as possible, although it is curious to see what the outcome may be for future generations of writers working within modern media and online television broadcasting.
One of the most exciting qualities about the media itself, as frightening as it is thrilling, is that it is almost constantly in a state of replacing itself. Like all parasitic symbioses, innovation will build itself on its predecessor and then kill it off, creating a more dynamic, more enterprising form in the process. And while this seems like the natural course of all things, it makes for a terrible way of life for anyone who is trying to keep a steady job. As technology moves forward, it seems like it is becoming more and more difficult to get one's pay where it is due.
But writers know they have never been well-paid for their work. Even in the early days of the publishing industry, it was always the novelist that was paid the least, while most earnings went to the publisher's production costs and the shipping of the item. While some head writers today have managed to rise above the gambit for their shows (Damon Lindelof of Lost, for instance, Joss Whedon for all Buffy-related sagas and Larry David, most famously, for Seinfeld), the majority of writers can expect a life of earning a sum of 30 grand a year. Particularly for those with families, it becomes quite clear why their royalties would become a vital source of financial assistance. It only becomes clearer when you consider that many writers work as freelancers, and may not always be fortunate enough to hold a steady contract job for long periods of time.
And as it currently stands today, the television networks pay for the production costs of their shows, giving 2.5% of residuals to its writers as they make returns through commercial advertising. However, as television programming can now be streamed online through network websites (like ABC, or NBC, for example, or paying for a $1.99 download via i-Tunes), the download will require the viewer to first watch an advertisement, earning the network money. Meanwhile the writers receive no residuals from these online viewings. The networks claim that these screenings are operating on a "promotional" basis for their companies, earning them little profit to share, but as the work is still generating revenue, it would be expected that the writers would be getting paid their fair remittance. While some argue that writers have been premature in pressing for digital revenue while this is still a fresh market, and should have postponed their action until online viewing becomes more stable, historically there would be reason why the WAG would be less than enthused about this plan of attack.
During the advent of VHS technology in the 1980's, the Writers' Guild agreed to take a pay cut of 80% to help the home video industry get started, meaning they would receive only 0.04 cents per video, but did so with the understanding from the AMPTP that they would be compensated fairly once the market became healthy. It's funny to imagine that since then 20 years have passed, as VHS came to be replaced by a massive DVD industry, which now competes with online downloading formats through the likes of iTunes. After all these years of benefiting the industry, the WAG residuals have never increased. And as online downloading only becomes more popular - for which the networks will pay no manufacturing costs for the production and distribution of DVDs, saving about 0.50 cents each time - it seems incredibly unfair that writers would still only receive 0.04 cents in profit. As the industry only becomes more and more stable financially, it seems that the WAG has been screwing itself over by postponing action for this long.
If the strike lasts longer than three months, an entire season of television could end this December, meaning no more sitcoms, dramas, talk shows, or heaven forbid, The Daily Show. It will also prevent any pilots from being shot in the spring, so even if the strike is settled by then, audiences will not see any new shows until the following January in 2009. If the strike runs as long as it did eighteen years ago, the studios could stand to lose up to $1 billion. While the writers themselves will no doubt endure hard times during the course of their unemployment, it's bizarre to think that the studio networks would want to suffer such a loss.
The networks themselves are hardly willing to suffer this roadblock, and have been forced to using hardball tactics to keep their studios running. Expecting that their top writer-producers who oversee some of the network's bigger shows will continue to work performing non-writing duties, those who stand by the strike will face their producer pay being suspended. It's a complicated situation for members like Tina Fey, who is both a head writer and an actor on her show 30 Rock. As she was seen picketing the lines in New York earlier last week, Fey will have to return to work to fulfill her contract obligations as an actor on the show, polishing up the next few episodes that have already been written. Talk-show host Ellen Degeneres has been a controversial figure for continuing her show by writing her own sketch material, feeling an obligation to celebrity guests that have been slated for appearances.
And while public sentiment is currently in favour towards the guild's protest, negatively skewing hosts like Degeneres for not supporting her staff, this attitude may change once the viewing audience becomes fed up with re-runs and the horrible series of reality shows that have been been slated to crop up (the ever-irrelevant sex-tape peddling celebrity wannabe Kim Kardashian's series Keeping Up with the Kardashians is rumoured to be given a second season).
Considering the strike largely interferes with public enjoyment, one wonders if this fussing is really just that. But as it stands with the Writers' Guild strike, the halt seems long overdue. The protests taking place over the course of the next few weeks will ensure that as technology moves forward, there will be measures to ensure that, like songwriters, media royalties will always be secure for generations of writers to come. And there should be nothing wrong in asking for a fair deal.
Be the first to comment on this story