Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Writers Guild News

The current Writers Guild of America contract expires May 2, 2004 (or May 1, depending on how you count) and folks are starting to whisper the "s" word, meaning "strike." As I've mentioned here in the past (see here, here or here), I have been pessimistic about the chances of the WGA obtaining a new deal with significant gains without a strike, and I've also been pessimistic about our ability to sustain a meaningful strike.

Last week, talking to a couple of writers who are closer to the negotiations than I am, I became a little less pessimistic...which is not the same thing as becoming optimistic. This afternoon, I attended an "informational meeting" in which a few Guild officials discussed what's up with the negotiations. There are many issues but the two main ones seem to be Health Insurance and DVDs, not necessarily in that order. Health Insurance is, of course, a major issue in most employment situations across the nation. And the deal under which WGA members share in the proceeds when their work is released on DVD is a rotten deal. Several folks at the meeting recommended the reading of this article about the current DVD market.

Negotiations are underway at this very moment — and I mean this very moment when I'm posting this. With the contract expiration looming large, both sides are meeting sixteen hours a day. Can a strike be averted? Can the WGA make some headway? After today's meeting, I became a little less pessimistic than I was when I went in. But I'm still some distance from "optimistic."

• Posted at 10:58 PM · LINK

Questions in Advance

Several weblogs are currently discussing whether some of the questions asked of George W. Bush in his recent press conference were prearranged. The premise here is that certain White House correspondents, to curry favor with the Oval Office, agree to ask certain questions to which Bush has scripted answers.

I don't think that's true. But I'll tell you what may be true.

Back in the famous Quiz Show Scandals, the horrifying revelation was that certain contestants had been given the questions and the answers in advance. That actually occurred on a small percentage of the shows that were "rigged." The way it worked on most fixed shows was like this...

You apply to be a contestant on a game show. They put you through a series of written tests, asking you hundreds of questions to see if you know enough to compete. Let's say you pass the test and get on the show. They can keep you from getting knocked off merely by asking you questions you got right on your test. When the time comes that they want you to lose, they can look back at your tests, see what you got wrong and ask you one of those, or something in that category. They can also get to know you and your areas of expertise, then formulate questions accordingly. You'll still be able to swear, "No one gave me the answer."

My suspicion is that some reporters discuss with White House aides, the question they intend to ask. Most presidents rehearse for press conferences with those aides. It would be very simple for the aides to know that the president has a good reply for a certain question and to suggest that he call on a certain reporter who will ask it. And the president can honestly say he hasn't been given the questions in advance.

I further suspect this situation has been the case with most presidents.

• Posted at 9:40 PM · LINK

The Simpsons Strike!

As you probably know, the voice actors on The Simpsons are currently holding out for substantial raises. This is upsetting some in the animation community who fear that this will halt production and that the artists who work on that show will suffer. And of course, there's an underlying outrage because when you compare what those artists make per hour to what the actors already make per hour, it seems disproportionate. Over at Cartoon Brew, Amid Amidi addresses some of this.

As I keep saying here, I am wholly on the actors' side. I think the artists also deserve more but that has nothing to do with what the actors receive. Artists' salaries are always set at the lowest level that the hiring entity believes it will take to assemble a crew that can produce the show. Those numbers will not change if the vocal performers receive less.

The Simpsons is an enterprise of staggering success, well on its way to becoming the most profitable thing ever done on television. If you look around, you will see various estimates of its worth. Even those are probably low because they don't take into account things like the overall success of the Fox Network, which is due in part to Marge and Homer and Bart and all the other yellow people. In the grand scheme of this, what the actors are demanding is a pretty tiny percentage.

Some who are upset at these demands are saying, "Look how few hours they work for it." That always strikes me as a silly way to address this kind of thing. On a successful TV show, you have interchangeable, replaceable folks and you have those that aren't so easily replaced, and the compensation for the latter is never based in any way on punching a timeclock. A guy who stars in a flop syndicated sitcom puts in the same kind of hours (or more) that Jerry Seinfeld worked on his show. When their fees are discussed, no one even mentions how hard the two men work; only how much money each show earns, and how impossible it would be to replace the star. For that matter, no one discusses how many hours the various Fox execs and investors put in to "earn" the share of Simpsons profits they take home. I'll bet that even if the Simpsons actors get every dime they're demanding — which they won't, and which they certainly don't expect — there will still be people who've contributed a lot less to the show's success but who earn ten times more.

I understand why artists resent how little they get out of this, but anger at the voice actors is misdirected and even self-destructive. If we start basing everyone's compensation on how many hours they put in, as opposed to the value of their contribution, that's a wonderful argument for paying artists even less. I mean, do you know how much more they get per hour than someone who flips burgers at Burger King? That's not the way the worth of a creative person should ever be measured. If one of the Simpsons artists goes home, does a painting in ten hours and offers it for sale in a gallery, its price tag will not say, "10 hours @ X dollars per hour." The price will be based on the quality of the work and, more significantly, the demand for it. If that same Simpsons artist goes home and creates a comic strip, his compensation will be based on the success of it, not on how many hours it requires to draw. I don't know why creative folks are ever eager to reduce what they do to the terminology and fee scales that apply to someone you hire to mow your lawn.

One of three things will happen regarding the Simpsons actors' demands. The most likely is that there will be some compromise and everyone will scurry back to work. Another is that Fox will decide not to share any more of its vast profits with the actors and will hire sound-alikes. They're probably reticent to do this because (a) it might harm a show that is bringing in oceans of cash and (b) it might trigger lawsuits. The legal situation if you fire Nancy Cartwright and hire someone else to imitate Nancy Cartwright is unexplored territory, which many cartoon producers have strenuously avoided in the past. Usually, there has not been enough money involved to warrant a displaced actor going to court over it but this time, it's possible.

The third scenario is that Fox decides they have enough of a library that they don't need any more episodes of The Simpsons. This also seems unlikely but it's a decision that they might make at any time, regardless of the actors' fees. A number of cartoon studios have shut down production on the premise (which is often proven incorrect) that they can stop investing in new product and just make money off perpetual reruns. Fox might choose this moment to try that with The Simpsons so they can blame it on the actors. If they do, it will be a shame because that's a great show and its success-to-date has been based in large part on its remaining fresh and current. If the Golden Goose gets slaughtered here, it won't be because the actors wanted a larger piece of the success they helped create. It'll be because Fox wants it all.

• Posted at 10:39 AM · LINK