In case you haven't heard, negotiations have broken down again in the WGA/AMPTP talks...although frankly, from what we've heard, it doesn't sound like a lot of negotiating was actually going on even when the two sides were together and talking. (In case you're not up to speed, here's a report on the breakdown from the AMPTP side and here's one from the WGA side. Guess which one I think is more rational and represents good faith bargaining.)
What does it mean? Well, the first thing it means is no negotiating for a while. The AMPTP has demanded that the WGA drop six topics from the talks or there will be no more talks. As a complete outside observer, it seems unthinkable to me that the WGA would just drop these issues except as trade-offs for genuine concessions. But the AMPTP is not offering anything in exchange for dropping them except a resumption of talks that, so far, haven't been particularly fruitful.
So it sounds like this strike ain't gonna end until '08. The AMPTP posture is not one from which they can easily back down. They can't come back in next Tuesday and say, "Hey, remember that stuff we said on Friday about how we weren't resuming meetings until you dropped six issues? Well, forget it. That was just the liquor talking." It's going to take a couple weeks of sidebars and backchannel talks before the two sides — probably with a couple of outside parties doing shuttle diplomacy — arrive at some sort of understanding that will allow the dialogue to resume. The AMPTP may even try to plunge into an early deal with the Directors Guild, although the DGA may decide its against their own best interests to be used that way.
One thing to keep in mind if you read over the AMPTP's list of the six areas they will not discuss with the WGA: In them, you'll see some references to the Guild demanding to be paid more than the producers receive for something. Here's an example from their press release...
The WGA proposed a system of compensation for Internet programming that, when applied to the WGA and the other guilds, could result in producers paying more to the guilds from Internet programming than the producers actually receive in revenue from such Internet programming.
What that's all about is what they call Hollywood Accounting...ways of hiding the money from people who receive a share. Here's how it works. Let's say I have a movie studio called Klopman Pictures. Let's say you write a movie for Klopman Pictures and according to our deal, you're to receive 2% of the revenues that the producer receives. Then let's say the movie makes a zillion dollars.
You probably expect to receive 2% of a zillion but that's not how it works, Bunky. You see, the zillion is what Klopman Distributing — a separate company that I just happen to also own — collects. Then Klopman Distributing has to pay its expenses, which includes half a zillion dollars to me as a consultant. Then they deduct a 25% distribution fee. Then they lop off their FedEx expenses and the cost of the staff and what everyone spent on lunch, plus they have to pay rent (to the Klopman Realty Company) for the suite of offices that house Klopman Distributing...and by the time all these amounts are subtracted, what they pass on to Klopman Pictures (i.e., "the producer") is considerably diminished. I just did a rough calculation and I figure it's about $17.45. So you get your 2% of that amount. Don't spend it all in one place.
So when you read that the WGA is demanding "more than the producers receive for something," it's all about that kind of math. It means the WGA wants some sort of compensation that's not reducible to 2% of seventeen bucks. The tip-off is that phrase: "...what the producers actually receive." That's language you stick into a contract when you're preparing to argue that there's some money involved that you didn't "actually receive." In our hypothetical example, I'd be arguing that $17.45 is what the producer "actually received."
So that's what that's all about. Most of the other areas they're resisting are ones that would give the WGA more power. It's all very depressing but I think they're wrong if they think it's going to weaken the Guild.
I've been feeling guilty lately because with my trip and with various deadlines and disasters at home, I haven't been able to picket as often as I feel I should. Looks like I'm going to have ample opportunity.
I am sitting here at Farmer's Market, having lunch with my friend, Len Wein. Len doesn't seem to believe I can post to my weblog from my BlackBerry. So this is just to show him I can.
L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke is reporting pure pessimism about the WGA/AMPTP negotiations. Says she, the "moguls" are close to walking out and not returning until February at the soonest.
Which leaves us with the question of whether...
Ms. Finke has solid sources within the talks that know of what they speak...
Ms. Finke is being "planted," directly or indirectly by someone on the side of the AMPTP who wants to throw a scare into the WGA and thinks that will hasten their concessions or...
Ms. Finke is passing on an honest assessment from someone with a vantage point into the meetings, but it's just one view and there are others.
Which is it? I'm inclined to think "c" is most likely with "b" as runner-up. There must be dissension among the studio heads and labor lawyers who are bargaining...or in some cases, refusing to bargain. And even the ones most eager to make a deal and end this thing probably figure the way to get there is to act like they're ready to walk out and let the WGA hang for a few months. A certain amount of what's going on is probably the Persistence of a Strategy. That is, the approach the AMPTP is taking to these negotiations of stonewalling and occasionally offering something that sounds generous but isn't...that's an approach that usually works for them. They've increased their revenues by billions (that's billions with a "b") with that approach.
It isn't working this time. We wouldn't be 33 days into a strike that is destroying all their schedules if it had worked, and it's showing no signs of starting to work, nor is there any reason to suspect it will begin working when it comes time to dicker over the same sticking points with the Screen Actors Guild. But it's kind of the only trick they know or can all agree upon.
Turning to my e-mailbag for a moment, I have this from Gary Emenitove...
Does NBC have any connection with Johnny Carson's Tonight Show episodes anymore, or is their ownership entirely elsewhere? Perhaps NBC could run old Carson shows rather than the old Leno shows? I'd imagine the ratings might spike — at least for older demographics — and this could even be a sales boost for the Carson DVDs that seem to be available everywhere. Personally, I'd make it a point to watch.
You, me and probably not a lot of other folks, Gary. No, as far as I know, the Carson family owns all those shows and NBC doesn't own any piece of them. Generally speaking, there hasn't been much interest in the marketplace in Johnny's old shows. I don't think the DVDs have even done that well. A couple of other folks wrote to ask me if NBC could stick on old Steve Allen or Jack Paar episodes. The answer is that even if those tapes existed — and sadly, very few do — they'd be a huge gamble that would go contrary to everything that ratings trends of the last few decades have indicated.
Since about the early seventies, a belief among those who program the late night shows has been that age lessens an episode's rebroadcast strength. I don't think you could look at the ratings and come to any other conclusion: Audiences do not want to watch old late night shows...and the older the rerun is, the less likely people are to watch. This was certainly Mr. Carson's belief. In the seventies, he got rid of his "weekend" reruns because of it. He cut back on his weeknight reruns and increased the percentage of new shows, even though it meant a higher percentage of all Tonight Show broadcasts would be guest-hosted.
He even changed the time frame from which they selected their reruns. In the sixties, when it came time to select an old Tonight Show to rerun with Johnny on it, they usually reached back at least a year. By the eighties, they were only reaching back a few months...and were avoiding shows with too many references that would remind viewers they were watching an old one. Even then, there was a belief that the program was particularly vulnerable on rerun nights. The occasional period when some other show seemed to be gaining on Carson was blamed, probably rightly, on that. During the period when Arsenio Hall's syndicated talk show was giving Carson a strong challenge, it was attributed to new Arsenio shows having the advantage on old Johnny episodes. Mr. Leno's ascension to The Tonight Show had a lot to do with countering that. Since J.C. wasn't about to start working more days per week and since his reruns were underperforming, Jay was hosting the show more and more and keeping the numbers up.
This all explains why Dave, Jay, Conan and the others usually draw their reruns from only a few weeks back and sometimes run an episode a third time, rather than go back even farther for one that's never rerun before. The older a show is, the more likely viewers are to change channels in search of something current. That's a pretty solid principle these days in late night programming...which is why I don't understand for the life of me why NBC is running Leno shows from 1994-1996. Not only that but throughout each episode, they keep putting up the original broadcast date to make doubly sure you know you're watching what is, by the current standards of network television, a truly ancient episode. As if seeing Chris Farley doing belly-flops didn't make the point.
Was this someone's bold notion? Did someone think viewers were dying to see Jay with darker hair (and sometimes even his old bandleader) making contemporaneous jokes about the Clinton administration? We always admire buck-the-conventional-wisdom thinking but given the numbers, it ain't working. Is NBC reasoning that since they're soon to lose Jay in that time slot, this would be a good time to drive viewers away from it? Letterman is running shows from last year — older than they would normally have selected but not as old as Leno's. Both shows are suffering. Even Nightline is sometimes beating them, which is remarkable given that we aren't currently in a hostage crisis or another Katrina. But Jay's being hurt a lot more than Dave. (Tonight's Tonight Show is from 2004, which is a little better.)
I joked the other day here that NBC was running them to see if they could embarrass Jay into returning to work. A friend of mine who works for Leno and is equally baffled called to say that explanation made as much sense as any of them. Let's see how soon the network reverts to recent reruns. If they don't and if this strike goes on as long as Nikki Finke thinks it might, NBC could do what CBS, ABC and others have tried and tried to do but never been able to achieve: Destroy The Tonight Show.
December 8, 2007
