A performer and producer of Internet content named David Lawrence, who probably knows nothing about me just as I know nothing about him, has written and circulated a little essay, mostly I gather throughout the voiceover community. (Well, I do know one thing about Mr. Lawrence, which is that he constantly bombards me with self-promotional Spam and I wish he'd stop.) His article argues that the WGA is going about its strike all wrong, and that his union (he's in SAG) will make the same mistake if they fight for a share of Internet revenues. Since a couple of folks have asked me what I think of it, I thought I'd post my response. But first, if you somehow didn't find a copy in your e-mailbox amidst the Cialis ads and would like to read it, it's been posted here.
Okay then. Let me tell you why I don't think his argument holds a lot of H2O…
The argument is that there's no money to be made on things like webisodes on the Internet so it's daffy for a union to fight for that when they could be fighting for other, more tangible things. His primary evidence seems to be that he's tried it (the man has dozens of websites) and he hasn't been able to make any money on the Internet so that proves (I guess) that Disney, Time Warner, Fox, Sony, Paramount and Universal won't make any money on the Internet. He's been producing or appearing on webisodes like Goodnight Burbank and Infected on Revision3 and other ventures most of us have never heard of and they make only pennies. So obviously if ABC starts offering downloads of Lost on the Internet for a fee or Sony lets you download the next Spider-Man movie for a couple bucks, they'll make only pennies.
Or maybe he thinks they'll make nickels, I don't know. I also don't get the part where he says "I've also figured out ways to make several millions of dollars on the Internet over the last 15 years or so" but then goes on to say you can't make any money on the Internet. Later, he appends "…the money I've made on the Internet does not obviate my statement that the networks aren't making, or can't make, money on the net — in fact, it proves they can."
So, uh, if they can, might this not be a good time for us to start demanding a hunk of that money? I mean, if you can figure out how to make money on the 'net, there must be someone at all those big companies who can stumble onto the secret. Or maybe the guys at Google who are blissfully unaware there's no money to be made selling web advertising could come up with something.
You know what this reminds me of? When home video was starting — this was in the Flintstonian era of Beta — there were a few stores selling movies on tape. There weren't many because none of the major studios were yet offering the movies we really wanted. At that moment, there wasn't a lot of cash in home video. The day you could start buying mainstream releases, the day I bought the first of the ninety-three different versions of Goldfinger I've had to purchase over the years, it all changed. The big studios, the ones that control and define the business, went almost instantly from "We'll never sell our movies for home viewing" to "How fast can we get the DVD into stores?"
The home video biz exploded and the unions were way behind the curve. They're still playing Catch-Up because the Producers were able to structure the business in terms that were disadvantageous to sharing. And now the same companies are trying to do the same thing with Internet transmissions, defining almost everything as "promotional" and therefore not subject to established residual deals.
Are they really making no money on the Internet? They sure don't seem to think so. Every single entertainment conglomerate is assuring its stockholders that there are zillions to be made there and that the company is expertly positioned to maximize those bucks. More to the immediate point, if there's no money to be made on the Internet, it oughta be a breeze to halt the crippling strike that's costing them millions per day and destroying their Fall TV schedule and plans for film production in early '08. All they have to do it offer us a respectable percentage of that "no money" or a formula where our share kicks in only after revenues hit a certain level that reasonably denotes financial success. If there's no money, that won't cost them anything.
Of course, how much they're making today is not what this strike is about. It's how much they stand to make tomorrow and whether we're going to let them unilaterally write the rulebook for an industry that belongs to all of us. Some of us don't think that's such a great idea.
With all due respect to Mr. Lawrence, who I don't know at all, I suspect he's been working the Poverty Row corner of the Internet, not the section that Disney and Time Warner are looking to build. He speaks of actors working for free on webisodes. If I were in SAG, I think I'd like my union to be making it clear to Sony that they can't get union talent to work on their 'net projects for free. If I were an actor on Ugly Betty, I think I'd like my union to tell its production company that they can't, in lieu of rerunning those shows on network and paying me the agreed-upon residuals, slap them up on an ad-supported website and let a million people download them with nothing going my way.
They're not putting content on the web in order to lose money. These people don't even give anything away because they think they'll break even on the deal. They're doing it because they think they'll make enough cash to make Richie Rich look like M.C. Hammer. They may tell you that they aren't making any money off the deal but come on. These are the people who were telling Alan Alda that the M*A*S*H TV show had yet to turn a profit. Not only do we not have to believe them but they don't really expect us to believe them. It's just something they say as part of the never-ending campaign in this world to get talented people to write and perform and otherwise work for little or no money. If we let them get away with it, there will be no money on the Internet…for us.
