I'm taking twenty minutes off from an assignment that's due. Let's see how many of these I can get through in that time. I'll start with this one from Roger Green…
Are game shows affected by the writers' strike? Which current "reality" shows might be affected? And how about the news magazines such as 60 Minutes, or the Sunday morning news shows?
News shows are covered under a different contract. They may go on strike shortly but that's a separate matter. I can't tell you the precise list of "reality" shows affected nor which game shows are impacted, although I know some of both are. Jeopardy!, I'm pretty sure, is a WGA show.
Our next question is from Greg Eckler and his subject line says, "One difference from 1988"…
It comes at a time when California's housing market is in some turmoil and the California state budget is looking at a huge unexpected shortfall. A shutdown of the big industry will surely have them on edge at the State House or whatever it's called. Do you think the governor or others could/would intervene to hasten a resolution due to broader economic implications of a long stoppage?
My understanding is that Governor Schwarzenegger has declined to get involved and that may be wise, at least on his part. If he was party to a resolution, no matter what it was, he'd have someone accusing him of selling out one side or the other due to self-interest. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has offered to mediate but so far, his offers have been shunned by the Producers.
Ultimately, there's not that much any outside mediator can do apart from giving people who've said "We're not going back to the bargaining table" a way to save face when they go back to the bargaining table. In any strike, that's the main thing an outside mediator contributes. There is some value to an insider going back and forth between the two sides as, reportedly, John Wells attempted to do over the weekend. When this strike is settled, it'll probably be because one or more someones did a lot of that. But I doubt Schwarzenegger will be among them.
Next up is this message from Michael Fedoruk…
Would it not make more sense for the networks to show (or reshow) some of the shows (especially the ones from the last year or two) that they've cancelled, perhaps with a view that some of them might come back after the strike is over? I know that some shows are canned with unaired episodes. I also know that some would never come back (at least with all the original cast) but at least that would be more interesting to watch than a rerun of a rerun of the umpteenth showing of CSI:Whatever. I'm not trying to be callous to the rights of the Writers in that reruns may encourage the public to put pressure on the Producers to end the strike sooner rather than later but since these shows have already been produced what do the studios have to lose? Anyways, some residuals may be spread out a little farther by airing other shows. Just a thought.
Right now, the networks are probably most interested in coming as close to Normal as possible. There's a genuine worry that if shows disappear completely, they'd be more likely to lose audience loyalty and momentum than if they stick around in reruns. Whenever The Office runs out of new episodes, it'll go into repeats, the hope being that its loyal fans won't go off and find something they prefer at that hour. The network wants those fans to be around whenever production resumes, either because the strike gets settled or Steve Carell's balls return to their normal size.
At this point — and remember, we may be very early in the game here — the networks are most interested in projecting the message, "We don't need you…we can hold out indefinitely." If they start running the unaired episodes of Viva Laughlin, that will kind of undermine that message.
Just a little more time left so let's go to this one from Martha Thomases…
Are the producers united in their opposition to the writers' demands? Could a producer break away from their association and make a deal that goes beyond the minimum (current) WGA standards? That is, if, say, Harvey Weinstein was willing to share DVD/internet revenue, could he make an individual deal?
We don't know for sure but it's highly unlikely the Producers are precisely united. I mean, they're probably reasonably united in that they don't want to give Writers an increase in DVD money, a cut on Internet downloads, expanded jurisdiction, etc. But they're also probably yelling, even as we speak, over how cost-effective it is to take this strike and hold out and what they should offer to settle. Part of this is because these guys have different management styles but most of it is because they're not being hurt evenly. Some of them have more product in the pipeline and on the shelf. Some of them have more important projects that are now jeopardized.
A lot of what will happen in the coming weeks has very little to do with anything the Writers say or do or demand. It has to do with the member companies of the AMPTP arguing among themselves as to how to end this strike and what they're willing to give up in order to make that happen. If those guys can't agree, they can't make the offer that will do that. And they also have to figure on how to do that in a way that will minimize what they'll have to give the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild and other unions who'll expect what we expect.
Here's another one from Martha — who, by the way, is a key player in a wonderful comics website called ComicMix…
There is so much evidence in the media news that there is money to be made from online advertising that I find it hard to believe that the producers actually claim ignorance on the subject. I mean, besides weekly editions of Advertising Age, AdWeek, etc., there are businesses such as (ahem) ComicMix and YouTube based on the assumption that it's profitable to put stories online. Are we supposed to believe that the MBAs who run the major studios know less than I do?
Oh, they know. No question they know…but they have to say something. It's just like when the President of the United States (any President) is caught lying or doing something incredibly stupid, the Presidential Press Secretary has to come out and say it's not a lie or that he didn't do what he did or maybe that someone else did it. Powerful people rarely admit errors and when you're negotiating with someone, they rarely admit that they have the money. I did some shows once for a producer who had so much money that he couldn't even store it all. He had to have it all scanned so he could store it on CD Rom. Still, every time we had to dicker over what I'd be paid for some project, he'd act like he didn't own eight cars and two homes, and that I was trying to bleed a pauper of his last buck.
This ties in with what will have to be the last question for now because I'm already over the twenty minutes. This is from Steve Jodele…
You've mentioned this man named Nick Counter on your blog. He's the spokesman for the Producers, I guess. What's the deal with him? Does he really think you guys are so unreasonable? Also, I heard Michael Eisner on Fox News say that this was a stupid time for the Writers Guild to go on strike and that they were asking for all the wrong things. Do you think he's right?
No, I think he's Michael Eisner. This is another one of those cases where it's insane to imagine that he could ever take any other position. Show me when Michael Eisner has ever said, "Hey, you know, this would be a great time for a union to go on strike." Or "Boy, that union really deserves what they're asking for." In his world, it's always the wrong time for anyone below the CEO level to say no to anything a studio head wants…always the wrong time for a union to ask for more.
Really, you can't take that kind of thing seriously, just as you have to view any statement from the AMPTP or even my beloved WGA as posturing in service of a desired goal. When Nick Counter comes out and says there will be no further negotiations for a long time, that may turn out to be a true statement but first and foremost, it's what he and his people think is the best thing to say at this moment from a strategic viewpoint. I met Counter during the '88 strike and talked with him and I think he expected people around him to just understand this; that it's all part of the game. He seemed like a nice guy when you were off the topic of the strike and the contract…but his role is to go out and say whatever his employers (the studios) want him to say.
It helps me to remember that there are just certain jobs in this world — like a lawyer arguing his client is innocent when he knows darn well the guy stabbed three nuns and killed a lhasa apso — where you're paid to say what you're paid to say. I'm not suggesting this is admirable or even forgivable. I've never believed that "I'm just doing my job" gets you off the moral hook when your job is to lie or cheat or hurt someone. But I do recognize that people do those jobs and that a lot of it is just like that moment in poker when you're sitting there with a pair of threes and it's in your best interests to convince the guy across the table that you have at least four of a kind, if not a royal flush. You know how candid and honest you are in that situation? That's about how candid the point men are during a labor negotiation and you can give yourself a real bad headache if you expect anything else.
That's all for now. Back to work…