Only time for two this morning, starting with this one from Neil Ottenstein…
I was reading an article today about how Fox executives are saying that their network will actually benefit from the WGA strike — higher than ever ratings for American Idol and less costs otherwise. I was thinking that this might actually be a good thing for the WGA. If all the studios were suffering equally then they might be more united in this, knowing that at least the other guys are doing just as poorly. If
on the other hand, Fox is actually doing better, and much better in comparison to the others, then maybe the other networks will realize that they need to get some high quality scripted shows out there to provide some competition. In order to actually be competitive they need to settle the strike.
It might be a good thing for the WGA. It might also be true, at least in the short run. One of the reasons WGA strikes tend to be longer than some other unions' (or happen more often) is this delayed impact that we have when we walk. It takes a while for our absence to get noticed and there's also sometimes a brief benefit to the studios and networks when they clear out some old product, write off some old contracts, etc. Of course, they're almost always going to say that they're hurting less than they are and might even claim they're delighted that we're striking. That's just part of the game that's being played.
I learned this trick when I was thirteen years old and buying old comic books I really, really wanted. You dare not let the seller know how much you want it when you're haggling over price. You have to act like it doesn't matter that much to you or that there are other places you can get it cheaper. It works the same way in any negotiation and all the players know it. In this case, the Producers have to say, "Oh, we can wait a while for the Writers to come crawling back to the bargaining table. We're not hurting. In fact, some of us are even doing better because of the strike."
And then we have this from Boyd Jeremy…
Regarding this matter of you writers being overpaid, do you think you are? What do you say to someone who works a 40 hour week selling shoes for less money than a writer makes in twenty minutes?
I think, first of all, you note that there are shoe salesmen who make a lot more money than some of the people I'll be marching with in about an hour. What I think some people don't "get" is that show business is one of those lottery-like fields where only a few do really, really well. They are not typical. They also are not the people whose incomes would be most affected by any strike. Strikes are generally about setting or raising minimums.
Next year, the Screen Actors Guild will get some sort of increase in scale payments and may even have to strike to get it. Whatever they get will have no meaningful impact on the annual income of Mr. Tom Hanks. He might make a few more bucks off those Bosom Buddies DVDs but it'll probably amount to about what he tips the servers at his favorite restaurant. Still, if actors are picketing, the Producers will be wailing, "Those ungrateful, overpaid actors! Why, do you know how much we have to pay Tom Hanks to make a movie for us?" But of course, those people bid against each other to get Tom Hanks. They offer him that money because they believe he's worth it. You can't say someone is overpaid and then offer him five million dollars more than he got on his last job.
Well, you can. And they do. But we don't have to think anyone, including the person saying that, really believes it.
The thing I would say to anyone who thinks TV and movie writers make "too much" (whatever that means) is…well, I'd say a couple things. One is that there's a lot of money in this industry. Some ventures are very profitable and if you're an important contributor to one of those, you ought to get paid well. If you don't get paid well, it does not mean (as I've noted here before) that the money you don't get goes to widows and orphans. It goes to the studios and the CEOs and to someone else who will probably have less to do with the success of the show or movie than you do and may already be even more "overpaid" by whatever definition of that word is being applied to you.
You also — and this is a very real issue for some of us — lose in non-monetary ways when you aren't paid well. The people you work with treat you and your work better when you establish its value, at least in comparison to what everyone else is receiving. That may not be the most logical thing in the world but it's usually true. There is a "pecking order" and a hierarchy of respect on any production and it is not disconnected from the size of the checks everyone's getting. You often establish your importance in that hierarchy by being one of the better-paid participants. Even if you turn around and give half your fee to those widows and orphans, you oughta get every dollar you can get without killing somebody. It's one of the best ways to remind everyone what you're worth.
Also, of course, sometimes it takes a long period of unpaid or lowly-paid struggle to get to the point where you can command Top Dollar and then it doesn't last all that long. A writer spends five years writing unsold, spec screenplays. Finally, he sells one that gets made and the movie's a hit. He gets paid very well for the next one or two and his fee skyrockets…but at some point, it crashes back down to Earth and he's back to the low money and writing scripts that don't get sold. He may seem overpaid for a time there but not when you average it out over the length of his career. I don't know a lot about the business of selling shoes but I don't think they have anything similar going on there.
Which I guess would be the main thing I'd say to that person. You really don't know, just as I don't know what "overpaid" would be for a shoe salesman. I suppose no paycheck would be too large if he was selling enough shoes…and he wouldn't be getting that compensation, whatever it was, if the store wasn't making a decent amount from his efforts. I wonder if anyone who thinks a TV writer is overpaid also thinks a novelist whose book sells 50,000 copies and goes through ten printings shouldn't make a lot more than an author who sells 5,000 copies of one press run.
A few of the e-mails I've received about the strike and some of the web chatter I've read suggest to me that the commenters know as little about my profession as I do about theirs. That is not in any way a putdown of what they do. Perhaps in a strict numerical way, I have the potential to make a lot more in my line of work than they do. That's quite possible. I also have potential downsides that they don't have and perhaps aren't seeing when they're only looking at reports, sometimes exaggerated or way outta context, of what a few in my profession receive. The other man's grass and all that.
No one, I should hope, is expecting you to feel sorry for us Professional Writers because we're getting gypped on DVD money and Internet downloads and the like. Not a one of us chose this line of work under duress. This is just a business dispute — a larger, nastier version of the kind of thing that goes on thousands of times a day in Hollywood when we aren't on strike, and which happens in some form in any profitable business. We may get emotional because we do see our work and human lives getting damaged by a number of things that the Producers have done or are attempting to do. You'd get emotional if your boss was trying to slash your salary, too. Or whittle away your family's health insurance.
I think we'd just like you not to buy the "spin" that the strike is because we're tired of filling our swimming pools with Evian water and need the extra bucks to buy Pellegrino. The folks in Management — the Nick Counters of the world, whose jobs are to get us to sign for as little money as possible — certainly don't believe that. They're in the business. They know how things work and where the money is. So don't you believe it.
That's all for now. I gotta go carry a sign up and down in front of Fox.