This thread discusses the Content article: Writers Matter

Paul, you are, as you suggest, very biased. Your post spouts WGA propaganda as though it were the gospel on this issue, and it just isn't as simple as you make out.

"On top of that, the #1 thing that is eroding DVD sales is downloadable movies & TV, whether through iTunes, Amazon, Netflix or other services - which is rapidly increasing in market share, which, as I’ve already pointed out, is earning more money for the production companies, while denying the writers their due. The dirty truth is, in this situation, the producers are most likely happy that DVD sales are down because it means downloads are on the increase - which lines their pockets more. Far from leverage to use against WGA, this seeming mess actually helps their situation by pointing to the truth of the situation."

Your first statement there is way, way off -- downloadable product isn't nicking DVD sales, not by a long shot. Download sales for 2006 were pathetic: $20 million. That's compared to $16.3 billion in DVD sales, which, as has been pointed out, are stumbling -- rapidly. (Foreign sales in 06 declined by 15 percent; domestic by about half that. Online delivery systems can't hope to match that rate of decline, and that's not even getting into rising production costs.) GMI's report made clear that online sales will not be able to make up the difference, either, because of upward-ratcheting production costs and intense competition from non-Hollywood new media sources, much of which content is free. Costs are rising, and sales falling, much faster than online sales can make up any time soon; that's a loser's bet. That's why your last statement isn't credible; in no way is that leverage for the WGA, which is banking on future potential revenue from those sources.

As GMI reported:

"Some executives in the Hollywood studios are looking to the new technologies of Video on Demand and subscription based TV to fill the gap left by DVD. However, GMI estimates that while VoD will offer a superior share of the consumer dollar over traditional pay channels (60% versus 40%) it will not deliver at the lofty levels predicted in the early days of the industry and will not help the studios put 'old wine in new bottles.'"

Yes, the studios can blame themselves in part for that (oversaturation is always a risk, but the tipping point is impossible to determine in advance). The "dirty truth" is that online sales aren't ramping up nearly fast enough to make up for losses on DVD sales, and they aren't going to any time soon.

"For the AMPTP to be willing to completely ignore the impending contract end, as well as the concerns of the writers, to merely advance their own greed, is ludicrous in the highest degree. The fact is, there is plenty of cash to go around, with so few strong writers available."

I don't think the AMPTP ignored anything, and both sides can comfortably be accused of greed here. Both sides have been negotiating since summer. They can't agree on how to figure royalties, including in new media: the AMPTP wants to factor in production costs before figuring royalties, while writers don't. Of course, there are layers of complication on top of that, in addition to a history of mutual distrust that dates back to before the WGA's formation. One layer: Whatever the writers get will redound to the other unions, as well, driving residual costs up several orders of magnitude beyond the writers' bump. As the International Herald Tribune reported:

"Once it is understood that the biggest stars and directors can rake in dollars even from money-losing movies, it becomes easier to understand why companies dug in their heels when asked to make richer residual payments on media of the future than they offered on home video of the past.

These would trigger higher payments to other guilds, and would probably create pressure from lawyers and agents in search of still fatter participation deals for their star clients.

It is also not hard to see why the situation is especially galling for movie writers, who typically do not share in the most lucrative gross deals."

Of course, that brings in another aspect to all this: What the WGA does will be affected by SAG and DGA negotiations coming up in the spring. If the WGA holds out that long, it will get very interesting.

"Plenty of cash to go around" isn't the issue---it's how much cash there will be to go around in the future, once DVDs have gone the way of VHS. Estimates vary so wildly now it's hard to predict what sorts of revenues will come from online resources, or how free online entertainment resources will change their business models (if they will) once they're accessible via TV, and so on. The debate here isn't over what's happening now, but what will happen as new media continue to leverage and disperse entertainment dollars in new directions. How much of that pie will studios have access to? Hard to say. If online sales hit $1.8 billion by 2011, as one report placed it, that's certainly promising, but it will do little to help a situation where the industry is bleeding double-digit losses in DVD sales and the rapid growth of grosses paid to top-level talent (which includes producers, directors, actors, and to a much lesser extent, writers). AS I mentioned in the original post, that doubled in the past five years from $1.5 billion to $3 billion.

It's worth remembering that there are writers who are also producers. They're in a difficult bind now. And then there are all the people who work at the bottom end of the industry who will never see a dime of residual payment from anything, but who can't earn a paycheck at all right now because the writers want more. The City of Los Angeles is estimating about 1/3 of its 130,000-plus entertainment industry jobs will disappear if the strike heads into 2008.

"And guess what – none of this, none of it is the writers’ fault. And anyone who suggests that, or tries to tell you that they’re just being greedy is either uninformed or lying to you. The fact is, for as much as all of us depend on them, the writers typically get the short end of the deal. Let’s hope this writers’ strike ends in less than 6 months and this time, the writers get a contract they won’t have to fight to keep in another 3 years."

Paul, the fact that you can make such an ad hominem attack on anyone who dares disagree with you seriously undercuts your arguments, such as they are. I am certainly not uninformed, and I am not lying -- I just see things from a broader perspective. I have zero sympathy for the studios or producers, and little more for writers who earn more than most people will ever see. It takes two to tango. Both sides have walked out of negotiations repeatedly. There's plenty of blame to go around, as is always the case in modern labor-management rifts -- particularly in this long-contentious relationship. Business Week ran a good analysis of the good points and shortcomings of both sides a few weeks back:

http://tinyurl.com/3cue73

It helps to remember that writers willingly gave away the rights to take a cut of movie proceeds in exchange for the right to organize in the first place, back during FDR's administration (as part of the collective bargaining structure of the Industrial Recovery Act), as they accepted the then-government sanctioned definition of their position as employees in order to get unionization.

We all depend on producers just as much as we do on writers (and on the tech folks, and on the distributors, and on the theater chains, etc.). Taken together, they all create the opportunities for writers to ply their craft. They all need each other, and we need all of them working together.

Wow.....I can't possibly be as eloquent as that reply. Good stuff.

Mine was a lot more simplistic....ditch the striking writers, and hire new ones. I'm sure there's plenty looking for work out there. Pay them and retain them based on performance....not on some pre-negotiated contract.

Companies need to take a lesson from President Reagan with how he handled the striking air traffic controllers. Fire 'em.

If these guys have to have a contract, then fine...make sure the contract states "if you strike, you're replaced."

Like I said....it's simplistic, but you'll never convince me that screenwriters NEED a union to protect their interests. They're not miners in the early 1900's.....they're WRITERS.