A dangerous, perhaps deadly, email to my fellow SAG, AFTRA and WGA members

The WGA strike is in full bloom, and I write this to the people on my list. The responses from both sides via email follow. You can leave your comments here as well.

---

This is a dangerous email for me to send out.

Why?

Because I happen to know a thing or two about how to make money on the Internet, and I'm concerned that if I speak my mind and voice an unpopular position, I will suffer at the hands of my fellow performers.

Ironically, I'm writing this from my hotel room in Las Vegas, having just spoken at BlogWorld on the need for podcasters to hone their craft and find their natural voices - to be more professional at what they do.

But...I've made my living as a talk show host and talking head for years, taking positions that, to me, make eminent sense, yet to others seem counterintuitive. And I've also figured out ways to make several millions of dollars on the Internet over the last 15 years or so, affording me a unique perspective on what works, what doesn't and why (thanks, Howard Fine!) - along with what will work in the future.

So, here goes.

I'm saddened and angered that the WGA has gone on strike. I think the WGA strike, and the approach to these contract negotiations, have been the wrong way to fight the wrong battle. I think they've squandered any goodwill they had in this negotiation by picking the wrong area over which to have a fight. And the danger goes far deeper than that, as my other unions echo WGA's chants.

Let me explain.

No one, I repeat, no one, is making real money on the Internet with webisodic content right now. I'm always amazed that anyone is willing to pay me, other actors, writers and other performers to be in webisodics - and I'm on a fair number of well-known and well-respected webisodic series myself. Please watch Goodnight Burbank and Infected on Revision3. Save the ones artificially monetized as a blatant corporate sales tool (I'm happily in Pepsi/Mountain Dew's Cyberpunx, taking SAG-level pay), none is making any money.

None.

Few are spending money - actors are working for free, green screen rooms are begged, borrowed or stolen, cameras and cinematographers are being cajoled into supporting their fellow performer, but very few dollars are being spent. Most of the breakdowns we see for these shows are copy, credit and meals. The rare payments to performers in this space are welcome and cherished.

You know I'm right. You've seen Actor's Access, Now Casting and LA Casting.

It's all a big experiment, with relatively few real production dollars at risk and none coming back in return. People are dabbling. And spending very little producing to receive absolutely nothing in income. Zip. Nada.

The income side is just as abysmal. If you're producing content for the Internet, for YouTube and that ilk, if you're aggressive, you can count on a few dollars in subscription fees (I own ShowTaxi.com, so I see the numbers) and even less in advertising dollars. We're talking pennies here. And not per play.

So the Internet's Emperor currently has no clothes (or food or shelter, for that matter). And if we're honest with ourselves, we must ask: why fight for money that doesn't exist? And (this is where you'll have to trust that I know what I'm talking about) - WON'T exist for several contract cycles.

My problem is, I've suffered through this righteous indignation on the part of my unions before. And I didn't speak up. I regret that.

See, a few years ago, AFTRA pulled a similar stunt, negotiating what they thought was a very progressive victory: a triple session fee for a performer if a performer's commercial appeared on the Internet. Great, you say? We AFTRA performers all make more money, you say?

No. Not even close.

It resulted in the ad agencies that produced the spots simply refusing to authorize Internet play of those spots, and forced radio stations to drastically change their online automation playback, and to blank out those spots with AFTRA performances in their live streams with public domain classical music. So AFTRA performers never got paid that hard fought triple session fee, and AFTRA unnecessarily burdened every commercial radio station in America.

The current landscape in Internet production of video, audio, Flash, YouTube videos and the like, is still, and will remain so for the next several years, a speculative one, and one with no foreseeable income.

Why?

Here's why. While the public loves to consume online content, no one has successfully gotten them to pay for it. No model has emerged, including subscription and advertising, that generates even the most meager incomes on the most runaway popular videos.

And when does emerge, like iTunes, it gets called not a godsend, and what consumers want and are willing to pay for. No. It gets labeled "the ruin of the music industry" by NBC/Universal's leadership in their zeal to maintain outmoded budgets. Slap.

This is the important fact: the most outrageously successful videos on the biggest outlet online, YouTube, generate 7-figure plays, and low 2 and 3 figure *monthly* incomes, with short-attention-span shelf life of a few months at best, as users find the next darling to virally spread. And no one is madly clicking on the ads on YouTube pages or anywhere else. How many times have you left a video playback page on YouTube by clicking on an ad?

I find myself shaking my head in rueful concern over next summer's actor's contract negotiations when I see my SAG leader, Alan Rosenberg, sending me an email stating that "their fight (WGA's) is our fight."

Let me be very clear. I loved him as the alcoholic lawyer on The Guardian a few years back on CBS, but here, today, Rosenberg is dead wrong, and he is endangering our chances to negotiate proper and real increases in our pay rates and health benefits. He is doing so in favor of chasing after the Internet market. There is no Internet market to fight over yet. There is no market in the foreseeable future on the Internet.

Certainly, he and others are distracted by the fact that some websites like YouTube and Facebook have moronic, emotion-filled capital valuations the likes of which haven't been seen since the dot-com bust, but none are making money, and none have the near- or mid-term potential to make the kind of money that merits those valuations. Thankfully they're not individual public companies, and today's Henry Blodgetts can't hype them to death on the markets.

Unfortunately, what those websites do have is the ability to take viewers away from network and cable TV, and what have been very, very lucrative network audience and ad dollars, but darn the luck...they don't replace the lost network ad money with online ad money. And no one running these websites are telling the truth on that - it would harm their negotiations to be bought by the likes of Microsoft, Google or Yahoo.

No, it's just the same old romantic dot-com hype the mainstream press has been known for since they started covering the Internet, cluelessly, in the 90's. And in the end, the Internet's really just another delivery mechanism, another wire, with a more painful-to-watch output point (gather the family around the computer monitor?), not an incredible new market place.

Not yet.

And to make matters even worse, the mainstream media, in their zeal to cover sites like Napster, BitTorrent and Kazaa with such glowing admiration, has trained a whole generation of users to steal, or at the very least, expect everything to be free. That means that if a market does emerge, we have some really damaging speed bumps in getting the public to pay and advertisers to pay.

That, so far, has been the reality for the folks on the other side of the negotiating table.

Certainly for some producers and writers, they might make money with very little outlay by making a great piece online, creating a demand for that creative work via viral success, then selling the series as DVDs or by creating series that air on traditional channels. That's self production. That's creating your own content, so go negotiate with yourself. Most of the people producing webisodes now are doing so, hoping they'll hit a home run...and a network will notice. That's not revolutionary at all. It's what indie artists have been doing for years on the music side of things.

So the WGA, our acting and performance membership, outspoken activist celebrities and our Guild and Federation leadership are, to me, out walking the picket lines, encouraging us to do the same, posturing themselves and our futures over a vast empty wasteland that currently is being experimented with - to no predictable success.

I believe that we are far too early in the infancy of this delivery mechanism to be defiantly sticking our chins out, demanding money that doesn't exist, when DVD sales and on-demand cable plays are clearly demonstrable and are far more lucrative to producers and distributors, and from which we should be able to extract a more reasonable percentage. My advice? Go back to the table, demand to rework the DVD and VOD formulas and keep an eye on the Net over the next few years, looking for real income, but don't throw down the precious gauntlet over it.

I believe that if the WGA gets what they want, they'll find that they fought over hardly anything, and squandered an opportunity to do something useful for their membership.

And before the conspiracy theories start, I am no shill for the producers. I believe that you train people how to treat you and how well to remunerate you - and that we, as performers, are usually woefully underpaid. We deserve as much money as we are willing to demand and that the other side is willing to pay.

But in saying all this, I fear that some of you will shun me as that smart ass capitalist Ayn Randian objectivist Ruth's Chris steak-eating barbarian who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of what it's like to be a struggling artist. And there, you would be correct, right up to the "doesn't grasp..." part of that sentence. I struggle every day as an actor, a writer, a filmmaker, a voice talent and more. But those of you know know me, know that I often find a way to success, especially on the Internet.

Not, however, as a webisodic producer. There's no money in it. Yet.

So there we are. What do I do?

Do I keep silent, knowing that if I speak my mind, from what I consider to be a very informed position of first hand knowledge, I could be ostracized by my fellow performers? Or do I clearly and succinctly speak up, hoping someone, somewhere in the WGA leadership receives this message as a forward, even a "can you believe how stupid this guy is?" forward, and changes their tactics to deal with the real and pressing issues they have?

I've made up my mind. Here goes:

I support the troops, but I don't support the war.

I support my fellow writers' quest for better pay and better benefits, but I do not support the WGA strike over Internet production. I think it is a mistake to get wrapped around the axle on demanding monies for Internet usage. And, I believe that not only should the WGA take this demand off the table, I believe that if SAG and AFTRA pick up this fight next summer, they will be doing all of their members, including me, a grave disservice. The producers will balk, knowing there really, really, really is no money to be shared, and will not be willing to capitulate. And then we'll strike, and we will all waste more time on the picket lines, labeling our employers incorrectly as being "unfair".

There.

I urge you to pass this on to others in our community. And I welcome your comments, screams, threats and more at 888-488-DAVID. You can also send your email to me here or at davidlawrence@aol.com.

Thanks.

David Lawrence

--

On 11/9/07 9:34 AM, one Troy Conrad wrote:

Well said David, and you've actually turned me around on this quite logical argument. Good work, and I hope you don't take too much shit from the stubborn masses.

Best,

Troy Conrad
www.comedyjesusshow.com

--

On 11/9/07 9:39 AM, one Brent Weinstein wrote:

Wow. This is really incredible. I'm so (dare I say it) proud of you for taking a stand.

--

On 11/9/07 9:46 AM, one marita schaub wrote:

Hi David : ) You Ruth Chris eating filet mignon! : ) Yum~!

I Understand that you feel it is a waste
of time to do this now when you say
there is no money to be made.
So, if there isn't any money to be
made today..... why not put it on the books now for later?
It will be in place.
If no money is to be made
then why would the producers cry about it?
You can't lose something you don't have.... $ that is.

Why not say ok this is the wave of the future I agree. You should be
protected now.
Otherwise isn't it a repeat fight for video residuals?

I hope this wasn't a dangerous e-mail for me to send out. : )

Mares

My point is that we could be negotiating for things now that are real, while keeping an eye on the Net to see if it actually starts generating some cash. We have to pick and choose that which we strike over, or we lose credibility.

And what the unions aren't making clear is what they asked for - which was a percentage of income. If the income isn't there yet, why not wait until it's clear that it will be there, and choose now to fight for something tangible?

That's my point. We're a long way off from making any money on the Net - people want everything for free, and all of the pay models have failed.

David

On 11/9/07 10:15 AM, one marita schaub wrote:

I don't have TIVO or cable........ If I miss an episode of Desperate Housewives right now I can go to the Internet and watch it for free... I'd be willing to pay to see it! I love that show that much! maybe I can pay $1.00. since they make us watch it on a small screen and have advertising all over it too. You see Cable tv is expensive........ I can't pay monthly. But IF I can pay for the individual shows as I miss them I'd rather watch on my mac because it is so much clearer! than the antenna on my roof.. ( which needs to be adjusted I have to get my ladder out again!) Many people in my area don't have cable tv. Hell! they don't even own cars. they only take the bus to work!

--

On 11/9/07 9:45 AM, one Karl Hofheinz wrote:

David! Good stuff, Bubba. Very, very reasoned and I really hope it has an impact cause the sooner this strike ends the less we all lose.

Karl

--

On 11/9/07 9:58 AM, one monkeylion wrote:

Hey David. Hope you're well.

Just read your letter (skimmed a lot of it - I have
internet attention disorder).

I have been pretty non-decisional about the WGA ( I
save my political action for things like war and
global warming), but being Devil's advocate how about
these ideas?:

You rightly point out that there is no money to be
made by the little guys with their little cameras and
little green screens. I in fact am one of those guys.
But what you fail to address, or may have just glossed
over, is that networks air their primetime shows
online with ads. I depend on these replays now as I'm
often not home at night ( I- have - a -life) and I
don't own the TIVO. Or cable, but I digress.

So when I watch 30 Rock online I am exposed to a
commercial. Which I ignore just as much as those on
TV, but the model exists for a reason, yes? The
advertisers are paying for that time. Are they paying
as much as for TV? Probably not. But they are paying.
That's money right there. Money coming in because of
the show. That instantly sets it up for disbursement
as is set up in TV residuals.

Now you state that the money isn't really coming in.
You fail, however, to site facts. I know you're a
smart, thoughtful guy, but I'm not going to just take
your word for it. I need to see numbers, real cold
numbers to be convinced that NBC is not getting cash
for their online shows.

In fact a lot of your letter depends on a lack of
stats. It is therefore hard to take it too seriously.

Another point is the example of VHS. As I understand
it, the industry negotiated low numbers initially
because no one knew if home video would make money.
And now that it does, the creatives are stuck with old
contracts. I think the internet debate is an attempt
to not make the same mistake and preemptively secure
good deals for when the internet does become a huge
source of profit. I agree that the old home video
contracts should be revisited. Are they not? Yes they
are. 4 cents to 8 cents. Is that the right amount? Who
knows?

Some random thoughts: I like unions when they protect
their members but not when they keep us from working.
I don't have a problem doing free stuff online, but I
do have a problem working for free with
supermegaconglomerate enterprises. There should be a
sliding scale. No budget, no pay. Budget, pay based on
percentage of budget. Pretty simple, really.

Health care coverage from employers was originally a
carrot to draw potential employees to a firm. It has
no become expected by people. I think that's foolish.
Employers don't pay for rent or mortgage or car
insurance or groceries. Why should they pay for health
insurance? I think it's great when they do, but
ultimately I believe it is the responsibility of the
federal government. It exists to protect its citizens.
That's why we have a well-funded military. Isn't
health care a way of be protected? Yes it is.

My 10 cents (adjusted for inflation)

Keep being a free thinker!

Best,
Andrew

On 11/9/07 9:58 AM, one monkeylion wrote:

The advertisers are paying for that time.

Usually not - they are usually bonuses. So from there?

And as far as me being accurate, the books aren't open at the private firms for a reason - they are abysmal, but neither you nor I will know for sure. No worries if you don't believe me.

David

On 11/9/07 10:13 AM, one monkeylion wrote:

So NBC pays Chrysler a bonus? Based on what? Again, how do you know?

There are lots of pontifs in the media and very little
facts. I like to make my decisions based on facts.

Thanks,
AK

On 11/9/07 10:13 AM, one monkeylion wrote:

So NBC pays Chrysler a bonus? Based on what? Again, how do you know?

No, they bonus them the online spots for buying network spots.

There are lots of pontifs in the media and very little facts. I like to make my decisions based on facts.

So...it appears that you really don't want to think that I have a clue - you've intimated several times now that my assumptions are unproveable. I've been selling ad time on my radio and television shows at the network level for over 30 years, and have embraced the Internet and want it to work. So, I do have a few more hard-won facts at my disposal than your average pontiff. I just think it's the wrong fight at the wrong time to be fighting over the Internet. You're a producer - you said in an earlier message that you fight and scrape. What have you earned from all that? And have you paid your actors?

But we can agree to disagree, without denigrating my personal experience, yes?

David

On 11/9/07 11:01 AM, one monkeylion wrote:

The problem with email is tone. David, I in no way mean to denigrate your experience. From my end, I am having a civil discussion.

All I mean to say is that when someone presents a side
of an argument, facts are necessary to back it up. I
try to engage in critical thinking and that's what I
was attempting to do. Like I said, I really don't have
a horse in the race, as I haven't given it much
consideration, and I'm playing Devil's advocate.

As for me being a producer, you're right I have made
no money and have paid no one any money. But I already
stated that, in not so much those words. My point here
is that little guys like me and you shouldn't be
forced to pay when there is no money, but when a
network engages in online programming, they have
money. Now I didn't know about the bonus/trade
situation, but I still think networks profit from
having their shows online. If I discover the show
online, it might make me want to tune into their prime
time schedule on TV, which brings in money.

I just don't think the whole thing is black and white,
as with most of life, that's all I'm saying.

Again my intention wasn't to attack you, but respond
to your letter with some thoughts of my own. Maybe
you're just being a little defensive because you
expect to be on the outside on this issue. Maybe you
have received some angry letters. Just know that mine
wasn't one of them.

Best,
AK

--

On 11/9/07 9:55 AM, one heathersher@att.net wrote:

Wow-u r amazing! Thank u for sending this-i will forward it on because I agree-of course we have support for the troops as u said, but I was always confused as well about the internet b/c I thought the same as u-where is the money? Thank u for your courage and your intelligence! Love, Heather Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

--

On 11/9/07 9:53 AM, one bobbyreed@aol.com wrote:

Well, you certainly put it clearly. Nice work.

B.
Bobby Reed
bobbyreed.com

--

On 11/9/07 9:52 AM, one braintracksaudio@yahoo.com wrote:

Finally someone speaks some sense.

--

On 11/9/07 10:07 AM, one Mark wrote:

“It was a mission statement!”

Good work David. I hope this gets out!

Thanks for including me.

Mark

--

On 11/9/07 9:40 AM, one Ara Derderian wrote:

David,

Great email! You should record it in that great David Lawrence style and
send it out as your next podcast!

I have to find a time to get out to see your studio and perhaps go
out for dinner.

Have a great weekend!
Ara

--

On 11/9/07 10:20 AM, one AceRex11@aol.com wrote:

Just wanted to let you know I don't normally read thru long winded emails like that- but I did read your email and it was great insight. Very well written and concise, without rambling. I'll forward it to my actor friends. I'd really love to hear someone try to counterpoint it- cuz I'm not sure what ammo is left... All the best- Jeremy

Jeremy M. Dayton
Videographer
1AceRex1 Productions
www.1acerex1.com

--

On 11/9/07 10:14 AM, one Eric Filipkowski wrote:

but don't they have to sign something, as relates to the internet stuff? and wouldn't that establish a precedent, from which the studios could deny any re-working of the residuals paid out in the future? everybody's sending out that video with the people from the office complaining they didn't get any money from their webisodes and it seems stupid that people who make 30 grand a week are complaining about 15 cents in ad revenue, but why shouldn't they get that money? it's their work. I understand that they should (pragmatically) look at it like, "well, we're promoting this for free so that people will still watch our show, it won't get canceled and we'll continue to make 30 grand a week" but say they agree to that and don't get paid for those webisodes. simply because it's not a lot of money. fast forward five years and suddenly webisodes do make a lot of money. they've already agreed to not get paid on them. is that a valid fear or am I just totally ignorant of how it works? I mean, the precedent is the reason that SAG is going to strike too, right? because once it's set down on paper, that's something to be pointed to. "well the wga got residuals, so sag gets residuals too". "well you didn't get money for that webisode back then, you won't get any money for this one either"?

On 11/9/07 10:14 AM, one Eric Filipkowski wrote:

fast forward five years and suddenly webisodes do make a lot of money

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe people are willing to pay, maybe not. We watch and see, Mr. Kazaa Boy.

Sometime between now and then, we make it an issue. Not now. It's making us look petty. That's my point. Webisodes were supposed to be for promotion - like cutting a promo for the network - they don't get paid for that either.

David

--

On 11/9/07 10:19 AM, one Catherine O'Connor wrote:

But David-- they are also asking for a small increase in residuals for DVD's....from 4% up to 8% I believe, and that is high time. I think that is as much an issue as the Internet....and you do not address it here at all, except to say that's one of the things the writers should be focusing on. Cat O'Connor

On 11/9/07 10:19 AM, one Catherine O'Connor wrote:

I think that is as much an issue as the Internet....and you do not address it here at all, except to say that's one of the things the writers should be focusing on.

I actually mention it twice, and in the context of what we should be asking for and fighting for. It's far more important than the Internet is now - because it's long overdue, and it's real money.

David

--

On 11/9/07 10:24 AM, one CraigieB@aol.com wrote:

Brilliant, David! I think it's ironic that they're striking, shutting down production, forcing viewers to find other avenues of entertainment (or worse, forcing producers to make more reality dreck), thus cutting their own throats in the process. Until now I haven't seen the points you're making elucidated so succinctly...may the right people see it, and see it in time to stop the madness. Take care, -Craig

-Craig Burnett
craigieb@aol.com
www.craigburnett.com

--

On 11/9/07 10:20 AM, one Dan O'Day wrote:

Hi, David....

I know nothing at all about how these issues effect actors.

I know a little about how it affects writers, and I think you don't
understand.

From what you wrote, it also seems you might be focusing more on content
created for the Internet than on works created for TV and film yet
distributed by other means. The strike is not about webisodics. It's not
about "Goodnight Burbank." It's about last night's episode of "The Office"
being sent to your cell phone for $1.99. A million times. (No, that's not
today; it's tomorrow.)

It doesn't matter who is making how much money on the Internet at this
moment. What matters is that networks & studios are desperately trying to
figure out how to use their programming to make money on the Net (and
elsewhere) -- and they will figure it out.

Regardless of the size of the profit at the moment, networks & studios are
selling programs online (and offline), taking in money, and sharing none of
that with the writers.

The answer to your question, "Why fight for money that doesn't exist?" is
that it WILL exist, big time. And if writers wait until that big time, it
will be too late; studios will not give up a piece of a pie after it's been
baked.

The WGA didn't understand the size of the DVD pie. That's why there are 15
different box sets of TV series that include episodes written by our friend,
Ken Levine, and Ken hasn't received a penny in royalties. The suggestion
that the WGA simply go back and ask for a more equitable sharing of DVD
sales/rentals is naive; Hollywood never gives back what it already has.

Again, I have no idea how this issue affects actors.

Best,
Dan O'

On 11/9/07 10:20 AM, one Dan O'Day wrote:

From what you wrote, it also seems you might be focusing more on content created for the Internet than on works created for TV and film yet distributed by other means. The strike is not about webisodics. It's not about "Goodnight Burbank." It's about last night's episode of "The Office" being sent to your cell phone for $1.99. A million times. (No, that's not today; it's tomorrow.)

And you think that's going to happen in the next three to five years? People are going to want to watch on a screen smaller than their iPods? Four years in, and people still don't want to do that. Nonetheless, if somehow that starts to change, we talk about it. Not now, not when there are more pressing issues.

It doesn't matter who is making how much money on the Internet at this moment. What matters is that networks & studios are desperately trying to figure out how to use their programming to make money on the Net (and elsewhere) -- and they will figure it out.

And we watch that. When it's reasonable, and that's my point, going after things that are reasonable (like changing the 4 cents to 8 cents on DVDs - it should be more and that's what they should strike about, not the internet), then we negotiate from a position of verifiable figures and strength, not the if-come of what might happen in the future.

Regardless of the size of the profit at the moment, networks & studios are selling programs online (and offline), taking in money, and sharing none of that with the writers.

Or actors or directors or DPs because the cost to them is still more than they are bringing in. I recognize Ken's plight, and want him to make more money. I just don't think worrying about the Net right now is the best use of anyone's time. And you know me - I'm as bullish about the internet as one can get.

David

--

On 11/9/07 9:29 AM, one Jimmy Pardo wrote:

David- Isn't it really about money being made of of replays of "The Office" etc... and the ads they sell for those to air... and not so much "New" conent? JP

It's about both (and according to NBC, they aren't selling enough online to matter - we'll find out next statement). But either way, it's a fight for another time - get more DVD money - money you can actually point to and enumerate - now. We're wasting so much energy on the Net, and looking like fools in the meantime.

That's my take. I appreciate you reading it.

David

--

On 11/9/07 10:30 AM, one Eric Filipkowski wrote:

david, you know, I hate when people do this to me and I try not to do it to others, but I think in this case, you are presenting a lot of really good arguments and points that alot of these people aren't thinking about, but I think it gets lost in the length of this email. I also think you should make it less personal, so then it's like, "oh, it's from this guy who has a radio show and knows about the business side of all this". I think if you didn't start out so strong with the "I'm against this strike" stuff and instead asked some questions of people who think they are for the strike. specifically the stuff about aftra. I think that's a pretty good parallel to what's going on here and I think this strike has the potential to cause the same kind of thing again. and I would end it with a more prominently displayed solution. it's a really good email and you make some strong points and the truth is, most of these people have no idea what they're striking for and what the realities of the situation are, but obviously, you know this can be really off-putting. it's basically peoples' nature to lash out when they're questioned, so I think if you soften the tone a little bit and play up the "hey, I'm on your side" thing, it'll have more of an impact. ok, again, sorry to edit your writing without being asked, I really do hate that. eric

--

On 11/9/07 10:24 AM, one Rick Sanchez wrote:

David,

Not a dangerous email, just one not well thought out. You obviously don't
spend a lot of time talking to younger generations one on one. They don't
really give a darn about television or radio for that matter. They LOVE TIVO
because they can fast forward through commercials, They love iTunes and the
pay what you want Radio Head album (60 some percent opted to pay nothing but
then again, the 40% who did pay paid Radio Head and not the producers and
corporations...the ULTIMATE in free market economy). They DO however
subscribe to premium networks like HBO.

They are spending a lot of time on facebook, youtube and myspace and you are
correct that they don't click through on many advertisements. You are right
that the business model is not yet figured and not many people are making
what you call "real" money at the moment.

The fact is that advertisers are spending a fortune advertising on the web
because they know that this is where it's all headed. It may take 5, 10 or
20 years, but broadband will eventually be a moneymaker for well written
creative media and not just nervous squirrels. If you look back on the
history of television, it took a while before any "real" money was made.

If as you say there really IS no money to be shared, then why are the
producers fighting so hard against sharing? A percentage of nothing is
nothing. It's no skin off their backs to agree to pay nothing.

The reason that they are fighting so hard is because they know that once
they figured it out...and they will figure it out, it will be much more
difficult for the writers to fight back. The writers and the public will
have become comfortable with the way it is and everyone will have much more
to lose.

The record companies lost out by NOT embracing new technology and by NOT
sharing the wealth with the artists. They had a well documented history of
it starting with cassette tape, then CDs and the final straw...file sharing.
They fought tooth and nail against all of these new technologies and lost.
The studios and producers may end up losing this one too.

I am not a writer and am not in any union, I was in the editor's guild
before they caved in to the producers and gave up benefits for no reason
other than short term gains. I completely support the writers on this one.
They are fighting for the long term and not just quarterly gains. Fight the
fight now and if the studios and producers decide not to share future
profits...screw em. Let them go the way of the record label and let the
ultimate free market take over. Radio Head's "pay what you want" model is
not something that the record labels want publicized. Yes, 60% of the
downloaders opted to pay nothing, but the 40% who did paid all of the money
to Radio Head and none of it to the major labels.

It's corporate America's biggest fear, that the little guy will figure out
why the studios want "ownership" and equity instead of salary and benefits.
Over the long haul, a percentage of the profits of a successful product is
much more profitable than a 2 season stint writing for a network show for a
salary.

I appreciate your comments. I actually develop Web 2.0 properties, and I am very in touch with what kids are doing. I spend a lot of time on myspace and facebook and youtube, and I see hysteria.

Radiohead's project was a complete bust. They made less than $20,000 on it (so far - they'll be pulling the plug momentarily on the free downloads), hardly enough to turn on the console in the studio. Not a great example. It just proved that people are more likely to pay nothing than pay something.

Yes, the networks will figure it out. But I believe we all have bigger fish to fry *immediately* than the Internet, which we should keep an eye on. As it becomes verifiable (and on NBC's next conference call, we'll see how much money they've made on hulu), we negotiate.

Again, I appreciate your comments.

David

--

On 11/9/07 10:31 AM, one Meredith Kibbee wrote:

What you say sounds like it makes a lot of sense. I don’t pretend to understand most of it or know the answers myself. Did you tell this to the WGA before they went on strike? Have you contacted SAG and AFTRA leadership with this message? Meredith Kibbee

I just created it this morning, so no, not yet. I copied the leadership on the missive.

David

--

On 11/9/07 10:49 AM, one Jim Coughlin wrote:

Nice perspective! Thanks! Jim Coughlin

--

On 11/9/07 11:01 AM, one Tansy Valenziano wrote:

Well said!

That's all I have to say....you're right, the money is in DVD and VOD,
and the internet is for future negotiations.

Thanks for being gutsy enough to say it. I cringe thinking of us actors
following in the same footsteps next summer!

Tansy Alexander
www.tansyalexander.com

--

On 11/9/07 10:38 AM, one Justin Everett-Church wrote:

I thought the issue around the web playback of the material was more for things like hulu which serve a huge amount of television material. Is it just around material made originally for web distribution?

No, it's both, but the comments made on the picket line got me furious - so ill informed on all sides.

I can imagine annoyance their for a lack of royalties (though for all I know Hulu does a great job with royalties). When all of my previous books went on Safari bookshelf I got lots of emails from people saying how much they liked the book (and had questions), but they I noticed that I got no additional royalties for those readers.

It was a bit annoying, but since I don't make my living off technical
writing I didn't feel like fighting for what would have probably amounted
to $100 for me. ;)

Yep - and believe me HULU pays nothing. But there's really nothing to pay - it's all free to the user.

Thanks for writing!

David

--

On 11/9/07 11:10 AM, one Jared Crain wrote:

I think you may be missing the point here. My understanding of the current strike is primarily about getting a larger cut of DVD and internet sales. I also think the guild wants a cut of any ad revenue generated by television or film material that is played on the internet.

It's actually sideways to all that - they want a larger cut of any secondary distribution methods, but ad revenue isn't part of the conversation.

My point is that it's premature to talk about it, and distracting from issues like DVD and VOD, to be yammering on the picket line about the Internet. Observe it, and when there's a verifiable pie to be shared, negotiate a piece. Not now.

David

--

On 11/9/07 11:15 AM, one Alexis Adkins wrote:

David,

I was just reading your email, and while I respect your opinion, I have to
say I disagree and, quite frankly, don't believe it's true.

You believe there is zero money being made? What about all the advertising
that you see on the websites? You think no one is paying for that? Do you
genuinely believe that on The Office site, where, yes you can watch the
previous night's episode for free, all the banner ads are given away? Even
on YouTube, all of that ad space, someone is making money. It may not be the
directors and actors, but there is money to be made otherwise it wouldn't be
there. With that, the number of paying web jobs is growing.

And with the popularity of iTunes and how many shows are downloaded there,
it is naive to think that the internet market is not going to continue to
grow. The Producers are giving the EXACT same reason to not even think about
payments, as they gave for VHS, "We don't know if there is any money to be
made from it." But, really, video was a poor market, it hasn't gone
anywhere... I am sure the internet is just a fad as well and will be washed
up in the next year or two... (BTW, it's the same argument given for DVD and
cable series and movies... and wow... those cable series don't have ANYONE
watching them...) Also, many tv shows are available to be downloaded onto
phones... there is revenue there... people just don't want to share the
wealth (i.e. the Sprint virals that Now Casting and Actors Access keep
sending the breakdowns for... how much gets charged to the account each time
one is downloaded? I know on my previous phone, it was $2.50 for a ring
tone, AND that was charged every 90 days... someone is making $$ and it
isn't being passed down.)

Also, the WGA wanted a fair percentage of DVD sales... the simple math, is
for a DVD that is sold $9 goes to the studio... the writer gets $.05... they
wanted $.10... is that REALLY so unfair? The people that give us the scripts
that we covet (and loathe) should get paid fairly for what they do.

Let us not forget, also, that right now, they are being used as an example.
SAG and DGA negotiations are coming up as well. We are being shown that the
Producers do not want to budge on anything.

I don't think the Writers are asking too much. It's greed, pure and
simple... it's even abusive... so many of the WGA and SAG are the ones that
are living hand to mouth, busting their asses to be the person that pays
their bills by doing what they love... Is it really so unreasonable that
they get paid fairly for their work?

~Alexis

On 11/9/07 11:15 AM, one Alexis Adkins wrote:

Let us not forget, also, that right now, they are being used as an example. SAG and DGA negotiations are coming up as well. We are being shown that the Producers do not want to budge on anything.

I didn't forget - it's part and parcel of my argument.

I do love that you took the time to write back..thanks for that!

David

--

On 11/9/07 11:10 AM, one Mike DeKalb wrote:

I could not agree with you more. It was nice to see a dissenting perspective, as I thought I was one of the few people who didn't agree with the grounds for the strike. The picketing is also disrupting the production work, which is hurting people who DON'T write, and that's just wrong. Thank you for this, and I will be sure to pass it along to those who would appreciate it. -Mike.

--

On 11/9/07 11:17 AM, one Dan O'Day wrote:

> And you think that's going to happen in the next three to five years?

Absolutely -- especially for what you & I, sadly, must refer to as "the
younger generation." For 15 to 30 year olds, the Internet is old technology,
used primarily as an information source (not an entertainment source, not
even a communication resource).

How do you and I converse? E-Mail.

How do 15 to 30 year olds converse? Via their cell phones (usually without
voice), followed by FaceBook or MySpace.

> I just don't think worrying about the Net right now is the best use
> of anyone's time. And you know me - I'm as bullish about the internet as one
> can get.

See, again that's where I humbly suggest you're not quite getting the
writers' position. They don't care about the Net. They don't even talk about
the Net. They're concerned with getting what they perceive as their fair
share of moneys obtained via alternative distribution providers. And they've
learned that when a new delivery system pops up, they need to negotiate
their position BEFORE the delivery system starts minting money.

Best,
Dan O'

--

On 11/9/07 2:54 PM, one Marty Ryan wrote:

David,

I read your very well composed thoughts on the strike. Is not the DVD issue
a bigger component of the strike? Isn't it just a matter in terms of the
internet that WGA is only asking that they be given future jurisdiction over
internet content? As you pointed out, no one is making money now and maybe
not in the next 3-10 years but we all know that internet and broadcast tv
and cable area all going to be melding into each other eventually. I don't
believe WGA is asking for specific payment terms on internet, just
jurisdiction. And that I do support since creative side i.e. writers,
actors, directors et. al. don't want to be shut out of that end of it. But I
believe the DVD is the bigger issue. Thanks,

Best regards,
Marty Ryan
SAG/AFTRA

--

On 11/9/07 12:16 PM, one Christine Clayburg wrote:

Thank you for being a brave voice of reason. "artists" forget they are following their bliss...however hard it is...but they are not carrying the weigh of risking untold $$$ of other people's money to occasionally get paid big...and then gripe when the guys taking the really big risks have some success. Thanks for using your voice to speak with reason. I'm cheering in your corner! Best, Cristine

--

On 11/9/07 12:23 PM, one LOU*LOU wrote:

Hear! Hear! Well-said! I was waiting to hear the other side of the issue and it couldn't have been more succinctly put. You're dead right.

Thankxxxx, LOU*LOU

--

On 11/9/07 2:41 PM, one Dan O'Shannon wrote:

hey--

thanks for the stuff to think about.

a couple quick thoughts...

dvd's were in their infancy when the wga agreed to let writers take
four pennies per dvd. this, of course, was pending the three year
study that the producers were going to make to decide what the best
equation was for allocating residuals. it comes as no surprise that
three years later, as dvd's were going crazy, the producers came back
to say that they were very happy to keep things the way they were and
continue to pay us our four cents.

(incidentally, i have a friend who has written over a hundred star
trek episodes. the trek franchise has netted paramount somewhere
around a billion bucks on dvd sales. i'm sure he regrets waiting for
dvds to prove themselves.)

so what did we learn?

is it wise to wait until a "new medium" proves itself before
negotiating a piece of it? when the three stooges made no provisions
for their images to be broadcast on the experimental medium of
television, they lost millions. and then more millions off home
video.

by waiting for an emerging technology to prove itself, the fight is
bloodier.

if anything, now is the time to fight for this, because the producers
(as i gather from your email) have nothing to lose. and if that's the
case, the strike will end shortly. hooray!

the problem as i see it is the wobbly definition of the word "medium."
the medium we're talking about should be called "video." plain and
simple. a movie theater, a tv, a laptop. an iphone... these are all
just devices to deliver the medium of video. and long ago, the wga
should have made that clear, negotiated for a share of the profits on
MEDIUM content, regardless of the device, and i'd be at work now.

i think you're not seeing the future in this regard: what happens
when tvs and computers become the same device? then what happens to
the ad revenue from my reruns? the studios will tell me i've made no
deal for this technology. then i lose even what i had before.

moving on...

i see that you're making no money producing webisodes. and to be
honest, i've never heard of the shows you mentioned. but i've heard
of a lot of the network shows. and i know that if you download some,
you have to watch a commercial, so i know that revenue is being
generated. and if that's the case, then i should like to have a slim
share of that, please. is it unfair of me to want that?

dan

(Dan O'Shannon is a friend and a well-known writer and show runner here in LA, having worked on Cheers, Frazier, Back To You, Threshhold and more.)

On 11/9/07 2:41 PM, one Dan O'Shannon wrote:

i know that if you download some, you have to watch a commercial, so i know that revenue is being generated.

Usually (and I know because I'm in with the iTunes doods) that is bonused for buying on air spots.

David

--

On 11/9/07 3:41 PM, one ALKO1001@aol.com wrote:

Guys-- Read this person's letter, at bottom, and what I wrote to him (below)... His letter is good, and in a sensible world would make sense, but in our world (Show Biz, not politics) I think he suggests something that would eventually come back to bite us.... I don't know how I know this guy, if I met him, how I got on his email list... I went to his web site (interesting)... He offers that he does well... Most of his emails are self-promotional ("I'll be doing this... I'm in that... See me here..." et cetera)... This one is not (well, not specifically, anyway) and is well written... What do you think? --alan--

David, I just visited what I believe is your web site and, unless things've
changed and you didn't bother to update your bio, those struggles you
mention above are being waged as a [meaningless] "SAG-eligible" non-union
actor, writer, et cetera... Are you a member of AFTRA and WGA-- or just
"eligible"?

Which would make your comments on union affairs, and your including yourself
in the "we" of union members, and your use of "fellow" in your email's
Subject, a bit, ummm, disingenuous....

But I enjoyed this particular email of yours... It did make some sense...
But sense often doesn't come into play vis-a-vis producer-actor/writer union
contract negotiations... Actually, now, when little money is being made, may
be the best time to make a deal (well, with union actors, anyway)... A brief
example, if I may:

Many years back (the early-to-mid '70s?) the unions negotiated a commercial
deal with ad producers... Presumable to get the best deal possible on
network and wild-spot pay, we "gave away" the then miniscule cable rights...
So, in the mid-to-late '70s, when a Toyota spot of mine was airing, friends
were coming up to me and saying, "Hey, Alan, geez I saw your Toyota spot
twenty times over the weekend; you gotta be making a ton of money".... Turns
out the spot was running about four times a week on network, and
occasionally in various wild-spot markets-- but my friends were seeing it on
the basketball playoffs, four or five times an hour, on ESPN, for a flat
three-month fee of $150. ESPN at the time had a larger subscriber base
(potential viewers) than the major wild-spot markets of NY, CHI, and LA
combined... And I was getting 150 bucks-- because our union negotiators
hadn't had the foresight to look down the road and gauge the potential of a
particular market... I'm semi-retired now but it's my impression that cable
spot money still lags waaay behind other payments.

Again, unless you've recently decided to join the unions you're eligible to
(but, apparently choose not to for, what, undercutting financial reasons?),
yet write about, I don't see how any strikes affect you... What do you
care?... It just means less competition for you, doesn't it?

Meaningless? If I was non-union (I'm not, I'm in SAG and AFTRA) I wouldn't be meaningless.

I'm talking about timing. It's subtle, and it's lost on more than a few who got my email.

David

--

On 11/9/07 3:30 PM, one Rick Sanchez wrote:

David,

You didn't state a source for your Radiohead sales figures so stating that
is was a complete bust is a bit suspect to me.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/11/radiohead-comsc.html

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1890

http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/l-times-radiohead-tell-us-what-you-learn/

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html

Everything I've read thus far, has been speculative at best as the band has
of yet to release sales figures. Even the rough guesses I've read have been
far above the $20,000 you stated. After working in the music business during
it's heyday of the 70's and 80's I happen to know a bit about how creative
the accounting by the majors was. After they factor in "marketing expenses"
and re-coup their recording costs and tour support, there is often nothing
but a few green M&Ms left for the artist. Yes, the major label was putting
up the money and taking the risk and they rightfully should make the lion's
share of the profits generated, but once again, we all know how much it
costs to make a CD and how much they sold for. The record companies made out
like bandits until the wonders of the Internet called their bluff. The music
"industry" has fallen apart, but artists are beginning to figure that out,
learning how to market themselves, learning how to build and keep a loyal
fan base and yes...how NOT to give away ownership. This new business model
is still in it's infancy and everyone is trying to figure it out.

Ownership is really the only way an artist, musician, writer, actor has to
really cash in on their hard work. There are no golden parachutes for
artists and most of all, artists are not rewarded for poor performance as
has been the trend of late in the world of corporate executives.

The writers are doing the right thing by fighting to earn ownership. Even if
it's a very small percentage of the future profits. It will be much easier
to get those concessions now than it will be once the multi-nationals figure
out how to make a real profit. If the studios, distributors and producers
did not believe that DVDs and the web would be a future source of
significant income, they would not be fighting so hard not to give up such
an insignificant sum of the virtual pie.

I do however enjoy reading your outlook on things. Keep it up.

Cheers, Rick Sanchez

--

On 11/9/07 4:02 PM, one DaddyOFilms@aol.com wrote:

David,

While I know that you have an informed and educated opinion on the matter, I think you may be missing the big picture. Maybe I'm wrong, but have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk

I don't think the demands are unreasonable. As a producer who believes that
taking care of everyone involved in a production is more important than the
production iteself, I think paying a reasonable residual to writers, no
matter the medium, is fair. If there really is very little money in internet
advertising (which I find hard to believe considering how much content my
son and my students watch online... but will take your word for as an
expert), isn't a percentage still fair? They're not demanding money that
isn't there. You only made ten dollars on that webisode? Okay, only pay the
writer eighty cents, etc. You didn't make anything? No harm, no foul.

I don't think you're dangerous. And I'm not threatening you. But I am
thinking about joining the writers on the picket line, even though I'm not
WGA, and techincally represent the opposition. Thanks for your reasonable
discourse.

Scott Russell

That video, and the incredible assumptions, mininformation and leaps to conclusions is what caused me to write that in the first place. Calling back to I Love Lucy is like calling back to piano rolls.

David

--

On 11/9/07 4:09 PM, one Christopher Pappas wrote:

Great email - thanks

(Chris is my agent at UTA.)

--

On 11/9/07 4:09 PM, one Dean Cameron wrote:

I have a question about your essay:

If i'm writing for 'the office' getting paid each week to write an episode.
why don't they pay me for the episodes i write exclusively for the website
the network receives ad money?

yes, in a perfect world, those are negotiated, but it's not negotiated now.
you just stay late and write 'em.

just wonderin'.

(Dean directed me in Bukowsical last year, and was one of the people that drew me to LA to be an actor.)

--

On 11/10/07 12:48 AM, one coachph@aol.com wrote:

You need to check the actual demands and counters that caused the strike. No-one is striking for what is a non-existant internet market. The strike is about broadcast residual roll-backs and internet generated pod-casts which, in fact, are generating advertizing revenue streams. Where there is a revenue stream there is an obligation to negotiate with your artists a fair share residual as exists in music. End of story, end of endless blah blah blah. Say what you have to say in something less than a pedant's essay and maybe you will find an audience.

--

On 11/9/07 10:49 PM, one Gary Stockdale wrote:

David,

I appreciate the care you took with your opinion.

I hope you will allow me to answer in kind, and not risk your
disapproval.

The reason the strike is happening is because the writers have a
contract up for renewal. The contract the writers are being asked to
sign will block them from receiving any back end from anything coming
in from anything other than existing "television" (soon to become
obsolete) and DVDs (ditto) - which the writers have already been
willing to bend on.

When you establish a precedent, it is much harder to get over that in
the next "contract cycle." That is precisely the plan of the
management side.

Here is what has been my experience from being a SAG member since
1980, and AFTRA member since 1979 and a member of AFM: When cable TV
became a viable entity in the late 70s and early 80s, no one knew how
to pay the people there. I know, because I tried to book vocal
sessions for early cable shows and the unions had no idea how to
charge for stuff. So what eventually happened is that, failing an
alternative strategy, the producers had to port over to cable the
existing residual system (albeit with smaller overall payment
scales). They were not happy about this.

Then when the digital/online revolution happened, management and
their lawyers were dedicated to one overriding principle: they were
NOT going to get stuck paying residuals or back end to talent. Their
goal has been clear: PROHIBIT back end payment before the artists and
craftspeople can figure out a way to structure residuals or back-end
on internet content.

They realize that, in a few years, ALL content will come through a
pipe into your house, your iPod-type device, or whatever other
machine that's invented. TV, "prime-time", records, etc. will become
a thing of the past. Digital delivery will be all there is, in its
myriad forms.

You make the point over and over that no one is making any money on
the internet. I don't believe any writers (or composers, for that
matter) have demanded anything concrete from these web ventures at
this point. Indeed, most creatives are happy to work with the
producers to try and make the internet the viable entertainment
medium it will eventually be.

But let me tell you what I just experienced doing some work for a
comedy website recently. I had no complaint about the low fees I was
receiving; I knew we were not talking about any real income-producing
show here. But my contract, which should have been a simple licensing
deal, contained a PROHIBITION on my EVER receiving BMI or ASCAP
payments for the content I'd produced.

Now, neither BMI nor ASCAP have even close to figured out HOW to pay
performance rights on internet content, but they're working on it.
But for this company to prohibit any FUTURE collection of performance
royalties (a pittance paid by each broadcasting corp. to allow for
blanket licensing of music), confirms their across-the-board
intention to be ahead of the game in blocking the residual/repayment
structure from being ported to the web.

There are other examples. From what I've seen of what they were asked
to agree on this time, a dangerous precedent would be set. You must
understand that the producers want back-end GONE, and when TV and
DVDs go the way of VHS, there WILL be no other content delivery
system. And if they are successful in freezing the creatives out of a
piece of the pie, it will be devastating for the future of writers,
actors, composers, singers, and voice talent.

It's all about the future right now. Not much money now, but the
producers are looking ahead. We need to do the same.

Hope you didn't mind my rant.

Best,
Gary

(Gary Stockdale co-wrote and composed the music for Bukowsical, in which I played Charles Bukowski.)

--

On 11/9/07 12:26 PM, one sean saint-louis wrote:

Well written my bard-like homie. Well written.

- Sean

--

On 11/10/07 8:14 AM, one Debi Derryberry wrote:

David, I read your email. Although you may have some valid points, the mentality is the same as the actors' mentality at cable tv's infancy. We gave away the house because cable "wasn't making money yet". We can't and won't make that mistake again. Mark my words, a way will be figured out for producers to make a killing from digital downloads. We must put ourselves in a position that protects us for when that time comes (if it has not already come).

I have a hit series running on cable and I do not make enough to
survive on the residuals, while the producers are rolling in wealth.
It would not have to be this way if we actually held out for more on
cable residuals.
Debi Derryberry
2006 SAG Hollywood Board Member
17 year SAG Member

--

On 11/10/07 6:43 AM, one David Petersen wrote:

Alan, Thanks. I've seen that piece (a piece by Michael Eisner on the strike), and I am in complete agreement with you. Now is the time to go for it, but that does not either require or justify some of the WGA's tactics, as I tried to say earlier. -DP

--

On 11/10/07 11:16 AM, one frances@francesfisher.com wrote:

Dear Mr. Lawrence,

Yep, you would be dangerous and deadly if anyone took you seriously.

You figured out "ways to make several millions of dollars on the Internet
over the last 15 years or so", yet in another breath you say there is no
money in it. DoubleSpeak is of no interest to me, and I have better things
to do with my time than to get lost in the quagmire of your illogical
thought process.

You are the sound of one hand clapping; Joan Halpern Weiss is your other
half.

Frances Fisher

On 11/10/07 11:16 AM, one frances@francesfisher.com wrote:

You figured out "ways to make several millions of dollars on the Internet over the last 15 years or so",

...with web sites and business processes that proved profitable...

yet in another breath you say there is no money in it.

Not in this particular business, no. Not yet. Soon, but not yet, and no one knows how soon nor how much.

DoubleSpeak is of no interest to me, and I have better things to do with my time than to get lost in the quagmire of your illogical thought process.

My thought process isn't illogical - in fact, it seems less muddled than to jump to the conclusions you have jumped to about me, and to misinterpret fairly clear language about my experience.

You seem to have reacted as though I am not in favor of our participation in alternative revenue streams. I'm only arguing to wait until we can forcefully negotiate from a position of strength, not from a whiny position of "gimme".

David

--

On 11/10/07 12:11 PM, one Nancy Wolfson wrote:

I'm forwarding this to as many people as I can think to forward it to, David. I really appreciate where you are coming from here and I love how well you articulated your experiences and facts. Nancy Wolfson Braintracks Audio www.braintracksaudio.com Voice Over Coaching Casting Production Success

--

On 11/10/07 1:03 PM, one Ben Zook wrote:

David, Thanks for educating me about this. You providing me with the real information opened my eyes and gave me the courage to go to WGA headquarters this morning, where I marched right in, threw down my picket sign, and told them, "Forget it! You people are crazy! Haven't you seen the carefully researched David Lawrence New Media Report? Not only will I NOT participate in this strike, but here is my Guild card! Good day, sir...I said, Good day!" and marched out of the building in a huff. Thank you, David, for setting me free!

You union brother,

Ben Zook

When one goes to great extremes with rhetoric, the facts usually are against them. I've never advocated that - and it's not funny to paint me that way. I want our Guild to participate in clever, elegant and beneficial negotiations, not ones that paint us as clueless.

And how does the Slate article predict what the networks will make from the Internet? The answer is, it doesn't. NBC is currently rejecting what is arguably the best and brightest path to these revenues, the iTunes Store, in favor of sinking what they claimed was $100 million into hulu.com, where you can't buy a thing - consumers get stuff free, and advertisers get free ads for buying on-air ads. With that approach, we're still a ways off from any tangible profits from which to ask for residuals.

Anything else, let me know. I'm sure you will - you're a writer!

David

--

On 11/10/07 1:32 PM, one RDMONTY@aol.com wrote:

Dear David,

I really appreciate your email and insights. What you say makes a great deal
of sense as far as it goes, but let me ask you one question. Twenty years
ago no one thought DVD sales and cable would be what they are today and now
look at us. If there really is no money in the internet and in downloads,
why is AMPAS fighting so hard to hold on to their rights to it? Why won't
they at least agree to a percentage of whatever profits they do make?

I would love to hear your feedback on this point.

Regards,
Randy Montgomery

I am not advocating that we sign a contract that precludes us from ever participating in Internet or any other new media performance income - quite the contrary. I believe in bargaining from a position of strength, not fear. We fear that we won't get any residuals, and that's just as unfounded as the notion that the networks are making millions of dollars now, and billions next year, on Internet sales. I want our Guild to wait until there is verifiable numbers, then fight to the bone for a fair percentage of that. My point is, we don't know how much to ask for yet, even as a percentage, and I want us to know. That's all.

David

--

On 11/10/07 1:38 PM, one GREG BERG wrote, forwarding a friend's take on the email:

"He should know that it doesn't matter what the proceeds are. What matters is that there is an agreement in case the future holds a possibility of proceeds. What an idiot observation. This is the same argument that we had with producers concerning video markets in the 70's. What happened? The producers screwed the actors and never got back to us as "promised." This time the tables have turned and no one is trusting the producers on promises to get back to writers. I'm not passing this on to anybody. Jesus!"

Your friend misunderstands me. And I am not an idiot. I am a very good negotiator. We are appearing petty and ill-informed by demanding a percentage of what is currently zero. I'm simply advocating a bit of time, and making sure we deal with rectifying the DVD situation now. I want us to present and to participate in elegant, forceful and member-beneficial negotiation tactics from a position of strength, not hand-waving, premature antics that send us to the picket lines for pennies. If we wait a year or two (not twenty), we have far more ammunition on our hands - what if, as has been my experience, that it costs a fraction of offline costs to deliver content on the net? What if we ask for too little?

Some people are so tied up in the righteous indignation over mistakes from the past that they don't stop to assess the consequences of their current actions. That is what I believe is happening here.

David

--

On 11/10/07 1:50 PM, one lawrence matthews wrote:

David,

I was moved by your statement about the writers' strike. I was happy
to hear that you've done well on the Internet but distressed that you
feel your position puts you at odds with others there. I am not an
interested party, but I am a veteran of many AFTRA negotiations and I
have some thoughts. As with the presidential campaign, (and past AFTRA
negotiations) subtext becomes more important than facts. I once was
part of an AFTRA strike that was, at its heart, about someone's hurt
feelings, not about the stated reason for the strike. So to say that
there's very little money to be made on the Internet for the writers
might be a fact but it's not as important as whatever subtext is in
play. I don't know what that is but from here it appears that some of
the writers think they were screwed in a past contact. I applaud your
courage in stating your position and I hope that others who are
involved will be spurred to think about what is actually happening as
opposed to whatever emotional winds are blowing by them.

All the best and thank you for your past support. You're a great guy.

Larry

I think you're absolutely right - that a mistake is trying to be memorialized and rectified, and that, in and of itself, is the mistake I'm writing about.

David

(Larry is a friend and former colleague at WMAL-AM in Washington DC.)

--

On 11/10/07 2:14 PM, one Layhesculpture@aol.com wrote:

Hi,

I got your email regarding union stuff and tried very hard to get
my head round it. I can see your point I think.

I know you know I am not within that circle but, I whole heartedly agree.
I'm afraid that the past booms of the technological age as we know it is a
bit like women wearing stilettos. Never really gone from the mind, there's
still a market for it. Maybe you should diversify into Winkle Pickers.
Pointy shoes are far more reliable than the internet business opportunities
market as it is now. Money down the drain because I never wore a pair in my
life!

(Linda is a sculptor in the UK.)

--

On 11/10/07 5:35 PM, one Ben Zook wrote:

You're right, David.

Jame L. Brooks, Mel Brooks, Joel and Ethan Cohen, Paul Haggis,
Lawrence Kasdan, David Rabe, Alvin Sargent, Robert Towne, Judd
Apatow, Akiva Goldsman, Diane English, Marc Cherry, Joss Whedon,
William Goldman, Tim Kring, Curtis Hanson, David Koepp, Shonda Rimes,
Seth McFarlane, and all of the rest of us are wrong.

Congrats, guy! You win. We lose. How stupid we all are compared to
David Lawrence!

I won't bug you anymore. Have a nice life!

- Ben Zook

--

On 11/9/07 5:45 PM, one Becky Bonar wrote:

Thank you for this. As an actor who is dreading the coming contract negotiations which affect my future, I am completely in agreement with you. Not just because, as Dorothy Parker said, there is no there there, but because I do not believe we have the leadership in place to do anything as foolish as a strike. The commercial contract strike of 2000 devasted our business, and we still have not recovered. Rosenberg is no more fit to lead a walkout than was Daniels. And may we also for a moment mention the issue of members of a trade guild, not a true labor union, who are able to vote for issues which greatly impact on our lives, while they themselves, either from not working in years, or from working at a level far above the basic scale contract (union leadership), are not truly affected by the strike action they support so vehemently? Let us wrangle over the real issues, our pensions, our health care, our safety, our session fees. You cannot draw a line in the sand in cyberspace.

--

Comments

[Dennis Duffner]

As I wrote in the email I sent you:

"Just heard your two personal netcasts.

As always, a reasoned and logical statement on the WGA strike.

SAG and AFTRA should be well advised to heed your warnings and
admonitions. You are one of the very few whose finger is on the pulse of online revenues
and what they are and aren't.

Kudos."

I may not agree with everything that you espouse but your take on the WGA mess is spot on. I've read most of the included letters that you posted. Some are good and well-reasoned and some are just plain "kneejerk" reactions without any thought behind them at all.

Carry on. I've been through a couple of strikes and negotiations and watched as what was really needed was pissed away over minor things.

[tom kiesche]

You are so wrong with this one it hurt to read, and took me two weeks to respond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a37uqd5vTw&eurl=http://backstage.blogs.com/unscripted/tom_kiesche/index.html

[David Lawrence]

Actually, CEOs blathering about how much money they think they made or are going to make from "digital", which includes far more than just WGA written material (like games and sites like MySpace) is not something on which you want to pin your research. This video was one of the reasons I wrote this piece. It's full of out-of-context quotes, conclusions handily jumped to, and it serves none of us well to create such blather. CEOs are cheerleaders, especially when put on the spot to come up with figures. They should say, "I really don't know, but it's not much, if anything at all." Then, they'd be telling the truth. Please.

[Sean]

You're a fat piece of crap.

(This comment is being left intentionally up as an example of what I've been getting from this - and this one comes from a Canadian. Yeah. I know who it is. --David)

[Leona]

Good post.