The danger of fairy tales

There are a couple of sites that cover the embarrassing SAG infighting, one of which is The SAGWatch Blog. A recent post on this site, which covered the unbelievable move by SAG's Alan Rosenberg to use the courts to get his way, generated a typical hard-liner comment, and it's sad to read.

It's even more sad to realize the pain in what the commenter, LA, is really trying to say:

LA says:
February 2, 2009 at 22:41
I hope Doug gets back in control….SAG is a joke wothout him….AMPTP are laughing there asses off right now because we lost Doug…
(and later in the comment stream)
Great way to show your support for the founding members!
I’m sure they are rolling over in their graves right now…everything they fought for is going right down the tubes!
THE ONLY RIGHT THING TO DO IS LET THE SAG MEMBERS VOTE ON A STRIKE AUTHORIZATION ….PERIOD……THEN LET THE CARDS FALL AS THEY DO….but NY put a stop to that….hmmmm what are they afraid of? The members getting whats right and what should be done!!!!
PATHETIC!

I'm not sure who LA actually is, because s/he refuses to identify his or herself. But I can feel an inordinate amount of pain in posts like that. It's the pain of uncertainty, the pain of anachronism, the pain of realizing that the ground that used to be the bedrock of our careers is shifting beneath our feet, even as these ludicrous events unfold.

LA, like most hard-liners, is simply yearning for things to remain the same, for performance-based residuals to remain a viable option, even though the Internet cloud and its selfish users (give a warm welcome to our new, improved, more fickle and devious audience) is obviating even the ability to accurately measure those performances, let alone pay similar per-viewer residuals.

LA"s desperate pleas, and Alan Rosenberg's angry vitriol, are not unlike the uncontrollable fits that union musicians threw in the 30s when replaced on radio by recorded music, and which will end with the same results: a sadness and anger that time marches on, and that technology, high or low, is unstoppable.

Not only is it difficult to measure the number of money generating plays of a new media performance, there is a far greater, sadder truth: we should be careful what we wish for, because we just might get it. The pennies being generated by online performances remains abysmally low, even after two full years of serious operation of the major networks' sites. And despite protestations to the contrary, a generation of viewers and listeners trained to steal what they want from the Internet will keep those numbers abysmally low. I'm not willing to settle for a formula that mimics today's event based residual scheme, as I've seen the numbers from any number of example sites, and they are laughable.

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, owners of YouTube, has declared Google unable to figure out how to make any money from YouTube. Yet. Certainly not in the next months, or three years that our contract would have run, had Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen not put all of our eggs in the "new media is now media" basket. If Google can't make money on online video, why do we think NBC or FOX will? When was the last time you exited YouTube, having watched a video, via an ad? I bet the answer is "never," because by Google's own admission, that's the answer for almost everyone who goes there.

An accelerant to the situation is that if the online ads and sponsorships that are being paid for (most of them are not, they are being bonused by the networks to the advertiser for buying linear TV ad packages - just get any network ad salesperson drunk and they'll spill the gory details) remain ineffective, the advertisers will stop buying them. If that happens, we'll see less original content made for the net, and fewer linear shows being played on the Net. That means that whatever payments are worked out for actors will be reduced accordingly, and we'll go from pennies to percentages of pennies.

Let's be really honest with ourselves and rely only on facts. We don't trust our opponents to tell us the truth about how much money they make on with the Internet, but we spent an awful lot of time spreading around that video that spliced together all the wild claims made by their CEOs about the money they'll make on the net. They didn't make anywhere near that much money with content, certainly not with SAG/AFTRA/WGA/DGA/IATSE produced content; they didn't even make it with "hugely successful" popular media darling sites like YouTube and MySpace. So let's not waste our time creating provocative videos, let's make sure we're dealing in facts.

We need to have more faith in ourselves to be able to watch where the industry goes, not make aimless predictions and tell ourselves groundless fairy tails about the Internet promised land; we need to draft and elect leaders in SAG that won't use excuses like "If we don't demand it now, we'll never be able to get it later!" (by the way, if that's the case, Alan, then get the fuck out of your office so that someone who can get it later will).

And as union members, we need to be absolutely committed to preparing ourselves for the onslaught of new technology, how we are inextricably and unavoidably part of a new and different production process, and stop this incessant sticking of our heads in the sand when it comes to the reality of the Internet, both as a stage and as a delivery network.

I urge my fellow members and supporters of Unite For Strength to acknowledge the pain and frustration that our brothers and sisters who support Membership First are feeling. Take the high road, be smart, and generous and engaged with them. Understand that most of them are long-standing members who are seeing the rug pulled out from underneath them, that are seeing their status quo demoted to a mere memory, and whose livelihoods are threatened by a new and powerful alternative to the safe and money producing studio/network/broadcast model.

We, too, will be dealing with this new world and its various mindblowing iterations over time, and all the lawsuits and preliminary injunctions and written assents and "fucking civil wars" are going to be moot. None of us can predict the future, certainly not of the Net or our audience's ability to take whatever they want, without network or broadcast gatekeepers.

The producers need talent, and not just any talent, but SAG and AFTRA talent that can put butts in the seats and get eager fingers to press the download buttons. Talent will always trump the mediocre; let's be as talented at unification, education, researching our audience and their behaviors, and work with each other and our employers to be agile in figuring out our best path.

Or, we could opt for more fairy tales. That's been working so well, hasn't it?

Comments

[Tom Vlay]

Brilliant post, especially the point about talent in the last big paragraph. From theater to the "cinema" to the internet, technologies have changed and people have kept making money. The transition period may be difficult but that's just the way it is. People who resist the change usually end up last. It's true for any industry. Look at US car makers and Japanese car makers and how the latter put in place streamlined business processes using technology (supply chain) to cut cost before anybody. Who's struggling the less right now?

[Rebel]

Maybe Felicia Day's "The Guild" is a template for the future?

I'm not sure she how got donors to help finance it but she thanks them and lists them by name in helping produce the first season. But she eventually got Sponsors ie. Sprint

What do you think of this, David? And do you more about this then obviously I do?

[Rebel]

Oh, wait Felicia explains how she did it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhX5O58R0w

[David H. Lawrence, XVII]

Felicia also took full advantage of the success of Dr. Horrible - without that, The Guild would have been much harder to get going. It may be a template, but it's hardly one the studios are interested in. And it really doesn't matter, because neither The Guild, nor Dr, Horrible will be paying any of the participants residuals. Isn't that what you were pushing in your comments on other blog posts here?

[David H. Lawrence, XVII]

So, Rebel - having watched Felicia's video explaining how she works, you think that's a good business plan, to ask for donations that end up barely covering production costs? That's what she said - none of them are getting paid at all, which is exactly the plight I point out in my post. And I don't see a Sprint OR Xbox Live sponsorship anywhere, despite massive talk about it last Novenber - let's hope that didn't go away. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here, but thank you for helping to clearly prove mine.

[Rebel]

I made no claims about "the Guild" as a business plan. I'm simply asking questions. I was asking your opinion. I was asking if it could it be a template, not advocating for it. Sprint is a sponsor at the Guild website, though.

The Guild gets about 10 million eyeballs which is apparently worth something to Sprint. In fact, its "Sprint Productions Presents "The Guild". How much? I've know idea.

http://www.watchtheguild.com/

I do advocate for residuals--where it is feasible. ITunes downloads, a major Corporate Website. I'm sure the main cast of "Heroes" gets a little something from the show website. Maybe not enough to pay rent but maybe enough for lunch. Something.

I think your post answered many questions I had and appreciate your thoroughness.

I'm not one of your SAG "hardliners". Like everyone else, I'm just trying to suss out what's really going on.

From experience, I know some producers play fast and loose with numbers, duping both those who invest in films, for instance as well as those who are supposed to get paid for working in them. So if they can be held to account, where possible, I'm for it.

Right now, it seems to me, that the "Guild" model, is similar to an "independent" film model. Self-financing and produced with only real possibility of it making money if it gets a following, makes some news and gets picked up by a distribution company and re-packaged as a DVD or put on a cable networks like IFC.

Still it seems a viable model for someone like me with limited resources.

Thanks for answering me again.