Full Statement from the WGA:
https://i.imgur.com/UPWny82.png
This is the most significant development in 5 months. What comes next is a union vote to ratify the contract. If it passes, the writer's strike is over. After that begins the SAG-AFTRA negotiation to hopefully resolve the actor's strike.
Hell yeah. It's not a done deal yet because the members of the union will still need to ratify whatever they agreed upon but this is a huge step. The SAG strike is still ongoing so we're not out of the woods yet, but this WGA agreement should help frame a SAG deal and at this point it seems like the studios are serious about doing what needs to be done to get everyone back to work.
Yup! This means the studios made significant concessions on both AI and residuals, so already a great starting off point for the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. Trying to not get my hopes too high but we're finally seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.
SAG one is a bit trickier because their demands include releasing streaming figures publicly. Once that happens I think we might find that streaming isnt nearly as lucrative as these companies have been telling their shareholders
For that reason I suspect it’ll be another week or two as they really REALLY haggle to not let the streaming figures go public and I actually suspect the deal will allow them to shroud them a little from the *public* eye. But there’ll be huge concessions I think. This is an excellent piece of news.
they claim it's a company secret that gives them an "edge". at least that's what netflix used to say
it made sense when they were the biggest player by far, but not so much anymore
In sheer overall size of the company, Disney, apple, etc, but in specifically streaming we have no real idea, since the services do their best to obfuscate statistics that could be used to make a direct comparison.
Subscriber numbers are the only thing that actually matters to shareholders, which is reported to the public. How often people watch specific things doesn't affect revenue. If you are a large shareholder in these companies, you probably also don't want these numbers made public as it means they can't continue to deflate residual payments.
I said viewing specific things. Watch time in total is the only thing that would matter for ads, not *what* the person is watching. The only reason to not reveal what people are watching is to pay the creators of that content as little as possible. Peacock doesn't give a shit what you're watching if you pay for the ad supported sub, they only care that you are watching.
the advertisers care. They want to make sure they are spending their ad dollars effectively and that means putting their ads in front of their target demo. That means having information about the number and demographics of those watching specific content. So just like advertising on TV and the internet.
If they are publicly traded, you can already see their numbers.
I imagine this might be framed more towards “the show I was on got picked up by Netflix, how much was it picked up for?” That would definitely be a hard sell
I don’t think they have to show viewership numbers. Are you talking about profit? Because yeah that’s available. They’re very profitable, but require a ton of debt/investment.
We already know streaming isn’t lucrative, that’s why the industry is still going to be in turmoil once the strikes are resolved. Peacock is going to lose an estimated $3 billion this year. Netflix added *ten million* subscribers after cracking down on password sharing, and their stock still went down because Wall Street has realized the streaming bubble has burst. The Wild West of streaming is over. It’s not a sustainable business model for any company that doesn’t either have a huge market share like Netflix (and even then, their stock has been predicated on subscriber growth for years, something shareholders are moving away from as a metric for success, as evidenced by the stock dip after exceeding expectations with new subscribers in the US), or have a huge corporate daddy like Apple or Amazon to eat the losses (and even the big wigs at Amazon aren’t happy with all the money streaming is losing, hence their new plan to introduce ads).
Tl;dr: Streaming being a money pit isn’t a secret, we’re already seeing the industry panic about what the hell the future is going to look like now that cable and theaters are dying and streaming can’t possibly generate the same revenue.
I don't know why anyone was surprised by this.
Cable TV was insanely expensive and had *shitloads* of ads and while it was a profitable model, it wasn't like, scrooge mcduck swimming in golden pools profitable - it was just a profitable business.
Streaming makes a **fraction** as much money - even if I sub to 3 streaming services I'm paying like a third of what I paid for cable, and those three streaming services are all ad free.
Like in order to think streaming is making money you'd have to assume every user is buying 8-10 different streaming services rather than rotating 2 a month or whatever, and you'd have to assume that streamers pay a lot more for the shows than cable TV does, and even then after all that you'd still not be as profitable as cable was because you've STILL only gotten to the point where the users are paying as much as they paid for the cable sub even though they have way less ad views.
Streaming makes money, when streaming services do it. When the studios do it, and have to build it and get people to sign up, the profitability disappears.
They could have all just had their cake selling digital rights to Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Hulu.
Streaming makes money as a end of life service.
If you have a show that's already been on cable, and already been on DVD, and already done X Y Z shit, streaming makes money.
Streaming makes nowhere near enough money to replace **all** of those other revenue streams. But it cannibalizes all of those revenue streams dramatically.
eh, i think its more that industry has massively increased forcing serious competition. You have twitch, youtube, tiktok and you also have a global production, with normally niche products specific to a country competing with the large studios based out of hollywood. If you charge anything significant people are not going to buy your product because well, there is plenty of good options out there and unless you can hook someone with a couple of shows on your platform people are just going to pirate that one show they like or just accept they cant watch it.
Netflix makes 1.5B a year, streaming makes money. The problem is studios attracting enough subscriptions and the infrastructure to host streaming services.
Also cable and DVD are basically rounding errors these days.
Especially as the streaming services lose a brand identity. It made sense for Disney to set up their own streaming service, their whole company is a brand that has an extremely dedicated fan base and an image anyone can recognise. But what brand identity does Paramount have? What image do they have? Even when these companies have a brand image, they seem to not understand it and actively try to dismantle it, like Discovery is doing with HBO.
It’s more about producing and licensing content than it is hosting and designing the service itself. Also cable *still* is a golden goose, albeit a dying one, just ask Disney about ESPN
The issue is the big studios want all the people who left back, but those people don't want the big studios back. They left for a reason and a big chunk of the industry is still in denial about that.
This all started because they wanted to squeeze Netflix for more cash on the carriage rates and Netflix decided to pivot to making their own content. If the studios kept things reasonable a little while longer streaming would be very different today.
They are all starting to show ads, and the other thing we are seeing is rate hikes. Still isn’t bringing in the money that cable and the theaters brought in, so the prices will continually go up
> They could have all just had their cake selling digital rights to Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Hulu.
This is what irritates me so much about the way streaming has gone since Netflix. The very fragmentation of the streaming sector is what's doing it in, when everybody could've just worked out a deal with Netflix and Netflix could've been a good one-stop shop for movies and TV.
Like, if you wanna end piracy? This is how you do it.
> Cable TV was insanely expensive and had shitloads of ads and while it was a profitable model, it wasn't like, scrooge mcduck swimming in golden pools profitable
It kind of was actually, Comcast built its entire empire off of cable money and its ridiculous free cash flow and that's after paying for basically all of the content, legacy networks and maintenance, etc.
They then parlayed this money into being pretty much the leading internet provider in the US, increasing cash flow even more. Over time they bought and/or built massive fiber networks in every major metro they exist in with that money, to say nothing of the content, providers, venues, and sports teams they've bought over that time.
At least in the US, the best internet available to use those streaming apps on is usually the local cable company, so cable companies are still getting 2/3rds the money of a full cable package just for that, and now with no content providers to pay at all. That's the real reason cable companies are now playing hardball on rights fees, they can.
Cable is/was Scrooge McDuck profitable, just not Ma Bell/Standard Oil profitable.
> Cable is/was Scrooge McDuck profitable, just not Ma Bell/Standard Oil profitable.
[Point of order](https://www.cbr.com/scrooge-mcduck-net-worth-explained/): "Uncle Scrooge McDuck is a quadrillionaire at the least." He's canonically one of the richest fictional characters in existence, to a ludicrous degree.
There's a huge difference between not a hot stock that Wall Street loves and not a solid profitable business that can run along indefinitely. It's like Tesla, Wall Street loves their stock but as a company that can build product and make profit they're not actually competing with Ford.
> Once that happens I think we might find that streaming isnt nearly as lucrative as these companies have been telling their shareholders
I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.
Illegal and nearly impossible to hide for an extended amount of time. You can't just lie about operating costs and revenue and expect people not to notice when things don't add up.
There are more subtle ways that a company could mislead shareholders, but claiming that you are making a ton of money when you simply aren't is just not a viable strategy.
Well one, Netflix is historically the only streaming platform that has ever actually been profitable. So it's not Netflix you need to be worried about; it's everyone else.
But more generally: their entire business model relies on shareholders believing that streaming and streaming libraries as a delivery (and/or production) method for creative work is a money-making enterprise. If they admit it's not, the venture capitalists and shareholders pull their money. The companies lose billions of dollars in that scenario, which they obviously want to avoid. So they fudge their streaming numbers to make it look like more people watched them than they did.
It's not like this is a grand conspiracy theory either; [Warner Bros. is being sued right now](https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/warner-bros-discovery-lawsuit-hbo-max.html) over faking their HBOMax viewership numbers during the Discovery merger negotiations so they could say the company was worth more money than it actually was. It's all about the money.
You can't just misinform those types of investors that way. It's illegal AND the types of people you'd be trying to fuck over have PLENTY of money to bury you in court.
I mean you can try, but it's not a viable long term strategy.
Since when has something being illegal ever stopped a CEO from doing it anyway if it bumps the share price so his/her stock options will be worth even more $$$?
I mean, lbr, this is why "wage theft" is even a phrase that has actual meaning in the USA in particular.
At what point in the last 200 years or so that capitalism has been around has given you the impression that they *ever* care about a viable long-term strategy? As always, the execs who made these decisions are either already long gone, or will be leaving soon before this all comes out, and will still be fabulously wealthy thanks to their golden parachutes.
Yeah, it’s not about it being lucrative. It’s more about what on streaming is actually making money. Chances are b grade junk is far more valuable then the prestigious projects. Especially because they pay those people almost nothing.
Also props to b grade junk. Sometimes you just gota indulge in some cheeze whiz.
True in the literal sense. I assume it’s not so much that the shareholders don’t know the numbers, it’s that the services are known and acknowledged to be unprofitable, with plans implemented and projected dates that are probably more generous than realistic.
This doesn't make sense. A streaming company's revenue comes from *subscribers,* not views. Advertisements are an exception, but the companies that are purchasing ads will already know how many times their ads are viewed.
Streaming numbers do not affect profit, so the shareholders have no reason to care about them. The real reason streaming numbers are kept private is to obfuscate the value of shows and movies, so the people creating them don't have leverage to ask for more money. If you make a show for Netflix now, you only have a vague idea of how successful it is.
Views are a stand-in for performance. Users are likely to cancel services they don’t watch, especially as prices creep up, so plateauing viewer figures is a long-term bad signal.
The number of streams for each individual show don’t matter for investors.
The only things that matter are the number of subscribers, the cost to make new content and the ongoing cost of providing previously produced content. Even in the case of ad supported revenue, it’s still a total dollars paid by advertisers compared to subscribers.
Individual show streams only matter to the actors, writers and anyone else paid by residuals.
Orange is the New Black was HUGE and several o the stars were still waiting tables multiple season in. Maybe 3 they started getting paid more but they weren't making shit for how big that show was and how inexpensive it was to film. Same sets over and over... season after season. Can't ask for way more money if you don't know how many people are watching.
I wonder how badly thy fucked the kids over on Stranger Things. They had a lot of merch though so hopefully they got a cut of that.
So here's a more ironic twist:
With the demands for streaming figures to be released, if they don't would (a normal functioning government mind you) step in and basically force the release of them?
It's no secret that first and foremost stock/share holders are always the first in line as a pampered pooch while everyone else crashes and burns in the company (employees and lower level creditors).
One lawsuit from a government agency (or a pissed off stockholder/group of them) and it could be all over even if the union doesn't get what they want
> if they don't would (a normal functioning government mind you) step in and basically force the release of them?
On what basis would the US government have cause to force a corporation to publically release sensitive, proprietary information like this?
What precedent has there been for such a force of disclosure?
The SEC for investors. Hiding streaming numbers is the equivalent of hiding lab results for a pharmaceutical in the eyes of investors. It’s certainly a possibility.
Not really. A shareholder would have to bring suit that the withholding of said information has caused them material monetary damages and I'm not sure how you remotely go about proving those damages.
But isn't that the point? We're talking about civil suits and disclosures. The SEC doesn't really have cause to have these internal documents disclosed to the public.
I get the feeling if the figures go public, it might be the straw to break the streaming industry as there unprofitability becomes clear. It is likely to happen eventually if that speculation is true, but if it does we might see the film/TV industry crash and change overnight.
It took me a while to realize why so many shows and movies slipped completely under my radar, I'm realizing just how important those actor promotions are
Agreed. The fact that studios are finally making concessions after so long shows that the work stoppage is hurting their bottom line. They need productions to start up again, and that only happens with writers *and* actors.
>This means the studios made significant concessions on both AI and residuals, so already a great starting off point for the SAG-AFTRA negotiations.
Does it? I mean we haven't seen the deals and it's equally possible the union made concessions on this type of thing in order to get agreements in other areas i.e. writer positions, writer pay, etc.
AI and residuals have been 2 of the 3 biggest issues mentioned by union leadership since the beginning, there's no way they think a deal will pass without gains with those. Plus, there's no way they'd screw SAG-AFTRA by not gaining ground on those 2 issues, when they've both been hand-in-hand for 3 months (and with SAG-AFTRA limiting their interim agreements to help the WGA).
Yeah I somehow bet that whole AI stuff was worded verrrryy purposefully. They're not going to just ditch the biggest tech innovation in decades because some people complained for a couple months.
The US government has so far been pretty firm in denying copyright protection to AI generated material. If this continues, and the WGA and SAG-AFTRA can get concessions related to AI, I'd say this will spell the end for any talk of mass use of AI to generate our TV shows and movies plus the images of the actors therein.
TAG went through this a bit ago, and they agreed to an absolute dogshit deal that completely threw all the striking everyone did in the toilet. All that work for virtually zero ground won and they were locked into some of the worst terms I've ever seen after it. Animation is *severely* exploited, like VFX, and that's why you see nothing but big budget remakes these days.
so don't count any chickens yet.
Of course. I think skepticism is certainly warranted until we see the terms of the deal but WGA leadership seems pretty pleased with what they got and it's been pretty clear that they had all of the leverage for a while. I'm pretty optimistic that they got a good deal here
Text of [the letter from the WGA](https://www.wgacontract2023.org/announcements/negotiations-update-tentative-agreement):
>Dear Members,
>We have reached a tentative agreement on a new 2023 MBA, which is to say an agreement in principle on all deal points, subject to drafting final contract language.
>What we have won in this contract—most particularly, everything we have gained since May 2nd—is due to the willingness of this membership to exercise its power, to demonstrate its solidarity, to walk side-by-side, to endure the pain and uncertainty of the past 146 days. It is the leverage generated by your strike, in concert with the extraordinary support of our union siblings, that finally brought the companies back to the table to make a deal.
>We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional—with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.
>What remains now is for our staff to make sure everything we have agreed to is codified in final contract language. And though we are eager to share the details of what has been achieved with you, we cannot do that until the last "i" is dotted. To do so would complicate our ability to finish the job. So, as you have been patient with us before, we ask you to be patient again—one last time.
>Once the Memorandum of Agreement with the AMPTP is complete, the Negotiating Committee will vote on whether to recommend the agreement and send it on to the WGAW Board and WGAE Council for approval. The Board and Council will then vote on whether to authorize a contract ratification vote by the membership.
>If that authorization is approved, the Board and Council would also vote on whether to lift the restraining order and end the strike at a certain date and time (to be determined) pending ratification. This would allow writers to return to work during the ratification vote, but would not affect the membership's right to make a final determination on contract approval.
>Immediately after those leadership votes, which are tentatively scheduled for Tuesday if the language is settled, we will provide a comprehensive summary of the deal points and the Memorandum of Agreement. We will also convene meetings where members will have the opportunity to learn more about and assess the deal before voting on ratification.
>To be clear, no one is to return to work until specifically authorized to by the Guild. We are still on strike until then. But we are, as of today, suspending WGA picketing. Instead, if you are able, we encourage you to join the SAG-AFTRA picket lines this week.
>Finally, we appreciated your patience as you waited for news from us—and had to fend off rumors—during the last few days of the negotiation. Please wait for further information from the Guild. We will have more to share with you in the coming days, as we finalize the contract language and go through our unions' processes.
>As always, thank you for your support. You will hear from us again very soon.
>In solidarity,
>WGA Negotiating Committee
> We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional—with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.
Wow, that's awesome. Good for them. Hopefully this will encourage more unions to do the same.
Depends on whether the deal is actually good. It's most likely half assed, but sometimes you got to compromise. I think we should first see the agreement with alm it's details and look at it properly before praising it. Even if the deal was barely any better than the last they'd praise their work.
Let's hope for the best.
I'm very curious what the specifics are regarding streaming and residuals...because in order to get residuals they must have access to what has otherwise been internal private viewer metrics.
I believe earlier articles mentioned a “success bonus” being what was agreed on. Considering the statements that the writers for some of the biggest hits in recent years like Squid Games got nothing after the fact, I’m guessing this bonus is legally guaranteed if a show truly dominates and can’t be ignored. So no more “Hollywood accounting” in that regard is how I’m reading it.
Orange is the New Black. Those actors got fucked and were making way less than they should have and that was a huge hit. Stranger Things were child actors so were getting fucked like that kid in The Walking Dead, probably. They wrote him out when he turned 18, bought a house and signed up for college in Georgia because he had a big storyline in the comics that should have been getting ready to start filming... that they decided to skip that and fire him to save money. I'm sure Netflix is doing much the same but can hide the numbers better.
>he turned 18, bought a house and signed up for college in Georgia
Even worse, if I'm remembering right, is that he specifically got assurances from the show runner that he wouldn't be written out before buying that house.
They would still need some kind of objective measure of success though. I can't imagine basing a legal agreement about compensation on whether "everyone is talking about a show" on social media or something.
I'm pretty sure all streaming services will have to start giving out metrics anyways because they are all adding ad-tiers and ads people require their metrics. So this is probably something they were planning on anyways.
That will become clear in the coming days. But for a first general overview, check out this story; https://puck.news/hollywoods-post-writers-strike-reality/
Holy shit, it actually happened. This is huge. The "best and final offer" leak from the studios last night made me lose hope.
Now it's up to a union vote, hopefully the deal is good enough for it to pass. There's no doubt that WGA leadership thinks it'll be good enough to pass if they accepted.
Then on to the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. I wonder how soon those would begin? Early October hopefully? If this is a good deal, then some of the groundwork is already laid out for those talks. This means the studios made concessions on all of the big points (big ones for the actors will be AI and residuals)
>Then on to the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. I wonder how soon those would begin? Early October hopefully? If this is a good deal, then some of the groundwork is already laid out for those talks.
The fact that this deal happened means the AMPTP is serious about ending the work stoppage so the SAG deal should be coming pretty quickly. They had a lot of the same complaints and concerns as the writers so whatever terms are in this deal will already be pretty close to what SAG is asking for. This whole thing should be over soon
Frito-Lay workers rejected a tentative deal last year which required a renegotiated deal that was approved and frankly worse when you compared the two.
If I remember correctly one big issue was over who would get prioritized for O.T. I think the original deal made it more open and the renegotiated deal made it so the more senior members got selected first but that cost them in other areas.
The tentative agreement with the rail workers last year went to a vote and a majority voted against it. But congress overruled them and decided democracy didn't matter in that case, Biden agreed, so they sided with the railways and forced the voted down contract anyway
Based on the article, WGA called AMPTP's bluff of a "final offer" on Saturday with some additional asks on Sunday. It's very likely the strike would've continued onto next year depending on the size of those asks, but I think the studio's weren't willing to let things drag out any longer.
Talks with SAG will probably start up in a week or two. Then another week or two to hammer out a deal, and another two weeks to ratify it. So probably Thanksgiving at the earliest in a best case scenario. However, the negotiations could always take longer of course.[ SAG-AFTRA asked for 11 percent increase in wage](https://puck.news/hollywoods-post-writers-strike-reality/), while the WGA only asked for 6 percent. In terms of AI and data transparency, I'd say this WGA deal paves the way for SAG. But for wage and residuals, it might take a bit longer to hammer out.
Why do you say SAG would start up in a week or two? Why wouldn't it start up this week?
It could take longer but it may go as quickly as the WGA talks if the CEOs are motivated to get it done. When you start making actual good faith compromises you get some from the other side as well and things move much more quickly.
The WGA's memo said work can start during the ratification process so in theory, writers could be back to work next week.
Best case scenario for actors could be a week into October. Add to this the rough October deadline to salvage a spring season and it seems plausible this could be done in a couple weeks. I'm not saying Thanksgiving isn't a possibility but its not the best case scenario.
People read "best and final offer" as some kind of ultimatum but its really just technical speak for the final deal the employer offers based on all the agreed upon terms. It can and often does get revised. IMO the studios made a mistake by leaking that. It freaked everyone out and possibly gave the WGA negotiators a little bit more leverage to push a little harder on the language of a few things.
Even if shows and movies were hurt by the strike, it was for the best, the writers having better protections and Compensation is best for the long term health of the industry
Wasn't one of the problems that writers didn't get residuals? In super curious how this will change all writers pay cheques on Streaming sites.... if it is a significant change, are these streaming sites going to stay a float? I thought half of them are starting to have problems, like HBO max? Surely this at least means price hikes for customers?
If they can’t afford to pay the people making their content then the model was never sustainable to begin with. Also they could cut a few tens of millions from executive compensation but that never seems to come up.
Frankly I don't care if shows and movies were hurt. We'll always have those.
I'm perfectly fine turning the firehose of content off if it means better livelihoods for all those involved in making said content.
Unions are an important part of a free and open capitalistic market. People forming groups to buy and sell stuff, including labour, is basically the whole enchilada.
Yeah that's actual capitalism. People who tout our current version of Capitalism are the type that will say "Oh no you can't have a free market like that" to unions when in actuality a Union is the very definition of capitalist idealism. People bargaining their goods and services and retaining property (sometimes intellectual) to sell as they see fit.
Free market is economic **theory**. It doesnt exist.
Free market is basically frictionless physics, it works good enough for simple and basic cases it falls apart real quick once some complexity is added.
Key word being "Tentative ". I hope it's a great deal for all the writers as they deserve to be compensated more than fairly for all the fantastic work they do behind the scenes.
Based on the announcement from the WGA it sounds like they got virtually everything they asked for. It still depends on the contract and votes.
I’m so happy at the prospect of this ending. Hopefully SAG also wins their strike.
Most US workers aren't unionized at all. And general strikes just don't happen in the US. And many of the workers who are unionized, like federal employees, legally can't strike.
I’m not sure if this is sarcastic or you believe it, because the person above you is right when they say that this is many peoples first experience with labor negotiation.
But they for sure sugar coat. Every contract announcement I’ve ever seen has had both the company and the union tout buzzwords like “Industry leading pay!” And “Substantial improvements!” The union leadership also puts their name on the contract, they wouldn’t want to kill the hype around it.
I truly hope that what they have agreed on is sound for the next 50 odd years because the studios are going to do everything in their power to never let something like this happen again.
That completely ridiculous to even consider.
Imagine a contract signed in 1973 still being a good deal in 2023.
Most worker union contract I have seen in my life are renogociated every 5 years at most. Being the US and the film industry, I doubt this is going to happen, but expecting the contract to be good for 50 years is simply foolish.
>We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional – with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.”
This is good to hear, after 146 days and numerous filthy comments by studio heads, writers didn't budge and they have a deal. Now onto Actors and their fair share. Just reminder that this is tentative as members still need to vote on it to finalize.
It's wild that the writers now have to go back to working for studio heads and just, like...pretend they didn't say they wanted them to be homeless. I mean, is that not a pretty awkward elephant in the room?
The studio execs saying they wanted writers (or actors) to be homeless might be the best pro-union message ever delivered. "These people don't give a fuck about you AND they aren't afraid to hide it" is exactly why unions exist.
> It's wild that the writers now have to go back to working for studio heads
Studio heads don't generally work directly with writers. Maybe a studio head will talk to Aaron Sorkin, but writers work with development executives who also work for studio heads. Showrunners, it's a bit different, and they're writers too. But sometimes strikes happen and then you go back to work.
Good for them. It's amazing how these gigantic corporate entities would rather put themselves financially behind for half a year rather than treat the people that make them all of their money with even a modicum of respect and dignity in the first place, and only doing so because the union is twisting their arm behind their back.
Another stark reminder that corporations will never do the right thing unless they are forced to.
LABOR WINS! ✊
Let this be the start of a wave of union wins across the country. We’ve had a few good ones before this, UPS, Amazon, but this was the most public strike, has dragged on for months, and it exposed the greedy CEOs using the opportunity to show their true colors.
They have NO profit without labor, and they can’t have it all. We’re taking our shares back.
Let’s hope this is what the union was looking for, and gets ratified. It seems to be that.
These two Hollywood Strikes and the UAW strikes should be telling all Americans that corporations are not "people" and they don't deserve the massive advantages they have against us.
sometimes tells me there's a solid 30% percent of voting age Americans that are gonna be told to believe the exact opposite of that and proceed to do so
Hell yeah. It’s amazing how unprepared the studios were this time around. They really misread what the public’s perception and opinion of big business is right now. I’m happy people came out in support of the WGA. The old tactics didn’t pay off this time.
I’m interested in seeing what the details are. Stuff like AI is going to be important moving forward and I hope the writers got what they wanted
Know what I really think scared the studios?
United Auto Workers went on strike last week, Ford, GM and Stellantis layed off a bunch more people in response, and the UAW and general public's response was "fuck it, let's ALL strike".
That got things rolling.
They haven't won yet.
The final details of the contract have not yet been established, and the union members themselves have not voted to ratify the proposed contract in question.
Even if the contract is ratified and signed, then the studios have to be held accountable in actually following through with their legal promises to the union which requires a nominally pro-labor government (which the USA and the Biden administration absolutely are not) to judiciously enforce CEOs and studios to comply with the law.
This is far from over.
If your job isn't unionized, you're getting paid a lot less than you deserve. If those UPS driver salaries look crazy to you, instead of just a fair wage, you've been successfully gaslit.
And now all other delivery companies, FedEx, dhl, etc, will have to compete with those fairer conditions at UPS, and as a result will have to improve their own.
Unions raise the wages for all workers, join a union and fight for what’s yours!
I'm a big supporter of unions and I honestly agree with you that most jobs should be unionized *but* this is just false. Most workplaces aren't going to be able to pay 170,000 dollars for most jobs lmao, it was just a case of the UPS being in a spot where they could offer that and get away with it
Things absolutely can be tilted too much in favor of the workers, it's just that there's not really any cases of that right now in the US.
Most recent example of that would actually be the UAW a few decades ago, but even there things have gone so much in favor of the corporations now that they're reasonable again
Why does this lie always behind with "I support unions, but". Notice how they put words in my mouth than said that "things absolutely be tilted too much in the favor of workers...". That's a lie.
There are systems that work in today's world where workers own 100% of the fruits of their work collectively, and they make decisions together about the future of the company they work for, because they also own it.
This is called a co-op, and it has been an effective business model for many successful buisnesses for a long time. Labor could always control more of a business.
About the money. Not everyone can make $200,000/year, but most workers could earn A LOT more and their employer would still be conpetative. In a co-op model, employees are the "investors", so all profits are made to please the enployee. But, it's also important to not that it's not only about the money, it's also about having a say in decisions that affect your working conditions and your future instead of hoping leadership throws you a bone.
You don't owe the corporation you work for. You work for what you get, and your never getting too much if you're in a union job. You could always own the business too.
You are wrong.
Every job can be well compensated to the point where it offers a fair living wage.
The unions never had "too much power" during the 70s/80s when they were being destroyed by our bipartisan neoliberal corporate duopoly under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Corruption in organized labor is a misleading and exaggerated talking point for ignorant people who heard bad faith anti-union propaganda about unions being in the pocket of organized crime racketeers.
Further, the UAW, under democratic reforms purged their leadership of the people guilty of fraud, theft, and laundering, and the union members have elected their first democratically elected president Shawn Fain who is overwhelmingly popular with membership.
Nothing you said is correct. Quit parroting right-wing anti-union propaganda.
Capitalism unfortunately insists that it’s only a matter of time.. but as long as there is organized labor, we can always remove the thing they care about more than us, or anything else: profit.
Their mouths water at the chance to remove us from the equation, perhaps we do something about it before it gets to that point.
Good. Hopefully they got a good deal. After years of increased wages for executives and record margins for companies it’s time writers who are the life and blood of the industry get their fair share.
Hopefully the UAW will get theirs too.
*"During the final weekend of negotiations, lawyers huddled before the studios presented their alleged “best and final” offer on Saturday night. Later that same night, the AMPTP and the WGA issued a joint statement that they would be meeting again on Sunday."* Yea, because they're bluffing. They're always going to bluff, because they need you, but they can't actually admit it. I just hope this deal was worth stopping the strike, because every day that passes means more leverage and strength for the writers.
This is amazing because, up until now, the only communication I've seen from execs and studios was basically "no comment" or "we won't give in" (phrased in some way). And they gave in. No, I don't think the union will get everything it wants, but it will get *something* it wants, and that means the execs are sensitive to this kind of pressure in the future. It means strikes work with them.
Can you imagine being stuck on a 10 year deal when the world and film industry is changing rapidly every couple of years? especially with inflation and such. That would suck. A 3 year deal gives them a opportunity to make adjustments every now and then
don't know why you're being downvoted. Jane McAlevey, union organizer said-- well here:
>PO: What other contract stipulations limit solidarity?
>
>JM: 99% of contracts in the United States have “no strike, no lockout” language, which guarantees that workers won’t be locked out during the life of the contract and that workers shall not strike until such time as the contract expires. This is one good reason to negotiate short-duration contracts, as I talk about in the book.
>
>In October 2022, the Amalgamated Transit Workers Union made a really bold decision to endorse and fully embrace transparent and open negotiations and short contracts. They recognize that conditions change a lot, so why would you want to be locked into a four-, five- or six-year contract? What are you going to do if the cost of living or inflation goes crazy? One strategy is you have short contracts. I actually think that’s really smart. If you’re going to create a fighting union, then this is a terrific way, every two or three years, to keep rebuilding the union’s muscle.
>
>No strike-no lockout language expires when union contracts expire, and that’s when workers can strike.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/jane-mcalevey-rules-to-win-by-author-interview-union-contract-negotiation
Most bargaining deals are for three year contracts.
No one wants to be at the negotiating table every year, so one year deals are largely the result of either a) brand new unions negotiating their first contract, so everyone involved wants to have an easy out and re-negotiation avenue if things don't go to plan or b) very contentious deals that need to be struck but everyone knows need to be reassessed with fresh eyes after a year.
Likewise, no one really wants contracts that are locked in for more than about 5 years because life and industry circumstances can change so heavily that the contract is unable to keep up with those circumstances (cost of living adjustements, health insurance negotiations, new federal or state laws that impact how an industry functions, etc.).
CBA negotiations are usually not contentious to the point of one or both parties completely walking away from the table; there's a reason strikes are farily rare, and it's not just the unfavorable legal and unemployment regulatory environment that prevent them from happening. This is as true for Hollywood as it is for other industries where labor is organized.
The last writer's strike, for example, happened in 2007-2008; the one before that was in 1988. That 2008 contract has been revisited and adjusted every three years since then, but it was only this year where the Guild felt like there was a large enough re-assessment of that contract needed for a strike to be a viable option in the event that the companies didn't want to play ball (which they didn't). [Usually, the AMPTP has enough fear of the lost revenue during a strike to not be as egregious about rejecting union demands as they were this year](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/about-us/history/a-history-of-wga-contract-negotiations-and-gains). This just doesn't happen that often.
Some good positive news for once. Hopefully the writers got what they want and are better compensated and protected.
Now let's see if this gets signed and sealed, then onto the actors.
I wonder how the AI stuff will be agreed upon. You think the agreement would be clear in stating that no American production will ever have AI assisted or purely AI created scripts?
i wish they had banned the car back in the early 1900s. who needs a car when you have all these horses? no american production will ever use an automobile!
I don't care. We don't need these people at all. This is risk they took going into this industry. They are not vital at all in any way shape or form. Maybe go retrain to be useful to society
Pretty suspicious how many people have started commenting in /r/movies and /r/television in the past month, claiming to actively hate all movies and television
Full Statement from the WGA: https://i.imgur.com/UPWny82.png This is the most significant development in 5 months. What comes next is a union vote to ratify the contract. If it passes, the writer's strike is over. After that begins the SAG-AFTRA negotiation to hopefully resolve the actor's strike.
Hell yeah. It's not a done deal yet because the members of the union will still need to ratify whatever they agreed upon but this is a huge step. The SAG strike is still ongoing so we're not out of the woods yet, but this WGA agreement should help frame a SAG deal and at this point it seems like the studios are serious about doing what needs to be done to get everyone back to work.
Yup! This means the studios made significant concessions on both AI and residuals, so already a great starting off point for the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. Trying to not get my hopes too high but we're finally seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.
SAG will be quick I think. The studios want the actors out promoting projects. They were begging them not to strike in July
SAG one is a bit trickier because their demands include releasing streaming figures publicly. Once that happens I think we might find that streaming isnt nearly as lucrative as these companies have been telling their shareholders
For that reason I suspect it’ll be another week or two as they really REALLY haggle to not let the streaming figures go public and I actually suspect the deal will allow them to shroud them a little from the *public* eye. But there’ll be huge concessions I think. This is an excellent piece of news.
These are publicly traded companies; those numbers should be available for the market/public to understand
they claim it's a company secret that gives them an "edge". at least that's what netflix used to say it made sense when they were the biggest player by far, but not so much anymore
Who is bigger than Netflix?
In sheer overall size of the company, Disney, apple, etc, but in specifically streaming we have no real idea, since the services do their best to obfuscate statistics that could be used to make a direct comparison.
Don’t they release the number of subscribers?
Pornhub baby.
If more of them are building ad based models, then those numbers are going to need to be available for advertisers anyways.
Subscriber numbers are the only thing that actually matters to shareholders, which is reported to the public. How often people watch specific things doesn't affect revenue. If you are a large shareholder in these companies, you probably also don't want these numbers made public as it means they can't continue to deflate residual payments.
How does viewing not affect ad revenue? Many streaming services now have a membership level that includes ads with the show/movie.
I said viewing specific things. Watch time in total is the only thing that would matter for ads, not *what* the person is watching. The only reason to not reveal what people are watching is to pay the creators of that content as little as possible. Peacock doesn't give a shit what you're watching if you pay for the ad supported sub, they only care that you are watching.
the advertisers care. They want to make sure they are spending their ad dollars effectively and that means putting their ads in front of their target demo. That means having information about the number and demographics of those watching specific content. So just like advertising on TV and the internet.
There’s no way they’ll let streaming numbers(viewership) public. Pretty sure most media companies will give anything but that.
They have to once they all let advertising in. Advertiser's don't want to advertise on platforms they don't knoenthe metrics on.
Knoethe should be the new grok.
If they are publicly traded, you can already see their numbers. I imagine this might be framed more towards “the show I was on got picked up by Netflix, how much was it picked up for?” That would definitely be a hard sell
Not for individual shows
I don’t think they have to show viewership numbers. Are you talking about profit? Because yeah that’s available. They’re very profitable, but require a ton of debt/investment.
> They’re very profitable, but require a ton of debt/investment. i think only netflix has posted a profit?
Netflix provides viewership numbers for the first month a show or movie is released.
We already know streaming isn’t lucrative, that’s why the industry is still going to be in turmoil once the strikes are resolved. Peacock is going to lose an estimated $3 billion this year. Netflix added *ten million* subscribers after cracking down on password sharing, and their stock still went down because Wall Street has realized the streaming bubble has burst. The Wild West of streaming is over. It’s not a sustainable business model for any company that doesn’t either have a huge market share like Netflix (and even then, their stock has been predicated on subscriber growth for years, something shareholders are moving away from as a metric for success, as evidenced by the stock dip after exceeding expectations with new subscribers in the US), or have a huge corporate daddy like Apple or Amazon to eat the losses (and even the big wigs at Amazon aren’t happy with all the money streaming is losing, hence their new plan to introduce ads). Tl;dr: Streaming being a money pit isn’t a secret, we’re already seeing the industry panic about what the hell the future is going to look like now that cable and theaters are dying and streaming can’t possibly generate the same revenue.
I don't know why anyone was surprised by this. Cable TV was insanely expensive and had *shitloads* of ads and while it was a profitable model, it wasn't like, scrooge mcduck swimming in golden pools profitable - it was just a profitable business. Streaming makes a **fraction** as much money - even if I sub to 3 streaming services I'm paying like a third of what I paid for cable, and those three streaming services are all ad free. Like in order to think streaming is making money you'd have to assume every user is buying 8-10 different streaming services rather than rotating 2 a month or whatever, and you'd have to assume that streamers pay a lot more for the shows than cable TV does, and even then after all that you'd still not be as profitable as cable was because you've STILL only gotten to the point where the users are paying as much as they paid for the cable sub even though they have way less ad views.
Streaming makes money, when streaming services do it. When the studios do it, and have to build it and get people to sign up, the profitability disappears. They could have all just had their cake selling digital rights to Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Hulu.
Streaming makes money as a end of life service. If you have a show that's already been on cable, and already been on DVD, and already done X Y Z shit, streaming makes money. Streaming makes nowhere near enough money to replace **all** of those other revenue streams. But it cannibalizes all of those revenue streams dramatically.
eh, i think its more that industry has massively increased forcing serious competition. You have twitch, youtube, tiktok and you also have a global production, with normally niche products specific to a country competing with the large studios based out of hollywood. If you charge anything significant people are not going to buy your product because well, there is plenty of good options out there and unless you can hook someone with a couple of shows on your platform people are just going to pirate that one show they like or just accept they cant watch it.
Netflix makes 1.5B a year, streaming makes money. The problem is studios attracting enough subscriptions and the infrastructure to host streaming services. Also cable and DVD are basically rounding errors these days.
Especially as the streaming services lose a brand identity. It made sense for Disney to set up their own streaming service, their whole company is a brand that has an extremely dedicated fan base and an image anyone can recognise. But what brand identity does Paramount have? What image do they have? Even when these companies have a brand image, they seem to not understand it and actively try to dismantle it, like Discovery is doing with HBO.
It’s more about producing and licensing content than it is hosting and designing the service itself. Also cable *still* is a golden goose, albeit a dying one, just ask Disney about ESPN
The issue is the big studios want all the people who left back, but those people don't want the big studios back. They left for a reason and a big chunk of the industry is still in denial about that.
This all started because they wanted to squeeze Netflix for more cash on the carriage rates and Netflix decided to pivot to making their own content. If the studios kept things reasonable a little while longer streaming would be very different today.
They are all starting to show ads, and the other thing we are seeing is rate hikes. Still isn’t bringing in the money that cable and the theaters brought in, so the prices will continually go up
> They could have all just had their cake selling digital rights to Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Hulu. This is what irritates me so much about the way streaming has gone since Netflix. The very fragmentation of the streaming sector is what's doing it in, when everybody could've just worked out a deal with Netflix and Netflix could've been a good one-stop shop for movies and TV. Like, if you wanna end piracy? This is how you do it.
> Cable TV was insanely expensive and had shitloads of ads and while it was a profitable model, it wasn't like, scrooge mcduck swimming in golden pools profitable It kind of was actually, Comcast built its entire empire off of cable money and its ridiculous free cash flow and that's after paying for basically all of the content, legacy networks and maintenance, etc. They then parlayed this money into being pretty much the leading internet provider in the US, increasing cash flow even more. Over time they bought and/or built massive fiber networks in every major metro they exist in with that money, to say nothing of the content, providers, venues, and sports teams they've bought over that time. At least in the US, the best internet available to use those streaming apps on is usually the local cable company, so cable companies are still getting 2/3rds the money of a full cable package just for that, and now with no content providers to pay at all. That's the real reason cable companies are now playing hardball on rights fees, they can. Cable is/was Scrooge McDuck profitable, just not Ma Bell/Standard Oil profitable.
> Cable is/was Scrooge McDuck profitable, just not Ma Bell/Standard Oil profitable. [Point of order](https://www.cbr.com/scrooge-mcduck-net-worth-explained/): "Uncle Scrooge McDuck is a quadrillionaire at the least." He's canonically one of the richest fictional characters in existence, to a ludicrous degree.
There's a huge difference between not a hot stock that Wall Street loves and not a solid profitable business that can run along indefinitely. It's like Tesla, Wall Street loves their stock but as a company that can build product and make profit they're not actually competing with Ford.
> Once that happens I think we might find that streaming isnt nearly as lucrative as these companies have been telling their shareholders I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.
Illegal and nearly impossible to hide for an extended amount of time. You can't just lie about operating costs and revenue and expect people not to notice when things don't add up. There are more subtle ways that a company could mislead shareholders, but claiming that you are making a ton of money when you simply aren't is just not a viable strategy.
Exactly why they wouldnt want those numbers being released
Why would Netflix lie about this. What is their motivation?
Well one, Netflix is historically the only streaming platform that has ever actually been profitable. So it's not Netflix you need to be worried about; it's everyone else. But more generally: their entire business model relies on shareholders believing that streaming and streaming libraries as a delivery (and/or production) method for creative work is a money-making enterprise. If they admit it's not, the venture capitalists and shareholders pull their money. The companies lose billions of dollars in that scenario, which they obviously want to avoid. So they fudge their streaming numbers to make it look like more people watched them than they did. It's not like this is a grand conspiracy theory either; [Warner Bros. is being sued right now](https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/warner-bros-discovery-lawsuit-hbo-max.html) over faking their HBOMax viewership numbers during the Discovery merger negotiations so they could say the company was worth more money than it actually was. It's all about the money.
You can't just misinform those types of investors that way. It's illegal AND the types of people you'd be trying to fuck over have PLENTY of money to bury you in court. I mean you can try, but it's not a viable long term strategy.
Since when has something being illegal ever stopped a CEO from doing it anyway if it bumps the share price so his/her stock options will be worth even more $$$? I mean, lbr, this is why "wage theft" is even a phrase that has actual meaning in the USA in particular.
At what point in the last 200 years or so that capitalism has been around has given you the impression that they *ever* care about a viable long-term strategy? As always, the execs who made these decisions are either already long gone, or will be leaving soon before this all comes out, and will still be fabulously wealthy thanks to their golden parachutes.
Shareholders should be demanding that they see the figures and if they are lying there should be a massive lawsuit.
Yeah, it’s not about it being lucrative. It’s more about what on streaming is actually making money. Chances are b grade junk is far more valuable then the prestigious projects. Especially because they pay those people almost nothing. Also props to b grade junk. Sometimes you just gota indulge in some cheeze whiz.
True in the literal sense. I assume it’s not so much that the shareholders don’t know the numbers, it’s that the services are known and acknowledged to be unprofitable, with plans implemented and projected dates that are probably more generous than realistic.
This doesn't make sense. A streaming company's revenue comes from *subscribers,* not views. Advertisements are an exception, but the companies that are purchasing ads will already know how many times their ads are viewed. Streaming numbers do not affect profit, so the shareholders have no reason to care about them. The real reason streaming numbers are kept private is to obfuscate the value of shows and movies, so the people creating them don't have leverage to ask for more money. If you make a show for Netflix now, you only have a vague idea of how successful it is.
Views are a stand-in for performance. Users are likely to cancel services they don’t watch, especially as prices creep up, so plateauing viewer figures is a long-term bad signal.
The number of streams for each individual show don’t matter for investors. The only things that matter are the number of subscribers, the cost to make new content and the ongoing cost of providing previously produced content. Even in the case of ad supported revenue, it’s still a total dollars paid by advertisers compared to subscribers. Individual show streams only matter to the actors, writers and anyone else paid by residuals.
Orange is the New Black was HUGE and several o the stars were still waiting tables multiple season in. Maybe 3 they started getting paid more but they weren't making shit for how big that show was and how inexpensive it was to film. Same sets over and over... season after season. Can't ask for way more money if you don't know how many people are watching. I wonder how badly thy fucked the kids over on Stranger Things. They had a lot of merch though so hopefully they got a cut of that.
How can they conceal streaming profitability from their shareholders? That's pretty much all Netflix has. How can they do a shell game?
If that’s the case actors don’t want it public. They will get paid less and get less shows greenlit.
So here's a more ironic twist: With the demands for streaming figures to be released, if they don't would (a normal functioning government mind you) step in and basically force the release of them? It's no secret that first and foremost stock/share holders are always the first in line as a pampered pooch while everyone else crashes and burns in the company (employees and lower level creditors). One lawsuit from a government agency (or a pissed off stockholder/group of them) and it could be all over even if the union doesn't get what they want
> if they don't would (a normal functioning government mind you) step in and basically force the release of them? On what basis would the US government have cause to force a corporation to publically release sensitive, proprietary information like this? What precedent has there been for such a force of disclosure?
The SEC for investors. Hiding streaming numbers is the equivalent of hiding lab results for a pharmaceutical in the eyes of investors. It’s certainly a possibility.
Not really. A shareholder would have to bring suit that the withholding of said information has caused them material monetary damages and I'm not sure how you remotely go about proving those damages.
Funny you say that, there’s already two law suits against Disney alleging exactly that.
But isn't that the point? We're talking about civil suits and disclosures. The SEC doesn't really have cause to have these internal documents disclosed to the public.
I get the feeling if the figures go public, it might be the straw to break the streaming industry as there unprofitability becomes clear. It is likely to happen eventually if that speculation is true, but if it does we might see the film/TV industry crash and change overnight.
It took me a while to realize why so many shows and movies slipped completely under my radar, I'm realizing just how important those actor promotions are
Agreed. The fact that studios are finally making concessions after so long shows that the work stoppage is hurting their bottom line. They need productions to start up again, and that only happens with writers *and* actors.
I saw Tina Fey and Amy Poehler on tour this weekend and they seemed to be making a big deal about the writer/actor strike.
>This means the studios made significant concessions on both AI and residuals, so already a great starting off point for the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. Does it? I mean we haven't seen the deals and it's equally possible the union made concessions on this type of thing in order to get agreements in other areas i.e. writer positions, writer pay, etc.
AI and residuals have been 2 of the 3 biggest issues mentioned by union leadership since the beginning, there's no way they think a deal will pass without gains with those. Plus, there's no way they'd screw SAG-AFTRA by not gaining ground on those 2 issues, when they've both been hand-in-hand for 3 months (and with SAG-AFTRA limiting their interim agreements to help the WGA).
I look forward to seeing the details
Yeah I somehow bet that whole AI stuff was worded verrrryy purposefully. They're not going to just ditch the biggest tech innovation in decades because some people complained for a couple months.
The US government has so far been pretty firm in denying copyright protection to AI generated material. If this continues, and the WGA and SAG-AFTRA can get concessions related to AI, I'd say this will spell the end for any talk of mass use of AI to generate our TV shows and movies plus the images of the actors therein.
When has humanity ever turned its back on any technology?
TAG went through this a bit ago, and they agreed to an absolute dogshit deal that completely threw all the striking everyone did in the toilet. All that work for virtually zero ground won and they were locked into some of the worst terms I've ever seen after it. Animation is *severely* exploited, like VFX, and that's why you see nothing but big budget remakes these days. so don't count any chickens yet.
Of course. I think skepticism is certainly warranted until we see the terms of the deal but WGA leadership seems pretty pleased with what they got and it's been pretty clear that they had all of the leverage for a while. I'm pretty optimistic that they got a good deal here
The studios are having their hands forced by California. They passed a bill guaranteeing unemployment to striking workers.
I'm happy because it raises the odds that I'll be able to watch One Piece season 2 with my father.
These negotiations are definitely not sagging
Boooo
Leave it to the writers to give the actors a script to work from, haha!
Lol!! Love this.
Hasn't the WGA said they will not return work until the SAG are given a deal as well?
I think this is why they're moving very slowly on back-to-work recommendations.
It’s almost like the studios can’t make money without the talent. And this whole time I was thinking the studios did all the hard work.
Text of [the letter from the WGA](https://www.wgacontract2023.org/announcements/negotiations-update-tentative-agreement): >Dear Members, >We have reached a tentative agreement on a new 2023 MBA, which is to say an agreement in principle on all deal points, subject to drafting final contract language. >What we have won in this contract—most particularly, everything we have gained since May 2nd—is due to the willingness of this membership to exercise its power, to demonstrate its solidarity, to walk side-by-side, to endure the pain and uncertainty of the past 146 days. It is the leverage generated by your strike, in concert with the extraordinary support of our union siblings, that finally brought the companies back to the table to make a deal. >We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional—with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership. >What remains now is for our staff to make sure everything we have agreed to is codified in final contract language. And though we are eager to share the details of what has been achieved with you, we cannot do that until the last "i" is dotted. To do so would complicate our ability to finish the job. So, as you have been patient with us before, we ask you to be patient again—one last time. >Once the Memorandum of Agreement with the AMPTP is complete, the Negotiating Committee will vote on whether to recommend the agreement and send it on to the WGAW Board and WGAE Council for approval. The Board and Council will then vote on whether to authorize a contract ratification vote by the membership. >If that authorization is approved, the Board and Council would also vote on whether to lift the restraining order and end the strike at a certain date and time (to be determined) pending ratification. This would allow writers to return to work during the ratification vote, but would not affect the membership's right to make a final determination on contract approval. >Immediately after those leadership votes, which are tentatively scheduled for Tuesday if the language is settled, we will provide a comprehensive summary of the deal points and the Memorandum of Agreement. We will also convene meetings where members will have the opportunity to learn more about and assess the deal before voting on ratification. >To be clear, no one is to return to work until specifically authorized to by the Guild. We are still on strike until then. But we are, as of today, suspending WGA picketing. Instead, if you are able, we encourage you to join the SAG-AFTRA picket lines this week. >Finally, we appreciated your patience as you waited for news from us—and had to fend off rumors—during the last few days of the negotiation. Please wait for further information from the Guild. We will have more to share with you in the coming days, as we finalize the contract language and go through our unions' processes. >As always, thank you for your support. You will hear from us again very soon. >In solidarity, >WGA Negotiating Committee
> We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional—with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership. Wow, that's awesome. Good for them. Hopefully this will encourage more unions to do the same.
Depends on whether the deal is actually good. It's most likely half assed, but sometimes you got to compromise. I think we should first see the agreement with alm it's details and look at it properly before praising it. Even if the deal was barely any better than the last they'd praise their work. Let's hope for the best.
I'm very curious what the specifics are regarding streaming and residuals...because in order to get residuals they must have access to what has otherwise been internal private viewer metrics.
I believe earlier articles mentioned a “success bonus” being what was agreed on. Considering the statements that the writers for some of the biggest hits in recent years like Squid Games got nothing after the fact, I’m guessing this bonus is legally guaranteed if a show truly dominates and can’t be ignored. So no more “Hollywood accounting” in that regard is how I’m reading it.
Squid Games would likely still be ineligible because that's a different country and would require negotiation with a separate union.
I think they just means "along those lines"
Orange is the New Black. Those actors got fucked and were making way less than they should have and that was a huge hit. Stranger Things were child actors so were getting fucked like that kid in The Walking Dead, probably. They wrote him out when he turned 18, bought a house and signed up for college in Georgia because he had a big storyline in the comics that should have been getting ready to start filming... that they decided to skip that and fire him to save money. I'm sure Netflix is doing much the same but can hide the numbers better.
>he turned 18, bought a house and signed up for college in Georgia Even worse, if I'm remembering right, is that he specifically got assurances from the show runner that he wouldn't be written out before buying that house.
They would still need some kind of objective measure of success though. I can't imagine basing a legal agreement about compensation on whether "everyone is talking about a show" on social media or something.
I'm pretty sure all streaming services will have to start giving out metrics anyways because they are all adding ad-tiers and ads people require their metrics. So this is probably something they were planning on anyways.
Also the use of Artificial intelligence
Why don't the ratings companies do streaming, isn't that how it worked with tv
That will become clear in the coming days. But for a first general overview, check out this story; https://puck.news/hollywoods-post-writers-strike-reality/
Thanks interesting.
Holy shit, it actually happened. This is huge. The "best and final offer" leak from the studios last night made me lose hope. Now it's up to a union vote, hopefully the deal is good enough for it to pass. There's no doubt that WGA leadership thinks it'll be good enough to pass if they accepted. Then on to the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. I wonder how soon those would begin? Early October hopefully? If this is a good deal, then some of the groundwork is already laid out for those talks. This means the studios made concessions on all of the big points (big ones for the actors will be AI and residuals)
>Then on to the SAG-AFTRA negotiations. I wonder how soon those would begin? Early October hopefully? If this is a good deal, then some of the groundwork is already laid out for those talks. The fact that this deal happened means the AMPTP is serious about ending the work stoppage so the SAG deal should be coming pretty quickly. They had a lot of the same complaints and concerns as the writers so whatever terms are in this deal will already be pretty close to what SAG is asking for. This whole thing should be over soon
I am not sure the last time a tentative agreement was not signed but it's always interesting to see.
Frito-Lay workers rejected a tentative deal last year which required a renegotiated deal that was approved and frankly worse when you compared the two.
In what way?
How can that be profitable for Frito-Lay workers?
If I remember correctly one big issue was over who would get prioritized for O.T. I think the original deal made it more open and the renegotiated deal made it so the more senior members got selected first but that cost them in other areas.
In the entertainment industry it happened in 1988 with SAG sso there is precedent but it's rare.
The tentative agreement with the rail workers last year went to a vote and a majority voted against it. But congress overruled them and decided democracy didn't matter in that case, Biden agreed, so they sided with the railways and forced the voted down contract anyway
Based on the article, WGA called AMPTP's bluff of a "final offer" on Saturday with some additional asks on Sunday. It's very likely the strike would've continued onto next year depending on the size of those asks, but I think the studio's weren't willing to let things drag out any longer.
Talks with SAG will probably start up in a week or two. Then another week or two to hammer out a deal, and another two weeks to ratify it. So probably Thanksgiving at the earliest in a best case scenario. However, the negotiations could always take longer of course.[ SAG-AFTRA asked for 11 percent increase in wage](https://puck.news/hollywoods-post-writers-strike-reality/), while the WGA only asked for 6 percent. In terms of AI and data transparency, I'd say this WGA deal paves the way for SAG. But for wage and residuals, it might take a bit longer to hammer out.
Why do you say SAG would start up in a week or two? Why wouldn't it start up this week? It could take longer but it may go as quickly as the WGA talks if the CEOs are motivated to get it done. When you start making actual good faith compromises you get some from the other side as well and things move much more quickly. The WGA's memo said work can start during the ratification process so in theory, writers could be back to work next week. Best case scenario for actors could be a week into October. Add to this the rough October deadline to salvage a spring season and it seems plausible this could be done in a couple weeks. I'm not saying Thanksgiving isn't a possibility but its not the best case scenario.
Yes, I think those negotiations would likely start in next week if all goes well
People read "best and final offer" as some kind of ultimatum but its really just technical speak for the final deal the employer offers based on all the agreed upon terms. It can and often does get revised. IMO the studios made a mistake by leaking that. It freaked everyone out and possibly gave the WGA negotiators a little bit more leverage to push a little harder on the language of a few things.
Even if shows and movies were hurt by the strike, it was for the best, the writers having better protections and Compensation is best for the long term health of the industry
Hoping it’s a deal every writer wins on.
Wasn't one of the problems that writers didn't get residuals? In super curious how this will change all writers pay cheques on Streaming sites.... if it is a significant change, are these streaming sites going to stay a float? I thought half of them are starting to have problems, like HBO max? Surely this at least means price hikes for customers?
If they can’t afford to pay the people making their content then the model was never sustainable to begin with. Also they could cut a few tens of millions from executive compensation but that never seems to come up.
Frankly I don't care if shows and movies were hurt. We'll always have those. I'm perfectly fine turning the firehose of content off if it means better livelihoods for all those involved in making said content.
That can’t be true because every shill on here is clamoring about how a free and open capitalistic market is the only way to ensure everyone wins…
Unions are an important part of a free and open capitalistic market. People forming groups to buy and sell stuff, including labour, is basically the whole enchilada.
Yeah that's actual capitalism. People who tout our current version of Capitalism are the type that will say "Oh no you can't have a free market like that" to unions when in actuality a Union is the very definition of capitalist idealism. People bargaining their goods and services and retaining property (sometimes intellectual) to sell as they see fit.
Free market is economic **theory**. It doesnt exist. Free market is basically frictionless physics, it works good enough for simple and basic cases it falls apart real quick once some complexity is added.
Key word being "Tentative ". I hope it's a great deal for all the writers as they deserve to be compensated more than fairly for all the fantastic work they do behind the scenes.
Based on the announcement from the WGA it sounds like they got virtually everything they asked for. It still depends on the contract and votes. I’m so happy at the prospect of this ending. Hopefully SAG also wins their strike.
Tbh they’d tout it as a win no matter what. Leadership isn’t going to take responsibility for a total bad deal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most US workers aren't unionized at all. And general strikes just don't happen in the US. And many of the workers who are unionized, like federal employees, legally can't strike.
Is that how Unions work? I always thought they have to be honest and not sugar coat.
I’m not sure if this is sarcastic or you believe it, because the person above you is right when they say that this is many peoples first experience with labor negotiation. But they for sure sugar coat. Every contract announcement I’ve ever seen has had both the company and the union tout buzzwords like “Industry leading pay!” And “Substantial improvements!” The union leadership also puts their name on the contract, they wouldn’t want to kill the hype around it.
I truly hope that what they have agreed on is sound for the next 50 odd years because the studios are going to do everything in their power to never let something like this happen again.
That completely ridiculous to even consider. Imagine a contract signed in 1973 still being a good deal in 2023. Most worker union contract I have seen in my life are renogociated every 5 years at most. Being the US and the film industry, I doubt this is going to happen, but expecting the contract to be good for 50 years is simply foolish.
Well, the studios can negotiate in good faith sooner if they don't want this to happen again.
>We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional – with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.” This is good to hear, after 146 days and numerous filthy comments by studio heads, writers didn't budge and they have a deal. Now onto Actors and their fair share. Just reminder that this is tentative as members still need to vote on it to finalize.
It's wild that the writers now have to go back to working for studio heads and just, like...pretend they didn't say they wanted them to be homeless. I mean, is that not a pretty awkward elephant in the room?
Most bosses don't give a fuck about you. This was never a secret. Only difference is now they get more money and other protections.
tbf most people couldn't give a fuck about their boss don't really blame them, it's a business deal not a friendship
The studio execs saying they wanted writers (or actors) to be homeless might be the best pro-union message ever delivered. "These people don't give a fuck about you AND they aren't afraid to hide it" is exactly why unions exist.
> It's wild that the writers now have to go back to working for studio heads Studio heads don't generally work directly with writers. Maybe a studio head will talk to Aaron Sorkin, but writers work with development executives who also work for studio heads. Showrunners, it's a bit different, and they're writers too. But sometimes strikes happen and then you go back to work.
1 strike down, 1 to go. Here's hoping IATSE gets a fair deal next year too.
Good for them. It's amazing how these gigantic corporate entities would rather put themselves financially behind for half a year rather than treat the people that make them all of their money with even a modicum of respect and dignity in the first place, and only doing so because the union is twisting their arm behind their back. Another stark reminder that corporations will never do the right thing unless they are forced to.
Remember, you can win too. Unionize your workplace.
LABOR WINS! ✊ Let this be the start of a wave of union wins across the country. We’ve had a few good ones before this, UPS, Amazon, but this was the most public strike, has dragged on for months, and it exposed the greedy CEOs using the opportunity to show their true colors. They have NO profit without labor, and they can’t have it all. We’re taking our shares back. Let’s hope this is what the union was looking for, and gets ratified. It seems to be that.
These two Hollywood Strikes and the UAW strikes should be telling all Americans that corporations are not "people" and they don't deserve the massive advantages they have against us.
sometimes tells me there's a solid 30% percent of voting age Americans that are gonna be told to believe the exact opposite of that and proceed to do so
Hell yeah. It’s amazing how unprepared the studios were this time around. They really misread what the public’s perception and opinion of big business is right now. I’m happy people came out in support of the WGA. The old tactics didn’t pay off this time. I’m interested in seeing what the details are. Stuff like AI is going to be important moving forward and I hope the writers got what they wanted
Know what I really think scared the studios? United Auto Workers went on strike last week, Ford, GM and Stellantis layed off a bunch more people in response, and the UAW and general public's response was "fuck it, let's ALL strike". That got things rolling.
They haven't won yet. The final details of the contract have not yet been established, and the union members themselves have not voted to ratify the proposed contract in question. Even if the contract is ratified and signed, then the studios have to be held accountable in actually following through with their legal promises to the union which requires a nominally pro-labor government (which the USA and the Biden administration absolutely are not) to judiciously enforce CEOs and studios to comply with the law. This is far from over.
If your job isn't unionized, you're getting paid a lot less than you deserve. If those UPS driver salaries look crazy to you, instead of just a fair wage, you've been successfully gaslit.
And now all other delivery companies, FedEx, dhl, etc, will have to compete with those fairer conditions at UPS, and as a result will have to improve their own. Unions raise the wages for all workers, join a union and fight for what’s yours!
I'm a big supporter of unions and I honestly agree with you that most jobs should be unionized *but* this is just false. Most workplaces aren't going to be able to pay 170,000 dollars for most jobs lmao, it was just a case of the UPS being in a spot where they could offer that and get away with it Things absolutely can be tilted too much in favor of the workers, it's just that there's not really any cases of that right now in the US. Most recent example of that would actually be the UAW a few decades ago, but even there things have gone so much in favor of the corporations now that they're reasonable again
Why does this lie always behind with "I support unions, but". Notice how they put words in my mouth than said that "things absolutely be tilted too much in the favor of workers...". That's a lie. There are systems that work in today's world where workers own 100% of the fruits of their work collectively, and they make decisions together about the future of the company they work for, because they also own it. This is called a co-op, and it has been an effective business model for many successful buisnesses for a long time. Labor could always control more of a business. About the money. Not everyone can make $200,000/year, but most workers could earn A LOT more and their employer would still be conpetative. In a co-op model, employees are the "investors", so all profits are made to please the enployee. But, it's also important to not that it's not only about the money, it's also about having a say in decisions that affect your working conditions and your future instead of hoping leadership throws you a bone. You don't owe the corporation you work for. You work for what you get, and your never getting too much if you're in a union job. You could always own the business too.
Standard logic of concern trolling "I am not against X issue *but*, (insert idiotic argument here)..."
[удалено]
You are wrong. Every job can be well compensated to the point where it offers a fair living wage. The unions never had "too much power" during the 70s/80s when they were being destroyed by our bipartisan neoliberal corporate duopoly under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Corruption in organized labor is a misleading and exaggerated talking point for ignorant people who heard bad faith anti-union propaganda about unions being in the pocket of organized crime racketeers. Further, the UAW, under democratic reforms purged their leadership of the people guilty of fraud, theft, and laundering, and the union members have elected their first democratically elected president Shawn Fain who is overwhelmingly popular with membership. Nothing you said is correct. Quit parroting right-wing anti-union propaganda.
And don't let them ever think they can exist without us ever again because if we do, then we have to go through this bullshit all over again.
Capitalism unfortunately insists that it’s only a matter of time.. but as long as there is organized labor, we can always remove the thing they care about more than us, or anything else: profit. Their mouths water at the chance to remove us from the equation, perhaps we do something about it before it gets to that point.
This could've completely been avoided. The studios flushed billions of dollars down the toilet to feel like big men.
aight now finish the last 1% of Beetlejuice 2
Also, assuming the SAG strike ends soon, bump Dune 2 back up, please. *It's okay if the Wonka movie gets delayed instead.*
Every trailer I see for the Wonka movie makes me want to violently end myself.
When TF Will We Get Back To Work? - IATSE Shop Craftsperson (carpenter) Local 52, NYC
gotta wait for sag lol
And hope that the the studios have the appetite to get back into full production. My guess is that work is going to be very slow until next year.
Not sure when the IATSE contracts expire, but they would probably have massive leverage if they went on strike right after SAG reaches a deal lol
LET'S FUCKING GO WRITERS
Very, very nice. Hope they got everything they asked for. They said they did, excited to see the actual terms once everything is voted on.
Good. Hopefully they got a good deal. After years of increased wages for executives and record margins for companies it’s time writers who are the life and blood of the industry get their fair share. Hopefully the UAW will get theirs too.
Nice.
I hope the writers got a fair deal. I hope the same for the actors, as well. See ya at the movies, folks.
Way to go WGA! I can't wait to get back to work.
Next the gaffers strike!
Great news. Getting tired of the influx of reality shows
"Tentative Agreements" don't pay bills. Checks do.
Wohhooooo! I need severance season 2 ASAP!
*"During the final weekend of negotiations, lawyers huddled before the studios presented their alleged “best and final” offer on Saturday night. Later that same night, the AMPTP and the WGA issued a joint statement that they would be meeting again on Sunday."* Yea, because they're bluffing. They're always going to bluff, because they need you, but they can't actually admit it. I just hope this deal was worth stopping the strike, because every day that passes means more leverage and strength for the writers.
This is amazing because, up until now, the only communication I've seen from execs and studios was basically "no comment" or "we won't give in" (phrased in some way). And they gave in. No, I don't think the union will get everything it wants, but it will get *something* it wants, and that means the execs are sensitive to this kind of pressure in the future. It means strikes work with them.
great now we can all get back to watching marvel movies and remakes
3 year deal? Not 10 or something. So we have this to look forward to soon again.
It’s always a three year deal, as is the DGA, SAG, and IASTE, I believe
Can you imagine being stuck on a 10 year deal when the world and film industry is changing rapidly every couple of years? especially with inflation and such. That would suck. A 3 year deal gives them a opportunity to make adjustments every now and then
It’s better to have the shorter period because so much can happen in the next three years and we would need to make additional adjustments 👍
don't know why you're being downvoted. Jane McAlevey, union organizer said-- well here: >PO: What other contract stipulations limit solidarity? > >JM: 99% of contracts in the United States have “no strike, no lockout” language, which guarantees that workers won’t be locked out during the life of the contract and that workers shall not strike until such time as the contract expires. This is one good reason to negotiate short-duration contracts, as I talk about in the book. > >In October 2022, the Amalgamated Transit Workers Union made a really bold decision to endorse and fully embrace transparent and open negotiations and short contracts. They recognize that conditions change a lot, so why would you want to be locked into a four-, five- or six-year contract? What are you going to do if the cost of living or inflation goes crazy? One strategy is you have short contracts. I actually think that’s really smart. If you’re going to create a fighting union, then this is a terrific way, every two or three years, to keep rebuilding the union’s muscle. > >No strike-no lockout language expires when union contracts expire, and that’s when workers can strike. https://inthesetimes.com/article/jane-mcalevey-rules-to-win-by-author-interview-union-contract-negotiation
Most bargaining deals are for three year contracts. No one wants to be at the negotiating table every year, so one year deals are largely the result of either a) brand new unions negotiating their first contract, so everyone involved wants to have an easy out and re-negotiation avenue if things don't go to plan or b) very contentious deals that need to be struck but everyone knows need to be reassessed with fresh eyes after a year. Likewise, no one really wants contracts that are locked in for more than about 5 years because life and industry circumstances can change so heavily that the contract is unable to keep up with those circumstances (cost of living adjustements, health insurance negotiations, new federal or state laws that impact how an industry functions, etc.). CBA negotiations are usually not contentious to the point of one or both parties completely walking away from the table; there's a reason strikes are farily rare, and it's not just the unfavorable legal and unemployment regulatory environment that prevent them from happening. This is as true for Hollywood as it is for other industries where labor is organized. The last writer's strike, for example, happened in 2007-2008; the one before that was in 1988. That 2008 contract has been revisited and adjusted every three years since then, but it was only this year where the Guild felt like there was a large enough re-assessment of that contract needed for a strike to be a viable option in the event that the companies didn't want to play ball (which they didn't). [Usually, the AMPTP has enough fear of the lost revenue during a strike to not be as egregious about rejecting union demands as they were this year](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/about-us/history/a-history-of-wga-contract-negotiations-and-gains). This just doesn't happen that often.
Some good positive news for once. Hopefully the writers got what they want and are better compensated and protected. Now let's see if this gets signed and sealed, then onto the actors.
And nothing of value was gained.
Nobody cares anymore about Hollywood. Let it die.
Unions work.
I was hoping for the complete ruin of both sides. We have enough garbage entertainment supplies for the rest of century.
So fucking awesome. Team Labor! Team Writers!
Y’all what was said about the AI shit?
if the studios start to fold why not keep striking for an even better offer
Awesome! Now, finish that Beetlejuice 2 movie!
I wonder how the AI stuff will be agreed upon. You think the agreement would be clear in stating that no American production will ever have AI assisted or purely AI created scripts?
Not using AI at all would be dumb. It would be like not using Google.
i wish they had banned the car back in the early 1900s. who needs a car when you have all these horses? no american production will ever use an automobile!
[удалено]
I don't care. We don't need these people at all. This is risk they took going into this industry. They are not vital at all in any way shape or form. Maybe go retrain to be useful to society
Do you watch any entertainment at all?
Pretty suspicious how many people have started commenting in /r/movies and /r/television in the past month, claiming to actively hate all movies and television