SAG-AFTRA vote to go on strike

[DarrenTR1970]

The Wrap is reporting that if a deal isn't reached with SAG after one week, than the studios are prepared to cease negotiations for the rest of the year and won't come back to the table until after January 2024.
In this situation the studios are looking at a drop dead date of early November in order to start production to salvage the rest of the television season and the summer movie blockbusters. If not, the studios will write off 2024 with no new product until 2025.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't actually think SAG's request is unreasonable. Why should striking actors give free publicity to the studios who are exploiting them by dressing as a studio's intellectual property?

But, it's not worth the bad P.R. it's produced. Better to let that one go.

I think a moderately reasonable argument could be made that its defensible in certain situations - like Margot Robbie dressing up as Barbie for Halloween or any actor dressingg up as a character from a current show or upcoming movie that wasn't already world famous before said show or movie. For instance, dressing up as a Stranger Things character or as Argylle.

The reason it comes across as unreasonable, though, is that the vast majority of cases are more likely to be things like random people dressing up as Batman or Wednesday, etc. Characters that literally everyone already knows anyway and has for a long time. There's really no reasonable argument to be made that that sort of thing amounts to 'free publicity'.

 

[Sci]

It's a needless knee jerk reaction that's backfiring - they should concentrate on the negotiations and not waste time on crap like this.

To be clear, SAG was not the one that was refusing to negotiate.

 

[bdub76]

The Wrap is reporting that if a deal isn't reached with SAG after one week, than the studios are prepared to cease negotiations for the rest of the year and won't come back to the table until after January 2024.
In this situation the studios are looking at a drop dead date of early November in order to start production to salvage the rest of the television season and the summer movie blockbusters. If not, the studios will write off 2024 with no new product until 2025.

Makes sense.

Same with my work. Once you hit the holiday season, nothing really moves forward until January.

 

[The Wormhole]

I've seen it being reported on a few sites in recent weeks that if the strike isn't resolved by the end of this month, than the 2023-2024 television network season is basically a write-off. Even if the strike is resolved and they begin filming at the start of November, than the network shows would likely only have ten episodes or less for their seasons.

 

[Captain Shaw]

What do studios bosses do all day?
Can't talk in summer because of holidays and can't talk in winter because of holidays.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

What do studios bosses do all day?

Historically, they turn down truckloads of future classics.

 

[HotRod]

What do studios bosses do all day?

 

[Random_Spock]

Yep, all while on their jumbo sized yachts.

 

[FPAlpha]

It's a tactic to let the other side cook a little bit more but i wonder when the pressure with the shareholders becomes big enough to force the studios to negotiate. Wiriting off an entire year because you wanted to be home for the holidays seems like something that doesn't go over well.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

It's a tactic to let the other side cook a little bit more but i wonder when the pressure with the shareholders becomes big enough to force the studios to negotiate. Wiriting off an entire year because you wanted to be home for the holidays seems like something that doesn't go over well.

Probably depends upon when it starts affecting the shareholders bottom line.

 

[FPAlpha]

Probably depends upon when it starts affecting the shareholders bottom line.

It already does when the studios are ready to write off 2024. An entire year without significant profit save for a few finished movies that have been pushed from 2023 to 2024 won't make up for the bulk of profits missing from movies and TV/Streaming shows. I would have expected the studios to fold earlier given that they agreed to the demands of the writer's but it seems they don't want to back down now and "lose" again, i'm not sure if that's just pride at work or they are just that unwilling to let go of a percent of profit to move on.

 

[Snaploud]

I would have expected the studios to fold earlier given that they agreed to the demands of the writer's but it seems they don't want to back down now and "lose" again, i'm not sure if that's just pride at work or they are just that unwilling to let go of a percent of profit to move on.

Studios folded on a lot of things to writer demands, but the streaming residuals deal was small potatoes money-wise.

The writers got one-time bonuses for certain types of new shows that meet specific success standards. It's about $20 million a year, doesn't cover successful older shows, and provides no additional on-going revenue for shows past the first year. It's basically just a foot in the door.

Actors wanted a replacement for on-going syndication residuals that amount to 2% of revenue. They suggested 2% of streaming revenue and slashed that ask in half (plus adjusting to a fee per subscriber model) to what amounts to about $500 million a year that would be spread across all streaming shows by viewership.

 

[bdub76]

It's a tactic to let the other side cook a little bit more but i wonder when the pressure with the shareholders becomes big enough to force the studios to negotiate. Wiriting off an entire year because you wanted to be home for the holidays seems like something that doesn't go over well.

The end of the year is when folks take remaining time off. Little gets done.
If nothing happens by Thanksgiving. It won’t for the remainder of this year.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably depends upon when it starts affecting the shareholders bottom line.

Indeed, yes. It will take some more hits to that bottom line to make this move.

 

[FPAlpha]

The end of the year is when folks take remaining time off. Little gets done.
If nothing happens by Thanksgiving. It won’t for the remainder of this year.

Sure when it's normal business and everything runs as usual. These are however highly unusual times and big CEO's are expected to be on call and working during crisis moments, even if it's Christmas, New Year's Eve or their birthday. However, as i said, i believe it's a deliberate tactic to let the union cook in the hope they'll soften up their stance. Didn't work with the writers, let's see if it works with the actors.

 

[bdub76]

Sure when it's normal business and everything runs as usual. These are however highly unusual times and big CEO's are expected to be on call and working during crisis moments, even if it's Christmas, New Year's Eve or their birthday. However, as i said, i believe it's a deliberate tactic to let the union cook in the hope they'll soften up their stance. Didn't work with the writers, let's see if it works with the actors.

That’s the perception. But it’s not the reality.

The other issue is the law firms being used. While lawyers are known for working way too many hours at big law firms, I don’t expect them to do much holiday work.

This is pretty much over unless something changes. And subscriber counts for services aren’t plummeting with the price increases.

 

[FPAlpha]

That’s the perception. But it’s not the reality.

The other issue is the law firms being used. While lawyers are known for working way too many hours at big law firms, I don’t expect them to do much holiday work.

This is pretty much over unless something changes. And subscriber counts for services aren’t plummeting with the price increases.

I can assure you it is the reality - i am middle management and at my level i am expected to work on public holidays if there is a crisis, CEO's with their ungodly salaries are expected to do much more ( though they tend to drag down their teams with them aka "If i have to work so do you!"). And you would be mistaken how far top law firms are willing to go for their client, they will work on holidays but you can expect premium rates for these services. They do this though ( and getting paid very well) just to keep these huge studio and media corporation clients - this is a mindset both on the CEO and top lawyer firms that few people can understand but you will not get that high up the chain if you're not willing to go that extra mile.

The fact that they won't conclude negotiations this year and are not negotiating until early next year points to my point of this being a deliberate tactic to put financial pressure on the union members ( Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Years around the corner and no income) in the hope to resume early 2024 with a point being made by the studios, i.e. we have deeper pockets.

And i don't understand what your point about subscribers not plummeting means - did you intend to correlate possible actor residuals being tied to subscribers? if so that's wrong - the only metric that counts for all is viewer count, i.e. how many viewers streamed any given show or movie. Ad companies use this metric to negotiate prices with the streamers, streaming services use it to calculate interest in their service that relates to how much they can charge for it and actors are paid residuals based on how many of their shows/movies are being watched ( and paid less than pennies at the moment for it which is one of the main issues).

 

[bdub76]

I can assure you it is the reality - i am middle management and at my level i am expected to work on public holidays if there is a crisis, CEO's with their ungodly salaries are expected to do much more ( though they tend to drag down their teams with them aka "If i have to work so do you!"). And you would be mistaken how far top law firms are willing to go for their client, they will work on holidays but you can expect premium rates for these services. They do this though ( and getting paid very well) just to keep these huge studio and media corporation clients - this is a mindset both on the CEO and top lawyer firms that few people can understand but you will not get that high up the chain if you're not willing to go that extra mile.

The fact that they won't conclude negotiations this year and are not negotiating until early next year points to my point of this being a deliberate tactic to put financial pressure on the union members ( Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Years around the corner and no income) in the hope to resume early 2024 with a point being made by the studios, i.e. we have deeper pockets.

And i don't understand what your point about subscribers not plummeting means - did you intend to correlate possible actor residuals being tied to subscribers? if so that's wrong - the only metric that counts for all is viewer count, i.e. how many viewers streamed any given show or movie. Ad companies use this metric to negotiate prices with the streamers, streaming services use it to calculate interest in their service that relates to how much they can charge for it and actors are paid residuals based on how many of their shows/movies are being watched ( and paid less than pennies at the moment for it which is one of the main issues).

I’m talking about streaming subs, not ads, which is mostly network TV and YouTube in dollars today. Some streaming has ads, but it’s revenue is tiny in the grand scheme.

 

[FPAlpha]

I’m talking about streaming subs, not ads, which is mostly network TV and YouTube in dollars today. Some streaming has ads, but it’s revenue is tiny in the grand scheme.

And what do subscriptions have to do with the actor union strikes? If it's like you say and subscriptions are holding steady despite price increases ( debatable, i'm reading conflicting reports) it would mean streaming services earn more yet don't pay the people who actually make the product appropriately.