Writers’ Strike? Really? [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:43:32 +0000

Again, this is a topic I've avoided recently, not to better understand it, but because I thought it was stupid and would never happen. Oh how I was wrong.

Unless you live in a deep dark hole full of demons, you know there's a Writers' Guild strike going on. And that it's deeply affecting shows that some people probably are more addicted to than a backwater hic to meth.

Why?

From what I understand, and I'm not claiming to either, there are two issues:

Money

Distribution

Each is actually dependent on the other, so let's take a look...

Money

I read somewhere (not cited) that the average TV writer makes $200k/yr. Oh wow, that's completely surprising! I thought everyone in Hollywood / LA was poor, and just pretended to be rich and successful, when in reality they are more poor than the average American and totally without any fame. I guess I was mistaken.

Seriously? $200k/yr for writing a season's worth of TV shows, that ranges from 12-24 episodes, with maybe another show or two? And you're COMPLAINING? [Edit/Note: my reference of "$200k/yr" was based upon something I read, and meant to link to. I've since lost that link, but I mention it because the number is being questioned by a few people.]

If you're a writer (also called "authors" in the real world of books), you don't expect to make alot of money, or be immensely successful. Yes, there is one author out of many who becomes wildly successful (and occasionally very rich) like J.K. Rowlings or Michael Crighton, but you don't get into "the business" because you want to be rich. The fact that these writers make an absurd amount of money for what equates to a small portion of a book, and is often times just juvenile humor or slightly complex drama, is amazing.

But even more amazing that they feel underpaid.

Distribution

The guys who write NBC's "The Office" have a video floating around the Internet (Google it) of them complaining about not receiving money for distribution of their media. They mention "webisodes" and "online viewing of episodes", and not being properly compensated for them.

This is hilarious to me.

Let me get this straight: you're complaining that not only are you not getting enough money for doing very little amounts of work, but you're also complaining that you aren't getting paid for your content being shown in what is a largely ad-free environment?

If you view an episode of "The Office" online (legally), you are shown maybe three 30-second advertisements during the showing, and it's usually for the same company/product/service. If you view one of their "webisodes" for the show, you get even less advertisement. So, you want to be paid for everytime someone views your work, especially online? How does that even make any sense?

You People Are Stupid

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you (writers) don't get paid per viewer of your TV show through the normal delivery method (aka TV), do you? I'm pretty sure you don't because the number of viewers for any given show is one of the most highly argued issues in modern media. So that means you get a lump sum for a certain productivity level.

I will then assume that that amount of money scales based upon both your work output and the overall popularity of the show (from season to season). By the same logic, one would assume that if you write a "series of 10 webisodes" (as the same video references), you get paid more than you would for just a normal season.

Right? That's what I thought. You guys just can't accept that, God forbid, your show is viewed any other way than on TV or DVD. May Zeus strike me down if I were to miss an episode, and want to watch it on the network's website, so I can continue watching your show that I may or may not love so dearly.

Guilds? Is This 1943?

Not only does this whole strike situation piss me off, but it also brings to light one of the worst permutations of a great idea in the history of mankind: a guild/union. A long long time ago, in an America perhaps 60 years ago, they were a great idea. They helped to standardize wages, work conditions, and other critical elements of any job.

But today, they are nothing but a sorry excuse for a group of money-grubbing attention whores. The only time I can remember a strike actually having purpose and legitimacy, during my time of sentience, is the UPS strike (Google it). This writers' strike is not an example of good intentions or purpose, just like when labor unions band together to increase how much the standard plumber charges you to show off his ass.

New Media

The world of "new media" is here, so get over it. Blogs, videoblogs, webcams, webisodes, TV on the Internet, and others are not going anywhere, no matter how much you want them to "go gently into this good night". The "old media" companies are having a hard enough time adjusting as it is (online episodes, Internet-distribution of media, etc.), without you causing them any more problems.

If you like making everyone's future absolute Hell, keep it up. Maybe we can make a revision to the DMCA where no-one is allowed to distribute anything on the Internet, ever, without paying someone royalties.

Yeah, because that has worked out so freaking well to the music industry, hasn't it?

[I'm not the only one who thinks this way... see what Micheal Eisner and Jon Stewart think]

Kyle Brady: Blog » Writers’ Guild

Writers’ Strike? Really? [Old Content]