In response to a comment...
For some reason, Blogger isn't letting me comment, so here is my answer to Ren's comment. (BTW - I'm so glad you stopped by my Blog!)
Ummm...actually there is tremendous ad revenue that comes from streaming video. Check out streaming from most Hollywood sources - the big studio dotcoms, E-online, etc. Most of them have a short commercial embedded in the video that you must watch before the clip, interview, etc. There is some thought that this type of advertising space is actually more valuable than commercials on TV. The viewer cannot fast forward or skip these commercials, the way I do the ones on my DVR. Even one ad before a streamed show generates a significant amount of revenue for the studio. Just like authors are paid a royalty for every book sold, screen writers are asking for a royalty for every time profit is made from their creative product. It seems pretty reasonable to me. They are the initial creative force behind the show -- they should get a small cut of the profit. Notice, they are only asking for .6%. Not even six percent. Sixth tenths of one percent.
One of the reasons they are fighting so hard for this is the future. No one really knows what media is going to look like in ten years, but it's a pretty safe bet that "new media" will play a huge role. Television as we know it today might not even exist. I know that I never watch a show when it is actually on anymore. I always delay my viewing until later. Traditionally, a writer is paid for the initial broadcast of a show and then again when it is re-broadcast later in the season. Writers depend on this as part of their yearly income. Most of them do not make much at all and need the 2nd residual. In the past year, several shows (The Office, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, etc.) have stopped running that second broadcast and just streamed the episode online instead. The writers' salary is cut in half. This is what they are trying to deal with. It's not only an increase -- it's fighting the loss of current income to a format that is not covered under their contract.
posted by Jill Pole @ 11/13/2007
2 Comments:
Just to clarify, I'm in no way against the writers being paid more (or even not less). Also, I realize that there are avenues of digital distribution that do generate revenue (iTunes, et. al.). I'm just pointing out that several of the streaming network shows that I have watched do not have any significant advertising or other obvious sources of revenue.
For example, I just went to the NBC site and started the latest episode of Heroes. Before the episode began, it did show a short 10-15 second advertisement, but it was for another NBC show, Bionic Woman. It's easy to accept the argument that this streaming of Heroes, along with the Bionic Woman ad, are simply promotional with the intent of drawing viewers to the broadcast version.
My latter point about the risk the writers are undertaking with their strike is not intended to argue that they shouldn't strike, just that striking is not without significant long-term risk (in addition to the obvious short-term risk).
Yes, I agree that there is definitely long term risk. After the 1988 strike, the television audience was only 90% of the pre-strike audience. Those people never came back to television. In some ways, the huge amounts of reality TV that airs now is a result of television studios wanting to become less dependent on the traditional scripted show. (Notice I said traditional, reality TV is also scripted.) Of course, the writers are well aware of these issues, as well as others. Probably much more so than we are. I think that speaks to how incredibly important they think this issue is. The very fact that is there is such risk is one of the reasons I support them so strongly. The studios should just suck it up and pay the writers. That's somewhat of a selfish comment on my part; I want my shows to return in a timely manner!! :-) :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home