CE-Oh no he didn't! Part XLIX: Eisner tells striking writers to blame Steve Jobs
By Donald Melanson 
posted Nov 7th 2007 3:29PM
posted Nov 7th 2007 3:29PM
Well, it looks like Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner had a fair bit to say about the current Writer's Guild of America strike in a recent interview, with him even going so far as to recommend that the writers point their aim at a familiar foe. According to CNET's The Social, in addition to calling the strike "stupid," Eisner said that the studios "make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners," adding that, "They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple." Eisner then went on to say that, "If I was a union, I'd be striking up wherever he is."[Photo courtesy of TVNewser]
There is a reason this guy got removed from Disney, and it shows.
I thought that Apple didnt make squat off the iTunes store. That 99 cent on the dollar go to the media conglomerates.
i believe NBC made squat off of iTunes, not Apple. something like only 15 million for NBC which was maybe 40% of all video downloads.
From the article ("Eisner asserted. "They (writers) can do it in three years. They shouldn't be doing it now." Right now, the profit from digital content is "a piece of a nonexistent flow, which won't be nonexistent, but it will be nonexistent for the next three years.")
What an idiot - the writers are striking now because they want a % of what's made on these digital platforms - if nothing is made well then the writers get nothing - but guess what dumb ass - if nothing is made for the next three years then the studios/networks owe nothing to the writers!
The truth is that the Studios/Networks want to make money off of new distribution and they don't want to give a piece of that to the writers, thus a stand still in negotiations and the strike.
Eisner is either an idiot or playing dumb to steer the public away from blaming all the dinosaurs still running studios and networks.
Part of what you are saying is true, but it is more complicated than that. First, teh studios do have to invest in new workflows and they want to recover that investment first instead of more money going out the door during an already low time.
Thats why they do not increase the artist's pay.
However, from an artist's standpoint, they want to get the percentages in place in now ionstead of hearing the constant talk of low profits.
Both sides have a valid arguement.
M
Let's not forget that the studios don't have to sign with Apple. It's a business deal and if they think they're better off without them, they can simply leave Apple like NBC did. That's more true now since there's quite a few other reputable media download services besides iTunes. Blaming Apple for low profit margin is just as stupid as blaming Wal-Mart 10+ years ago. These guys just have to go back and re-learn the basics of business. They just don't want to accept the reality of supply and demand, which they can no longer overlook.
Its simple to take a step back and see both sides to this issue. Michael Eisner in his day was credited rightly so with some good decisions for Disney but in the end his own ego got in the way, no one could put him out of his job. Now as for the strike itself. Take a look at the bottom Line. Most people in this industry get paid a reasonable wage based on the position the work in. Now writers are paid what they are because they create the content that all the other departments put together and shoot. Should the writers get a cut of the profits made from their efforts? Of course they should. The Studios make money regardless of hollywood accounting. Any one remember the Battle royal with Peter Jackson over revenues due from LOTR? What it boils down to is simple. In every job theres give and take and Management has to realize its the right thing to do to compensate for the writers effort with digital media so prevalent in today's society. Look back just 20 years could you go out and buy your favorite series on VHS or Beta? No, but today you wait a year or so and you can have your piece for your treasured collection to enjoy over and over. You pay the price to the distributors who get the content to distribute from the network. Hence the writers with lives on in perpetuity. Go back even further to the days when there was no residuals yet the programming is still on the air today the stars back then got avg to sub standard pay for the work they did with no hope of reaping the benefits today thats why alot of them wind up in the Actors home for care. It's vital to look at the importance of whats going on today. If the media isnt generating the income well then the writers wouldnt see an increase until it did thats common economics. But its important for them to prtect their own futures much like the studio is out to protect their own. I certainly hope they can sit down and work it out before the economic impact is felt by the other departments in production who rely on the writers to have the product to produce.
If you do not like deal, then don't do it, same with writers, hire/deal with somebody else.
M
i don't think you understand the writers aren't making the deals. the company is and taking all the profit without paying the writers who created it. this is what they want a share of.
i believe eisner is trying to say it is deals like the ones between nbc and apple, etc that has everyone pissed, except for nbc and apple which are reaping all the profit.
and they did hire someone to deal with it. it isn't working so well, so they're striking.
M
@Mr Hamster
Thats ridiculous - NBC has the responsibility for paying the writers not Apple.
iTunes merely sells the TV shows - its no different than buying a DVD at Wal-Mart. NBC should have taken into account any cost before entering into deals with distributes such as Apple or Amazon.
Writers do make deals with the studios and then the studios goes and makes their deal, but the writers wants a part of that money too.
Fine. Both are greedy.
Let them strike, and like baseball, the clubs can get other players. Sure they will be a tough tranitional time, but in the end, everything will work out.
There are many writers out there fully capabale of doing the content. Let teh studios get me blood if it is good for their buisness. Of let the writers strikers if it good for the writers long term.
M
And when they do not do the deal, then all the Apple fanboys jump all over them. NBC/Uni did not renew their contract with Apple, they were ripped apart here on Engadged because they dared to not submit to the will of the Great and Wonderous Jobs. NBC thought they should be able to make money, just like Apple does from what they sell.
It was said that NBC got $15 million for all of the shows that were posted on iTMS. Subtract from that the cost of employing people to transfer the shows to the Apple format, the actor's cut, the lost ad revenue (if 10% of the people get the show from iTMS rather than watching it, the advertisers should expect a 10% discount), etc. etc. etc. Now the writers want a cut - which, honestly they deserve because they wrote the shows, but where does that money come from? Higher prices. But if they are not permitted to raise the cost on iTunes because The Jobs says no, then they don't sell. Which begins another cycle of them being criticized for not submitting to The Jobs.
What I hear is a bunch of Apple boys yelling that they want Apple to make money (they brag about Apple increased revenues), they want the content to remain the same price, and they want new content which means that the writers need to be paid at the expense of others (if Apple should be able to make a profit, why can't others?). In other words, screw everybody else and Apple is perfect and blameless.
Personally this is not an Apple problem. They make their deal. However, NBC (or whoever) choses to make a deal with apple for the limited revenue they will get. However, the writers want more. I agree that they should get some, which they are.
The reality is that we do not know if teh studios are really make money or crying wolf.
So far, I can only see that the writers want a raise.
In the old days, if you job did not give you more pay, you just went to another job. Now everybody strikes, but the work that the employees are doing is the same or in a competitive market keeping rates down.
Personally, I think the studios should either pay more or hired new writers. It is a simple choice.
M
@Stephbratz2
You are very confused - its the networks and studios that created this industry over the past 50 years - movies for example cost millions of dollars to make in part becuase a movie star gets paid millions - if a studio or network didn't make TONS of money from the content they produced then there wouldn't be a market for multi-millionaire movie stars. We pay the salary of those movie stars when we buy that $12 movie ticket.
Apple is just a re-seller making a profit from marking up a wholesale item (Just like every other frikin retail outlet out there) - its up to the studios and networks to keep cost down internally so they can make money off of their share of the product sold.
If Apple charges more just because NBC CANT control their cost well then consumers (all of us) will have to pay for it.
@Carlos
You are missing my point, and there is no confusion on my part. Yes, movies cost millions, and yes, the movie stars are getting too much. But that is a factor of the public wanting to see somebody with the names Bruce Willis, or Tom Hanks in a movie rather than you or I. So the price for a movie appearance goes up.
You take all the costs of the writers (and they are the ones being shafted here, they write the story but make the least), the producers, the stars the special effects, the production, the advertisement, etc. They then say "the price of commercials and each DVD needs to be X for us to break even, and will be X+Y for us to make a profit." They then take these numbers to the advertisers and say "pay us $Z". If they do not, then the advertiser does not get their spot on TV, and there will be others to fill that spot. The same thing here, NBC/Uni decided they need to get a specific amount to recover their costs as well as make a profit. Apple said no, we will pay you this much, to which NBC/Uni said no and so they walked, and they were condemned for it.
The retailer does not decide the price, it is the manufacturer. If the manufacturer decides to sell at a price that is unacceptable to the retailer, then the retailer does not sell it. The manufacturer/retailer can negotiate the price, but it needs to be acceptable to both parties. Just like you, as a consumer, can say the price to that is more than it is worth to me, so you can not buy a product. You can negotiate with the retailer, but if the price you offer is unacceptable, then the retailer does not need to sell that item to you (and the same happens in reverse).
What you are saying is that the price sold to the retailer (Apple) should always be $X, and it is up to the manufacturer to decrease their costs so that the price will always be $X to the retailer. It does not always work that way. Take a taxi to the airport, the price is more than it was a year ago because of fuel prices. If their costs are higher than what they take in, they have a choice, fire the cabbies and hire new ones (which cannot be done in this case because of employee rights to collective bargaining) or pass the cost onto the consumer. That is what NBC/Uni tried to do, but you can see here what happens.
So Apple is actually protecting the consumer from having NBC pass the buck on to us to the point were they are willing to have NBC walk away.
I understand that there are times when the price of an item needs to go up - but unlike your Taxi/fuel example I am not at all convinced that NBC NEEDS to raise the prices on downloads. There is also no proof that digital downloads take away from the number of people watching commercials during a traditional broadcast, Tivo probably does more damage in this area than anything else.
What I do believe is that NBC is in 4th place behind ABC, CBS and Fox and they are desperate for cash. They don't see the immediate cash returns from iTunes so they freak out and cut it loose not realizing that iTunes is a good promotional vehicle for their network not to mention a legit way of making money from digital downloads.
Even our pal Eisner said that digital distribution isn't yet a money maker - I guess NBC should be happy they were able to pull $15 million out of the air from their iTunes sales last year (by the way that figure is ridiculously low and probably accounts for some voodoo accounting at NBC.)
ABC on the other hand is the number 1 network - they sell content on iTunes as well as stream content for free (with commercials) on ABC.com and sell DVDs of their programs at Best Buy etc- sounds like a well rounded network to me, cash pouring in from all outlets.
We as consumers should not allow networks and studios to dump their problems on us and expect us to pay more for content just to bail them out.
See this is what happens when writers go on strike: Morons speak for themselves.
Exactamundo!
Thank you, that was very funny.
Now, get your funny word writin' butt back on that picket line. Just because you're on strike doesn't mean you can comment on engadget all day. You have to leave something for the editors...
LMAO! Best post of the day.
Best post of the day my ass.....
Best post of the YEAR!
Kudos, DerX.
lol.
don't you have to be over a certain age before you become senile?
Not really, but you can be stupid at any age.
The iTMS is a low profit store to provide people with content to get them to buy a VERY high profit iPod and accessories in which Apple also gets a cut.
iTMS is Low profile? In what country? Cause in the US it's the 3rd largest retailer in the country.. Not e-tailer.. no, compared to WalMart, Best Buy and Target.
Old Media = Lame
Sour grapes, sour grapes......He was removed so Disney could continue to business with Pixar on Jobs order. PERIOD.
C.
You could land a ROFLcopter on his forehead.
Michael Eisner destroyed Disney. Steve Job's company (Pixar) is trying to bring it back to life. Imagine that, while Eisner was sucking the life out of a company by squashing creativity and chasing the almighty dollar, Jobs's company was allowing creative people to do what they do best, and they profited immensly from it.
Yeah, Disney may have technically bought Pixar, but it is Pixar that will be saving Disney from going down the toilet.
Eisner can stick it.
Yup, Eisner ruined Disney. No questions. His penny-pinching ways lost the "magic" so to speak.
But before you praise Jobs for Pixar remember that he tried to shut down their media branch. He did not want them creating content. For a while they were doing it under his nose.
Pixar became what it is in spite of Jobs, not because of him. He was mostly along for the ride, thinking he had purchased a hardware company and ending up with a movie-making pot of gold.
Right on the money. A friend of mine worked at Disney in the Eisner era. He & his colleagues used to refer to the company as "Mauschwitz".
Everyone knows that Eisner is bitter because Jobs had a part in his ousting from Disney. There was that big issue with Pixar making any more movies for disney, and once Eisner was gone Jobs sold Pixar to Disney and he joined the board. If I'm not mistaken he's either the biggest, or one of the biggest, Disney stock holders now.
Biggest at about 6%
From the article ("Eisner asserted. "They (writers) can do it in three years. They shouldn't be doing it now." Right now, the profit from digital content is "a piece of a nonexistent flow, which won't be nonexistent, but it will be nonexistent for the next three years.")
What an idiot - the writers are striking now because they want a % of what's made on these digital platforms - if nothing is made well then the writers get nothing - but guess what dumb ass - if nothing is made for the next three years then the studios/networks owe nothing to the writers!
The truth is that the Studios/Networks want to make money off of new distribution and they don't want to give a piece of that to the writers, thus a stand still in negotiations and the strike.
Eisner is either an idiot or playing dumb to steer the public away from blaming all the dinosaurs still running studios and networks.
Blasphemy!
This guy is just pissed because he got the boot from Disney and Steve and Pixar Played a major role in that. It kills him to know Steve is the largest stockholder of Disney. Eisner, you look pathetic when you make comments that expose your true feelings, you are transparent.
Would love to slug this guy in the face! It'd feel so good!!
Complete idiot. Should be ousted for these immature comments.
Wow, he sure is making a lot of friends...
I think He and 'Sucker" (replace the S with Z) should go to hell. They are and will single handily kill the industry. Don't argue with you ex-companies largest share holder, especially when he like legal. (Please note I wanted to work for NBC when I am older, but with Zucker, I'll be staying away form 30 Rock)
What? Steve Jobs screwing someone in order to make a quick buck? Totally unheard of!
http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html
"In 2003, Roy E. Disney, resigned from his positions as Disney vice chairman and chairman of Walt Disney Feature Animation, accusing Eisner of micro-management, failures with the ABC television network, timidity in the theme park business, turning the Walt Disney Company into a "rapacious, soul-less" company."
-Wiki it...
Ouch... Very... very ouch.
I also hope Holo or their crappy video service to crash and burn. Take that Zucker and FOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can totally understand why the writers are striking. From what I hear their take (if at all) on things like DVD sales, electronic distribution etc. is pathetic. It's very easy for corporations to blame someone like Apple and say things like 'Well if Apple gave us a better deal, we wouldn't have this problem.'
As much as don't like to say it: I'm with Apple. F the production companies, F the networks, F the Studios. If they don't like the deal Apple has given them, take their wares somewhere else. Make your own distribution mediums and make all the money you want there. What's that? You have and they all suck? Then shut the fuck up and take what Apple gives you, meat puppets!
Now I need to go pee on my ipod to gain equilibrium.
So let me get this straight - even former CEOs belong in the "CE-Oh no he didn't!"? Has this been done before?
"No CE-Oh no he didn't!"
Eisner is a total tool bag for saying this. He needs to butt-out and focus on taking over bubble gum companies like Topps. Better yet he should focus on investing his millions into something like Rogain so he can fix that jacked-up-bald-noggin of his.
Hey why not ask Walmart or Amazon for a cut too? They sell more stuff than iTunes....
Guy is loony. Makes you wonder what these boards are looking for when they hire CEOs. Apparently the bar isn't that high. This guy clearly does not understand the very industry he worked in for so many years. I may not love Apple, but blaming the only successful mainstream online media store for not being able to give the writers a fair chunk of the profits is simply ridiculous. Online media distribution is a tight market, and Apple deserves whatever chunk it can get. You could say that Apple is making tons of money on hardware off the backs of the media creators (see Zuckers comments), but you could also say that Apple has opened up a distribution platform for digital media that allows media companies to sell their products so that all those iPods Apple has sold (and will continue to sell, regardless of content available on the iTunes Store) don't have only copyright infringing material on them. It really depends on how you look at it. Apple is going to keep on making iPods, the only question is whether they'll be full of media consumers pay for or not.
Writers, keep on striking until these the big studio's boards fire the idiots running the show and get someone in who actually is reasonable. Idiotic CEOs are ruining the media business.
I've never really understood why Apple won't allow variable pricing. They said they don't want to confuse consumers, but pretty much every store I go to has multiple prices. Somehow I still figure it out. Apple would get more money since they are presumably taking a percentage. The only logical explanation to me is that they don't ever really want to make money on the iTunes store-- it's just there to drive iPod sales.
I find the whole argument quite entertaining. NBC did make money off of their shows. They made tons of money in revenue. They already turned a profit on their products. The iTunes store is just another avenue from which they want to make more money. There's nothing wrong with that. I agree.
Of course, that's what the writers are saying as well. But NBC (and other content providers) are claiming that the writers are already making a profit, they shouldn't be able to make more profit.
Of course they want all of us to swallow the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for a corporation to maximize profits, but individuals are manifesting some sort of immoral greed when they want the same kind of income structure.
I think Eisner is right on Jobs it getting the money. He may be clever and make a lot of money for aPPLE BUT hE IS THE ONE THAT IS THE PROFITEER. hE IS MUCH WORSE THAN ANY OIL company ever was. Reasonable profits never is intheir sould or head. it's make as much as you can every time you can. Jobs really irks me.
Ow....my brain...
Remind us all never to take business advice from you...
Uh...Eisner brought on Bruckheimer who basically is making Disney all of their money anyway (the studio)...Pirates of the Caribbean, HELLO??? He also established the original relationship with Pixar.
Eisner didn't establish the original relationship with Pixar, Walt's nephew, Roy, did. When Eisner joined Disney, he wanted to dump the animation division, headed by Roy. Roy was trying to get Disney to purchase Pixar from LucasFilm but Eisner never understood the potential benefit of digital animation. Steve Jobs did. Eisner didn't want anything to do with Pixar or animation.
Eisner also screwed over and fired his former friend, Jeffrey Katzenberg, who was ultimately responsible for reviving Disney's animation division and helped to turn it into a huge profit center. Katzenberg recognized the potential of Pixar long before Eisner did. Read "Disney War" by James B. Stewart for the whole story. Disney survived and thrived IN SPITE of Mike Eisner. Eisner's a schmuck.
I'm confused by all of this... I don't understand why the writers deserve a cut of any additional revenue made by selling content on DVD media or through Internet downloads. The writers don't have to do any additional work to support these additional formats since they are just reproductions of things already in existence. This is very much like me (a software engineer) saying that since we ship our product on both CDs and DVDs now, where we used to only ship on CD, I deserve more money. I didn't have to do a damned thing! In general, I agree with unions protecting workers from unfair treatment, unjust firing, etc. but I really hate it when people go on strike because they feel they need a bigger piece of the pie and they haven't done any additional work to deserve it.
Also, if your company signed a deal with Apple in order to sell your content for a given price, don't piss and moan that you're not making any money. You made that choice and you knew the terms going in. And don't bitch to me that Apple fan-boys are ripping on you for pulling out of iTMS, it's our right to bitch, it's your right to ignore us. It was the Dixie Chicks' right to bad mouth the POTUS at one of their concerts, it was other people's right to stop listening to their music. Actions and Consequences people...
I, like "BS" above also wonder why the writers deserve more money. They do their job and get paid for it just like everyone one else. Doesn't matter what the company does with the info or content.
I agreed to my job for a certain salary. That is all I am going to get except for maybe a pat on the back. I am working on a project that is going to make my employer millions of dollars. Do you think I am going to get a cut of that? NO!
Tell the writers to go find other work if that isn't enough.
I am not siding with any of the studios on this either. They are just as bad. I pay for a DVD once and should be able to view it where I want, and when I want, and on what media I want. To HELL WITH DRM!
Finally! The voice of reason speaks! The writers got hired to write. They make a certain amount for what they write. They DO NOT own the rights to anything, be it "their creation" or not so they are not entitled to anything additional when it comes to new avenues of distribution.
Right on. Why should the content creators continue to benefit everytime the said content is resold. They get paid the first time. That should be it.
@Toth:
Yes! I agree! And let's take that further! Why should I have to pay for a DVD when I paid to see the movie in the theater? I'm just buying the same thing right? And I already saw all the comericals when I saw LOST the first time! Why am I paying ABC for the content again on season DVD volume? And why do I have to PAY for food and the PAY again to have the sewage removed? Didn't I already pay for the food once? You're brilliant, Toth!
Thanks 1920's factory bosses!
Fortunately for creative people, including the entertainment writers, you don't decide who deserves what. The unions, the courts and the studios do.
You can call them greedy pigs all you want but if they want more money for their work, they're entitled to ask for it and they're entitled to strike when they don't get it. If you don't like labor disputes such as these, China has a system you might like.
Mkay here's how it works in the business world. Creatives are paid for distribution, ie., the usage if you will. When we use an illustrator for an ad, he's paid handsomely based on the circulation, the number of ads and the life expectancy of the campaign, if the illustration will be used elsewhere and for other collateral pieces we typically pay a whole lot of money and just buy the rights in whole to the illustration. Unless all rights are transferred the content is still legally the property of the creator - not the user. For the price to be fair all future uses are basically guestimated and a price is agreed upon. The same thing goes for the writers - they're paid for their ideas to be used on the shows, the original premise of distribution of which has traditionally been television/cable and DVD. Now with digital distribution on the rise the creatives deserve a slice of the pie. An ample % of digital distribution income should be negotiated into the writers contracts - if the studios make more money, so should the creatives responsible for the content that is driving up those revenues. This has nothing to do with "they don't do any extra work, they already got paid" - it has to do with getting their fair share of profits made from their ideas. Look at it like this - if you took a photo and sold it to the newspaper without any consent to distribution, wouldn't you be pissed if they started selling it on post cards and posters, ie., making a profit. Wouldn't it be better if you were paid more for giving them the right to not only use the pic in the paper but also for other pieces such as books, magazines, posters, postcards, etc. - and maybe you'd get a % of those sales? It's not a whole lot unlike royalties to a musician based on album sales. They're reimbursed for volume of content, writers deserve the same (as do photographers, illustrators, etc.).
Bad analogy. Think of it this way.
You were hired to develop software, and your contract stipulates that you get X percentage of every DVD copy sold.
Now imagine the entire industry has started distributing software on the internet rather than DVD.
So now you get X% of nothing. You got fucked.
If you were in a position to do so, you might strike, or otherwise seek renegotiation so you can get a percentage of each *license* sold, regardless of distribution method.
You may argue that that was a stupid contract to sign, and in the software world, it would certainly have been. All I can say is that the software industry and the media industry aren't the same. Residuals have always been a component of compensation, and those who depend on it simply want to ensure that they don't get fucked because of a paradigm shift their standard contracts (negotiated some time in the past) couldn't or didn't predict.
Now, a discussion of whether the whole content industry would be improved if everything was work for hire can commence. I think not, namely because even more money would end up collecting in studio executive suites, but there's room for rational people to debate that.
The promise of residual payments is part of the compensation package for the creative staff working in many industries. Rather than paying them wonderful salaries upfront, the production companies pay them bare minimum with the promise of future income every time content is re-broadcast.
This ensures everyone is vested in the success of the content, and means the company isn't terribly out of pocket if content is not successful. Your example is not a good or fair comparison - you are payed a negotiated fixed salary. It is more analogous to waitressing or commission-based employment.
So yes, if the staff were being compensated adequately and there was no expectation that residual payments were part of the compensation, I would agree with you. But that's not the case.
Mr Eisner is also embarassingly wrong about this entire issue.
First and foremost, companies were not obliged to provide their content to iTunes. At any stage of negotations, were their compensation per asset not adequate, they could have walked away from the deal. However, that they didn't suggests what Apple was paying them wasn't as bad as he (and idiots like Jeff Zucker at NBC Universal) is now suggesting. They saw dollar signs and jumped on board, but now they realise they could have asked for way more and are punishing Apple for their own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Secondly, regardless of how much Apple paid them for the content, it was not the fault of the writers, nor something that the writers had any say or power over. Why should they be denied fair compensation because the company they work for didn't negotiate properly? The company still made money, so should they.
There is more to it than just iTunes, though. DVDs, ad-supported web streaming, on demand downloads, and other new methods of content delivery are - according to the television and movie companies - not the same thing as a re-run. This is absurd, they are making additional revenue from the content, so they should be compensating the people who created the content. End of story.
I don't often support strike action, but in this case, I definitely believe it is justified.
If you want to find out more about this strike action, I recommend www.unitedhollywood.com
This thread really is my bad... As I said, I was confused by all of this (and didn't bother to look it up). In my industry (software engineer, again, for those who didn't see it above) the company you work for generally owns all of your ideas. Anything patentable, copywritable, etc. (even if it isn't really in the same field of business the company is in) is the sole property of the company you work for. You have no rights to any profits the company makes because of your works, other than your salary. And don't say the stuff I do isn't creative, it most certainly is, just maybe not something the general public will veg out in front of. Knowing that writers basically work on commission, the strike starts to make a little sense.
I'm sure a lot of people who work in a situation like the striking writers would look at the Intellectual Property rights I have to my ideas and freak out because they don't understand the paradigm initially. I would think writers would be better off being paid like I am: a rather larger salary up front but no IP rights, but I would bet others would say the opposite.
Writers picket Apple? Good luck with that, since the vast majority of entertainment writers write on Apple hardware...
@ Throth and Coop
Before you make such silly wrong statements, you should do some research to see how these things work. Writers, Actors just about everyone that has any creative part of television/movies, etc, recieve royalties based on distribution and copies sold. The rub here is that the studios are not paying it on the new media.
I dont know what is right or wrong, and frankly dont really care, but it is the way it works.
I think the writers have all the rights to get a higher percentage of the total sales. If it wasn't for them, heck, there would be no movies/ shows.. I think movie companies should give them the biggest cuts, rather than paying some of those dumb actors/actresses hefty amounts of money just because they look good but mentally challenged.
and yeh, Eisner, shut the f**k up.
Wow. There's a lot of ignorant people here. If you want to know why writers need to get paid for this stuff, educate yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk
http://www.thestar.com/article/273331
From the news it sounds like the writers get residuals at a set price per media item sold. I think I heard they were asking for 8 cents per DVD and were thinking it's likely that they will get 5-6 cents per DVD.
The pay scale isn't based on percentages for two main reasons. These big companies have a history of screwing people by manipulating how much they are sell items for. For instance they will sell millions of DVD's just breaking even or at a loss for a marketing campaign to push some other item. In that case a creators work will be distributed to millions of people without any payoff.
This system also comes from the old days before there were a lot of shows being distributed on media so the studio would pay the creators based on how often the show was replayed. Since the individual stations compensation from advertisers varied so greatly a percentage system would have been impossible to enforce.
Since their current model isn't based on percentages it's hard to move the model to new technologies that don't fit into their existing structure very well.
Wow, talk about sour grapes.
Yeah, Apple makes tons of money, but Steve need to pay Apple's engineers, since Steve never tells the engineers to ask studios for money, for without their hardware and online store, the studios won't be able to generate income from content downloads.
Bitter, table for one!
Why is everyone still so caught up about Apple in this? NBC doesn't even have content on iTunes store anymore, and that accounted for 40% of their sales! WTF does Jobs have to do with this? This strike is strictly between the writers who are not receiving dick on new media formats. They have a very good reason here. And yes, the companies are just trying to drag out not having to pay them, they don't have a decent argument.
Furthermore, what are you people talking about with 'all the engineers the studio must hire' to convert to digital format? Everything is already IN digital format, they just burn it to DVD!
And as for the idiot who said "go hire new writers.. there are plenty of creative people" no shit. You obviously know nothing about the WGA, or Writers Guild of America. No one can work as a writer in Television without being a part of WGA, and EVERY MEMBER must strike when WGA says strike whether they agree, disagree, or give a shit or not.
The writers deserve a cut of new media, this is exactly the same thing the music industry went/is going through right now with the exact same issue.
Stop being so ignorant and read about something before you just spout off random shit.
There is little about the film business that works like a "normal" business. Writers, Actors etc. get percentages of these shows because it's still their work that the studio is benefiting from.
Take for example Boris Karlof or Bella Lugosi. Both actors did work for Universal in the classic monster movies. Over the years Universal made millions of dollars selling merchandise of one kind or another bearing these actors likenesses. They made nothing from it. Only later when Bella's son sued the studios for damages and so on did the studios stop using the actors likenesses on those products and went to a generic look for them to market and sell. Now this is one example of this. When you get into writing or "ideas" or anything intangible you have a harder time being able to relate to it.
The studios are profiting from the ideas of the person who came up with the concept and made it something they can use to shoot a picture/TV show. You don't get "the Sixth Sense" from a studio.
In regards to Eisner, I had friends at Disney too and he IS and WAS a total tool. As he axed one division or another he got paid more and more. He put suits in charge of all the creative divisions to try and control the "creatives" that he viewed with such contempt.
Granted the business model that all these guys like Eisner grew up on and based their careers on is dying and they don't know what to do to save it. All they can do is flail about and blame everybody else for there own short sightedness. Like the record companies they all got comfortable with things as they where and did there best to keep it that way. Now the Sh*t is hitting the fan and all they can do from Zucker to Eisner is blame Apple for their problems? That's passing the buck. Like the current administration, if you can't argue the point, shift the topic and blame a "boogeyman".
What this particular comment by Eisner comes down to is he got owned by Jobs. What he doesn't realize is Jobs just put the final nail into the coffin that Eisner was already doing to himself by slowly killing off Disney from his own incompetence. Eisner is not an idiot mind you, he just always lacked vision. Something David Wells and Katezenberg had more of.
The amusing thing is if you can compare anybody here in this mess to what Walt Disney was like it is Jobs.
Division of labor!
You strike for your rights, I'll write for your old pay.
I'm happy to help you out, really, it's the least I can do. Go ahead and let us know when you've gotten off your horse, I'll be down here working and keeping your seat warm.
Oh and uh, go ahead and forward all the awards for "most original writing" to my new mansion when you've taken back over, thanks.
Crybabies.
"Oh and uh, go ahead and forward all the awards for 'most original writing' to my new mansion when you've taken back over, thanks."
If they made enough money to afford a "new mansion," you think they'd be on strike like "Crybabies"? And as for awards for "most original writing"...let's just hold our breathes on that one, shall we?
Per usual, nothing personal. I just hope I missed some sarcasm in your post--besides the "most-original-writing" part.
Can Eisner PLEASE catch something and up and die. The pile of shit is a waste of space, oxygen, food, and pretty much anything else a human normally takes up. The man should team up with Rick Berman and go off to some deserted island and die together.
You guys arguing about whether the writers should/shouldn't stike to get royalties on CDs, DVDs etc. are missing the point. They are on srike to get MORE than they get now. It's not like they are shut out of the $$, they just want MORE. This is the same as any union (example - the recent automakers strikes). Eisner is a schmuck for blaming anyone, of course he probably blames Steve Jobs for the UAW strike too, but this is just the way busniess works. If the unions don't get a contract they like, they strike - what an idiot for thinking one person is at fault!
So. If the studios lose money on digital content does that mean the writers will lose money too? Seems only fair. How can they expect to make more without risking anything, that is just standard capitalism. More Risk = More Return & Less Risk = Less Return.
When a movie flops do the writers get paid?
Yes.
Do the actors get paid?
Yes.
Does the Director get paid?
Yes.
Does the studio/producer get paid?
Nope (unless the movie is a blockbuster and then the answer is Yes).
Seriously people.
Listen, if something flops then the studio tries to do everything it can to make the money back. Or have you not seen the "Showgirls" V.I.P. Edition (just go to http://www.amazon.com/Showgirls-VIP-Limited-Elizabeth-Berkley/dp/B00020X88O )?
The reality of the matter is writers are not paid the way the actors, producers, and directors are. Writers write a draft and get a lump sum. Maybe, if they are also the script doctor, they continue to get lump sums as the show or movie is in production, but a lot of script doctors are just hourly employees at the studios.
After the writers are paid their lump sums that's it. There is no more pay. Their contract doesn't work that way.
So, let's say you write next year's big blockbuster "Engadget: The Movie" and a producer at Warner picks it up and pays you a lump sum. At that point, you're probably out, as most screenwriters are, and the script is on its way to the director, who will start to ask for changes. Then production begins and other changes ensue. Eventually, the movie hits box office and becomes the most popular movie of all time. Then there's the three editions of the movie made for DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray, not to mention movie rentals, the download sites, pay for view, etc.
And you see nothing from the residuals. Nada. You were already paid. The actors and directors? Oh yes, they see a percentage of each dollar that is spent by the consumer on that movie. You don't.
But, hey, you got that lump sum you used to pay off your credit cards, right?
Spearl, I hit the "+" from the first paragraph. You had me from the "Or have you not seen the 'Showgirls: V.I.P. Edition'..."
Love what you do, Spearl, love what you do.
Sorry for misspelling your name, Sperl. It's funny how often I wrote it, to be spelling it correctly the entire time. You know, like in that commerical where that guy is in an interview with Mr. Dumass and keeps pronouncing it as "dumbass" instead of phonetically like "Doom-ahss." (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KKIfKihdIUk if that doesn't work, just YouTube "Dumbass Commericial")
Yet, another moment made possible by writers.
Eisner is surely a idiot. but its not just him. if you notice several media executives are taking shots at apple. this is the beginning of a power shift. the digital and tech worlds are changing the game in favor of content creators. and executives trenched in the old way of doing things like, Eisner, Zucker at NBC and Doug Morris at Universal Music are all taking shots at apple and steve jobs. hopefully technology will help break-up the corporate monopolies. its know coincidence all the people complaining are financially invested in keeping the monopolies in control. steve and apple, keep up the great work!
I think he is right, well get it, Apple is in the game to make the USD like all other companies if they did care about users then why make the lock in with the iphone, why ask the Mobil operators to give Apple payments ? I'm sure the same is going on on the media, but just not leaked yet
Here's the thing - Apple and the content cartels have always been natural enemies. It's astonishing to me that the cartels have taken this long to figure it out, Apple's known it from the beginning.
The big media companies do not create anything. In one of their business practices, they do enable the creation of content by providing the up-front capital. But because of their lock on distribution, they can extract completely unreasonable terms from anybody who wants to get paid for producing that content. With the way that the business is structured, there's only one game in town - it just has many faces. It's highway robbery in the classic sense - they control a critical piece of the road from creation to the consumer and get to take away as much as they can carry.
That is, there was only one game in town. Now comes the Internet - you don't need a network of affiliates all over the country, you don't need to buy into a basic cable distribution package, you don't need to grovel at whatever deals the incompetent cartel executives tell you are in your best interests and ultimately you don't have to just swallow it when they tell you to dumb it down and add more tits and action. If you can get it created, the Internet will take care of the distribution for what is essentially free (at least, if you can figure out a way to make money, it'll be a tiny fraction of what people will pay).
The content cartels' days are numbered, and they're going to blame everybody they can for the extinction of their business model when it's really just the march of technology that has finally obsoleted their highway robbery.
We're not there yet but Apple, and anybody else who can figure out how to cut the cartels out of the decision making process while still allowing content creators to make money, is going to put these dinosaurs in the ground. And not a minute too soon.
your absolutely correct.
Hey guys, just so you know, I'm a total fairy.
LMFAO!!
Now get your ass on your corporate jet, old fart LOL!!
He's right Apple and it's freaks demand cheap shows, cheap movies, cheap songs, so they can all look cool. Fact is Apple would never sell its own stuff so cheap.
ok writers guild should make a huge firm or join forces and all write under one name The Writers ltd. or smthn. Then they make a site on the interweb - right you following me here? Then they put all their shows on that site and sell ads to the site also they could charge a nominal subscription fee. And the site would have to accessible to the entire world (or at least europe). And there you go a multibillon success story. Also as I came up with the idea I'd like to get free access to the site until the end of time.
so to recap:
1. join forces
2. make a site on the net
3. sell ad space/charge subscription fee
4. Profit!11 and satisfaction
I'm just hapy that Michael Eisner's finally speaking out. I mean, he's got such credibility with writers, after all. Those guys out there on the picket lines, they just love the Eisner.
"Content is king," huh?
NBC is giving away content on HURL(over)U.com and Apple is getting badmouthed for content it's no longer selling ?
Even the Anti-Apple folks must see the wool being pulled over everyone's eyes here?
When the favorite shows are only coming on as reruns and people watch something else (or turn the TV's off), then the ad revenue begins to shrink, I think the TV conglomerates will start paying attention then.