CE-Oh no he didn't! Part XLIX: Eisner tells striking writers to blame Steve Jobs

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]

[HineyWipe @ Nov 7th 2007 3:32PM]

There is a reason this guy got removed from Disney, and it shows.

[Dax @ Nov 7th 2007 3:41PM]

I thought that Apple didnt make squat off the iTunes store. That 99 cent on the dollar go to the media conglomerates.

[mrhammerstein @ Nov 7th 2007 3:48PM]

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.

[Carlos @ Nov 7th 2007 3:50PM]

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.

[M @ Nov 7th 2007 3:59PM]

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

[ekwmin @ Nov 7th 2007 7:00PM]

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.

[just jon @ Nov 7th 2007 8:42PM]

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.

[M @ Nov 7th 2007 3:36PM]

If you do not like deal, then don't do it, same with writers, hire/deal with somebody else.
M

[mrhammerstein @ Nov 7th 2007 3:42PM]

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

[Carlos @ Nov 7th 2007 4:01PM]

@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.

[M @ Nov 7th 2007 4:54PM]

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

[stephenbratz2 @ Nov 7th 2007 4:21PM]

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.

[M @ Nov 7th 2007 5:12PM]

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

[Carlos @ Nov 7th 2007 5:23PM]

@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.

[stephenbratz2 @ Nov 7th 2007 6:12PM]

@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.

[Carlos @ Nov 7th 2007 9:39PM]

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.

[derX @ Nov 7th 2007 3:37PM]

See this is what happens when writers go on strike: Morons speak for themselves.

[The Pepto Pimp @ Nov 7th 2007 3:54PM]

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...

[Heffer @ Nov 7th 2007 4:00PM]

LMAO! Best post of the day.

[Derbeste @ Nov 7th 2007 4:55PM]

Best post of the day my ass.....

Best post of the YEAR!

Kudos, DerX.

[Matt @ Nov 7th 2007 3:37PM]

lol.

[Scott @ Nov 7th 2007 3:39PM]

don't you have to be over a certain age before you become senile?

[macona @ Nov 7th 2007 3:44PM]

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.

[Duscrom @ Nov 7th 2007 11:58PM]

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.

[dataminer49er @ Nov 7th 2007 3:41PM]

Old Media = Lame

[Sam @ Nov 7th 2007 3:44PM]

You could land a ROFLcopter on his forehead.

[KR @ Nov 7th 2007 3:45PM]

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.

[MosquitoControl @ Nov 7th 2007 4:27PM]

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.

[3waygeek @ Nov 7th 2007 4:35PM]

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".

[Justin Williams @ Nov 7th 2007 3:47PM]

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.

[CraigJ @ Nov 7th 2007 5:30PM]

Biggest at about 6%

[Carlos @ Nov 7th 2007 3:48PM]

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.

[dudeInAmerica @ Nov 7th 2007 3:49PM]

Blasphemy!

[pjg @ Nov 7th 2007 3:54PM]

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...

[dozx @ Nov 7th 2007 3:56PM]

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.

[grayskyz @ Nov 7th 2007 3:59PM]

Sour grapes, sour grapes......He was removed so Disney could continue to business with Pixar on Jobs order. PERIOD.

C.

[ryan10ad @ Nov 7th 2007 3:59PM]

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)

[Matt @ Nov 7th 2007 4:00PM]

What? Steve Jobs screwing someone in order to make a quick buck? Totally unheard of!

http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html

[ryan10ad @ Nov 7th 2007 4:01PM]

I also hope Holo or their crappy video service to crash and burn. Take that Zucker and FOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JoeStalin @ Nov 7th 2007 4:03PM]

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.

[Nathan @ Nov 7th 2007 4:06PM]

So let me get this straight - even former CEOs belong in the "CE-Oh no he didn't!"? Has this been done before?

[CosterMonger @ Nov 8th 2007 11:24AM]

"No CE-Oh no he didn't!"

[Aztec @ Nov 7th 2007 4:12PM]

"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.

[Lenman1 @ Nov 7th 2007 4:17PM]

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.

[BrettB @ Nov 7th 2007 4:26PM]

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.

[Zingerhill @ Nov 7th 2007 4:31PM]

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.

[sabinh @ Nov 7th 2007 4:34PM]

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.

[don @ Nov 7th 2007 4:36PM]

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.

[404error @ Nov 7th 2007 4:40PM]

Ow....my brain...

[Geoffrey Sperl @ Nov 7th 2007 9:33PM]

Remind us all never to take business advice from you...