3 ms·

It seems to me that it's not just a conflict of interest, but the interest of the agency is actually diametrically opposed to the interest of the talent. By kee

• scott_s 8y ago
  Yes, Simon points this out explicitly: "Why bother to fight for 10 percent of a few dollars more for this story editor or that co-executive producer of some actor or director when to NOT do so means less freight on the operating budgets of the projects that you yourself hope to profit from? Why serve your clients as representatives with a fiduciary responsibility and get the last possible dollar for them, when you stand to profit by splitting the proceeds of a production not with labor, but with management — the studios who are cutting you in on the back end? Why put your client’s interest in direct opposition to your own?"
• jrochkind1 8y ago
  Hypothetically the more the package costs... wait, the "packager' isn't taking a cut of how much the package costs like they do as an agent (where they take a cut of how much their client gets paid, so a cut of what the studio is _spending_, so they want the studio to spend more, at least on their clients), they're taking a cut of project revenue??? (Or profits, or something in between, either way). Oh yeah, that's evil. They're not representing their client at all anymore. The obvious way to align these interests is that the "packager" should share a portion of their "packaging" cut with the people "packaged". But of course, the point of the whole "packaging" economy seems to be so they don't have to do this.