2 ms·

Is this not a problem that is easily solved in principle. For each 1 million views of a Stranger Things episode (after some date threshold), the writer gets n d

Is this not a problem that is easily solved in principle. For each 1 million views of a Stranger Things episode (after some date threshold), the writer gets n dollars. The contract would state that this clause transfers to any new ownership (just in case Paramount+ or whatever it's called now buys them and their catalog out). Sure, they won't want to negotiate to allow this... but what's the difficult here besides unwillingness? It's basically the same thing as now, except that as rights to Friends and Seinfeld are bandied about, the value proposition for those is a little more clear (some network paid $1.1 billion to be able to air reruns for the next 14 years or whatever). You'd think if there was some neutral arbitrator, they might settle what the format/pattern of that residuals clause would be, so that the two parties could just sit down and haggle out the actual numbers.

ketzo 4y ago
In principle, yeah, but the edge cases look nasty pretty quickly. Some streaming platforms do have ads shown alongside their shows. So a residual structure could make sense. Some shows will air on both kinds of streaming platforms - Community is on both Hulu and Netflix. Some shows will start on linear television and then come to streaming, or vice versa -- Abbott Elementary is a recent, popular example. I think you're generally right, though -- smart people could figure this out if they sat down and talked about it. It seems like the talking is the hard part right now.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the first point. I am nearly 50, and still remember broadcast tv... so the idea that some tv shows ultimately derive revenue from advertising (sweeps month!) is not unfamiliar. But for a platform like Netflix where (hopefully?! dunno, I use Plex) revenue is ultimately derived from subscriptions, how should that be different? The writers don't give a shit about the original source of revenue, just that they get their cut. Are residuals closely tied to how well the ad dollars flow? If someone buys a sitcom for re-runs, and the dish detergent manufacturers and Chrysler refuse to put ads on during those re-runs, do the writers get less (or no) residuals?

ketzo 4y ago

In principle, yeah, but the edge cases look nasty pretty quickly. Some streaming platforms do have ads shown alongside their shows. So a residual structure could make sense. Some shows will air on both kinds of streaming platforms - Community is on both Hulu and Netflix. Some shows will start on linear television and then come to streaming, or vice versa -- Abbott Elementary is a recent, popular example. I think you're generally right, though -- smart people could figure this out if they sat down and talked about it. It seems like the talking is the hard part right now.

NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand the first point. I am nearly 50, and still remember broadcast tv... so the idea that some tv shows ultimately derive revenue from advertising (sweeps month!) is not unfamiliar. But for a platform like Netflix where (hopefully?! dunno, I use Plex) revenue is ultimately derived from subscriptions, how should that be different? The writers don't give a shit about the original source of revenue, just that they get their cut. Are residuals closely tied to how well the ad dollars flow? If someone buys a sitcom for re-runs, and the dish detergent manufacturers and Chrysler refuse to put ads on during those re-runs, do the writers get less (or no) residuals?