4 ms·

Relevant: Madman theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

by aleph_minus_one 3y ago

gruez 3y ago
What's the irrational part here? They're rationally betting on the writers caving because they got bills to pay.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  The studio executives pretend that they are actually willing to let the respective writers insanely suffer (“The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses”). Thus the studio executives pretend to be madmen with an iron will and ire to start a cruel long-lasting vendetta against every screenwriter who joins the strike.
  - anonymousab 3y ago
    I don't see any reason to see it as pretending. Ultimately they want to get rid of as much labor in the production pipeline as possible. They see "replace all of them with AI" as inevitable and utmost required for profit maximization, and therefore, every extra day of a writer being hired for even the smallest compensation is, to them, a great act of charity towards undesired and eventually irrelevant workers. So writers and actors causing an issue in the face of that 'charity' is deserving of the harshest and coldest response possible.
- toss1 3y ago
  The irrational part is supposed to be (since they don't have infinite financing) that they act like they DGAF about their own companies losing income and bleeding out on debt service, or their own stock prices cratering?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > they act like they DGAF about their own companies losing income and bleeding out on debt service They literally just went to shareholders and promised to cut spending on new content. This is not a madman act, it's fundamental leverage. The writers have no way to force negotiations in a game where they lose advantage with time. The studios' optimal strategy is to wait. > since they don't have infinite financing Pausing spending on new content is cash-flow positive in the short term. You know what makes shareholders prioritise the short term? High interest rates.
    - toss1 3y ago
      >>This is not a madman act, it's fundamental leverage. Agree, also on the short/long term perspective. I was only responding to the "madman" ploy part, and it does help if they portray a "We're fine, and we DGAF if we're not, as long as many of you lose your housing". I just hope the writers are ready for a long haul, because if they can make it to a mid-long term strike, the studios will have real problems, especially if SAG maintains solidarity. Sitting out a season is one thing, sitting out an entire year or two is another. But they may need to last until next (2024) summer to win.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > it does help if they portray a "We're fine, and we DGAF if we're not, as long as many of you lose your housing" Sort of? They'd have to make that second argument, though. Which aren't and don't need to. Because the strike is literally saving them cash. > sitting out an entire year or two is another The streaming space is crowded. Discovery is probably the weakest of the bunch, Disney the strongest. Which creates an interesting dynamic. Why would you agree to break the strike that will break your competitors first?
        toss1 3y ago
        >>saving them cash Yes, for the short term. I have a manufacturing business, and I save loads of cash when I don't make anything. The numbers look really good when production isn't running, and we're just selling existing inventory. Studio inventory has a bit more of a shelf life and re-sellability, but the demand for new content is insatiable. >>Why would you agree to break the strike that will break your competitors first? Agree; that is an interesting dynamic. But what is the negotiating model? Is it like the auto industry where one company makes a deal with the union and that deal becomes a template for the contract with all other companies, or is there a different model? Does the first company (presumably the weakest) that makes a deal set the stage for the others (& would they get help from stronger companies)? Or is it that all companies must make one agreement simultaneously, and what is that voting structure (majority of companies, unanimous, etc.)?

Relevant: Madman theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

gruez 3y ago

What's the irrational part here? They're rationally betting on the writers caving because they got bills to pay.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
The studio executives pretend that they are actually willing to let the respective writers insanely suffer (“The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses”). Thus the studio executives pretend to be madmen with an iron will and ire to start a cruel long-lasting vendetta against every screenwriter who joins the strike.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  I don't see any reason to see it as pretending. Ultimately they want to get rid of as much labor in the production pipeline as possible. They see "replace all of them with AI" as inevitable and utmost required for profit maximization, and therefore, every extra day of a writer being hired for even the smallest compensation is, to them, a great act of charity towards undesired and eventually irrelevant workers. So writers and actors causing an issue in the face of that 'charity' is deserving of the harshest and coldest response possible.
toss1 3y ago
The irrational part is supposed to be (since they don't have infinite financing) that they act like they DGAF about their own companies losing income and bleeding out on debt service, or their own stock prices cratering?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they act like they DGAF about their own companies losing income and bleeding out on debt service They literally just went to shareholders and promised to cut spending on new content. This is not a madman act, it's fundamental leverage. The writers have no way to force negotiations in a game where they lose advantage with time. The studios' optimal strategy is to wait. > since they don't have infinite financing Pausing spending on new content is cash-flow positive in the short term. You know what makes shareholders prioritise the short term? High interest rates.
  - toss1 3y ago
    >>This is not a madman act, it's fundamental leverage. Agree, also on the short/long term perspective. I was only responding to the "madman" ploy part, and it does help if they portray a "We're fine, and we DGAF if we're not, as long as many of you lose your housing". I just hope the writers are ready for a long haul, because if they can make it to a mid-long term strike, the studios will have real problems, especially if SAG maintains solidarity. Sitting out a season is one thing, sitting out an entire year or two is another. But they may need to last until next (2024) summer to win.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it does help if they portray a "We're fine, and we DGAF if we're not, as long as many of you lose your housing" Sort of? They'd have to make that second argument, though. Which aren't and don't need to. Because the strike is literally saving them cash. > sitting out an entire year or two is another The streaming space is crowded. Discovery is probably the weakest of the bunch, Disney the strongest. Which creates an interesting dynamic. Why would you agree to break the strike that will break your competitors first?
      - toss1 3y ago
        >>saving them cash Yes, for the short term. I have a manufacturing business, and I save loads of cash when I don't make anything. The numbers look really good when production isn't running, and we're just selling existing inventory. Studio inventory has a bit more of a shelf life and re-sellability, but the demand for new content is insatiable. >>Why would you agree to break the strike that will break your competitors first? Agree; that is an interesting dynamic. But what is the negotiating model? Is it like the auto industry where one company makes a deal with the union and that deal becomes a template for the contract with all other companies, or is there a different model? Does the first company (presumably the weakest) that makes a deal set the stage for the others (& would they get help from stronger companies)? Or is it that all companies must make one agreement simultaneously, and what is that voting structure (majority of companies, unanimous, etc.)?