4 ms·

Likely because it's less risky for the publisher, as opposed to a big up-front payment for something that might not sell as well as expected. As an author, whi

Likely because it's less risky for the publisher, as opposed to a big up-front payment for something that might not sell as well as expected. As an author, which approach would you prefer?

esalman 3y ago
Definitely I'd want residual income. To avoid the opportunity cost in case one of my works become bestseller.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Would you take less money up front in exchange?
scarface_74 3y ago
And that’s something that everyone here fails to understand. For me there are three levels of risk. 1. Getting all of my compensation in cash (least downside/least upside) 2. Working for a publicly traded company where part of my compensation comes from RSUs vested over a schedule 3. Working for a startup where I get “equity” instead of my market value in cash. The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1. Are you, anonymous internet rando "scarface_74", claiming to know the interests of the Hollywood writers better than the writers themselves?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out. I have had the same choices: 1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment 2. Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out. It's truly a wonder that you haven't been made the President of the Writer's Guild of America. > Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup Hollywood studios are not startups, and residuals are not like startup equity. Writers and actors are not hoping for some BigCo to come along and buy the Hollywood studios, or for the studios to go public, leading to a massive single payday. The studios are the BigCos, and they're already public. Residuals are more analogous to BigCo stock than to startup equity.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The choice for the writers are the same. Take less up front for a higher risk/reward if the show is successful and get a continuous income stream or take more up front and don’t the studios have the risk of the show being successful in returns of higher rewards. Whether the studios are public is irrelevant. What is relevant is the success of the movies/tv shows being successful.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > or take more up front From https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-profession https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-professi... Us: We need an 11% general wage increase in year 1 so our members can recover from record inflation during the previous contract term. Them: The most we will give you is 5%, even though that means your 2023 earnings will effectively be a significant pay cut due to inflation and it is likely you will still be working for less than your 2020 wages in 2026.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And that has nothing to do with residuals. They could just as easily negotiate for no increase in pay for larger residuals that most people here are focused on.

Likely because it's less risky for the publisher, as opposed to a big up-front payment for something that might not sell as well as expected. As an author, which approach would you prefer?

esalman 3y ago

Definitely I'd want residual income. To avoid the opportunity cost in case one of my works become bestseller.

scarface_74 3y ago
Would you take less money up front in exchange?

scarface_74 3y ago

And that’s something that everyone here fails to understand. For me there are three levels of risk. 1. Getting all of my compensation in cash (least downside/least upside) 2. Working for a publicly traded company where part of my compensation comes from RSUs vested over a schedule 3. Working for a startup where I get “equity” instead of my market value in cash. The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.

lapcat 3y ago
> The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1. Are you, anonymous internet rando "scarface_74", claiming to know the interests of the Hollywood writers better than the writers themselves?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out. I have had the same choices: 1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment 2. Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out. It's truly a wonder that you haven't been made the President of the Writer's Guild of America. > Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup Hollywood studios are not startups, and residuals are not like startup equity. Writers and actors are not hoping for some BigCo to come along and buy the Hollywood studios, or for the studios to go public, leading to a massive single payday. The studios are the BigCos, and they're already public. Residuals are more analogous to BigCo stock than to startup equity.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      The choice for the writers are the same. Take less up front for a higher risk/reward if the show is successful and get a continuous income stream or take more up front and don’t the studios have the risk of the show being successful in returns of higher rewards. Whether the studios are public is irrelevant. What is relevant is the success of the movies/tv shows being successful.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > or take more up front From https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-profession https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-professi... Us: We need an 11% general wage increase in year 1 so our members can recover from record inflation during the previous contract term. Them: The most we will give you is 5%, even though that means your 2023 earnings will effectively be a significant pay cut due to inflation and it is likely you will still be working for less than your 2020 wages in 2026.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And that has nothing to do with residuals. They could just as easily negotiate for no increase in pay for larger residuals that most people here are focused on.