2 ms·

> 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 Pre

by 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.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      My point is that there's no magical massive upfront pay increase forthcoming that would make up for lost residuals. That was never on the table at any time. There's no way for actors and writers to avoid getting screwed if they don't get residuals. And it's pretty clear why that's not on the table: big upfront payments are a big risk to the studios, even more so than the risks they already take, so it's not good for them either. There's a good reason this system has existed for a long time. The status quo favors the studios, because they're finding new ways to avoid paying the residuals, while not offering anything else to take their place.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        How are residuals from streaming working out for musicians on Spotify getting $.0006 per stream? Why would it magically work out better for most writers instead of suffering the same power law where the Taylor Swifts gets most of the money?
        lapcat 3y ago
        > How are residuals from streaming working out for musicians on Spotify getting $.0006 per stream? Musicians need to unionize and strike again, like the did to establish the royalty system originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_s... That's the difference here. Striking gets the goods. Musicians have been complacent. They face an existential risk to their recording income, and what have they done?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And how would unionization help? Spotify already gives 70% of its revenue to artists and those revenues are split based on the number of streams played. You’re still going to have the Taylor Swifts of the world getting the bulk of the money.
        3y ago

by lapcat 3y ago

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.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    My point is that there's no magical massive upfront pay increase forthcoming that would make up for lost residuals. That was never on the table at any time. There's no way for actors and writers to avoid getting screwed if they don't get residuals. And it's pretty clear why that's not on the table: big upfront payments are a big risk to the studios, even more so than the risks they already take, so it's not good for them either. There's a good reason this system has existed for a long time. The status quo favors the studios, because they're finding new ways to avoid paying the residuals, while not offering anything else to take their place.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      How are residuals from streaming working out for musicians on Spotify getting $.0006 per stream? Why would it magically work out better for most writers instead of suffering the same power law where the Taylor Swifts gets most of the money?
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > How are residuals from streaming working out for musicians on Spotify getting $.0006 per stream? Musicians need to unionize and strike again, like the did to establish the royalty system originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_s... That's the difference here. Striking gets the goods. Musicians have been complacent. They face an existential risk to their recording income, and what have they done?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And how would unionization help? Spotify already gives 70% of its revenue to artists and those revenues are split based on the number of streams played. You’re still going to have the Taylor Swifts of the world getting the bulk of the money.
        3y ago