I'd love to believe that, but I feel like the article doesn't justify it. The studios don't care how bad they look; people aren't going to unsubscribe just beca

I'd love to believe that, but I feel like the article doesn't justify it. The studios don't care how bad they look; people aren't going to unsubscribe just because the studios are obnoxious. They may tell pollsters they don't like it, but the studios only care whether they pay up. The closest the article comes to justification is that the strikers have shown solidarity, and supporting the rejection of lowball offers. Now the entire thing is a game of chicken. Everybody is hemorrhaging money. If I had to guess, I'd point out that the actors at least are used to long periods of unemployment (and the rich ones aren't starving). The writers are more middle-class, and perhaps that hurts more, but with the actors on board they've got no reason to give in to a weak offering (since they wouldn't get back to work anyway). Still... the studios may well be content to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They're playing the long game and they think that within a decade they'll be able to fire everybody... except themselves, of course.