https://nofilmschool.com/suits-residuals
The sorry state of streaming residuals shows why SAG and the WGA are striking.
The sorry state of streaming residuals shows why SAG and the WGA are striking.
As someone who works in the film and TV industry, let me go ahead and say whatever you do in America, whatever industry: you're undervalued, underpaid, and your wealthy executives are getting fat on your hard work while you starve.
You spelled capitalism wrong. Social market economy makes it a bit better - but yeah earnings through work and capital gains are extremely off balance right now.
As someone in America I'm not undervalued, underpaid, or starving. Maybe you should stick to speaking for your own industry.
🤭 it's funny because in my history of working in engineering, the guy (rarely gal) with this attitude is consistently the least effective or useful. I presume the same applies here, based on a number of factors you've politely lain before us all.
The attitude of "fuck them, I got mine" is a good way to get people to hate you. I hope you're okay with that.
That's exactly the myopic thinking that put us in this situation, so you shouldn't be surprised to find this person.
It's fucking hyperbole. Obviously not literally everyone is underpaid (such as but not limited to CEOs). Like, if ya make a comment like what I responded to it comes off as a snarky and you will get shit on for it.
Ok but you attacked someone for saying that they personally aren’t suffering, even though they weren’t suggesting they speak for everyone either.. unlike the other comment
I only said people are starving because some are, and it's avoidable. But everyone in America is grossly underpaid compared to executive pay and corporate wealth.
“Um actually 🤓 ☝️”
Have some sense to not post something like this when you are aware of the plight of the average worker in America even if you are in the minority as a tech worker
(I’m also a tech worker)
Honestly even tech workers are not paid enough relative to executives. Shit is crazy out here.
And then lawyers be making like $1mil a year.
Engineer here - we're undervalued too. We just happen to have more clout in the workplace at the moment, and so more individual bargaining power. That can change on a dime, though.
It’s also just relative scaling. A Starbucks barista might make $40k/year while its CEO Laxman Narasimhan makes $15M/year. Meanwhile, a Google engineer might make $400k/year, but its CEO Sundar Pichai makes $225M/year. So while an engineer will earn way more than a barista, as a fraction of CEO pay, engineers often actually make less. Both are symptoms of worker exploitation. It just so happens that technology companies tend to make a lot more money than coffee companies.
If that changes I'll figure out the new way. Wouldn't be the first time, don't figure it's gonna be the last.
I don't really have issues there, either. I actually get in hot water if I don't take at least 6 weeks of PTO a year, and the maximum is unlimited so long as my work gets done.
If your CEO has money, you're probably undervalued and underpaid. It's how the incentive structure works.
Hahaha, 😅 uhh you most certainly are, buddy! Hate to burst your bubble and bring you back down to reality.. I know you hate it when we take the binkiboot out of your mouth to let your breath for a second, but you got to give it up eventually.. you're too old for that now..
Doing some math:
The writers that were paid $3000 in the story wrote 11/134 episodes or 8.2%
The episodes are 42 minutes each, round down 2 minutes for skipped credits, divide 3x10^9 by 40 we get:
75 million episodes streamed (approx)
If they wrote 8.2 % of those streamed, then they wrote 6.15 million individually streamed episodes.
So writers got 0.049c per episode streamed or 0.00012c per minute streamed.
The average American watches 160 minutes of TV Video a day, so round that up to 5000 minutes a month, and say $10 a month per sub on that, we get $10 of revenue for 5000 minutes streamed, or 0.2c per minute.
So streaming revenue (using the above math and assumptions) would be 0.2c per minute of which the writers of the content that was streamed got 0.00012c or 0.06%.
Netflix 2023Q2 revenue was 8.18B and expenses were 6.36B.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/revenue
2018 estimate figures the combined Netflix users streamed 164M hours per day
https://www.soda.com/news/netflix-users-stream-164-million-hours-per-day/
14.9Billion hours for that Quarter.
2018 saw 15.8 Billion annual revenue and 14.2Billion in costs. Gives us an estimate of 3.55B in costs for 1 quarter in 2018
894B minutes / 3.55 B in costs = 0.397c in costs per minute streamed.
Out of the 0.397c of costs (0.442c revenue) writers got 0.00012c or 0.0302% of the costs or 0.0272% of the revenue.
I had a friend who was in a musicians union back in the 40s and 50s. Funny thing, I had a dream about him last night and I would’ve forgotten completely had you not made this comment.
He told me a story once. The union got him a gig on television. He was so stoked about it.
He lost half of his thumb in WWII and was very self conscious about it. The host of the show noticed the black cap he used to cover his thumb and asked him about it. He kindly asked the host to avoid making a thing of it and ask that the cameraman avoid shooting it up close.
He stepped out on the stage and the host said, “ladies and gentlemen, here’s Buddy, the thumbless wonder.”
Years and years later that still bothered him. He’s been dead and gone a long time now. He was an awesome dude who ran a guitar shop. His wife left him because he kept giving instruments away and she wanted a better financial future. I used to go to his shop to get strings and half the time he’d say, “They’re on the house buddy. I’ll be dead before they’ll get what I owe ‘em.”
Thanks for sharing this story. That TV host sounds like an unbelievable asshole, no wonder it stuck with your friend for so long. I can't fathom what would make a person act like that.
I have a cassette full of recordings he gave me somewhere, at least I hope I do. I really need to hunt it and digitize it.
Dude was awesome.
His old guitar shop is now a food pantry. He lived in the back room in that tiny, dusty old shop and constantly had people over playing music. He always loved to see me coming because in Appalachia everyone plays bluegrass and I don’t. He wasn’t a huge fan of “the grass” but he played along any way until he shook too bad to do it. He was practically blown in half in the war and the damage got him down when he was older.
I’d come in and he’d say, “take my strat and show me something.”
I got my first guitar from him (technically my third but it was the one I learned on). A blue Chinese strat copy called a Lotus. I still have it but I need to reassemble it. God, I should do that. I’d love to hear that nasty buzz again. It’s been nearly 20 years since I played that thing.
I really need to hunt it and digitize it.
And upload it to the Internet Archive!
That reminds me: I have a cassette of parody songs from a local radio station (Fox 97's Shower Stall Singers) somewhere that might end up lost to history if I don't find it and upload it.
But just like with Netflix, you have alternatives. Either pirate, or use services that pay the artists a little more, like tidal.
I use tidal, and I must say the only thing they are missing is transferring currently listening music to another device.
Podcasts I don't really care about.
Apart from that, pretty good alternative. And I feel better knowing that I am supporting the artists.
Fwiw, the title is intentionally skewed and wrong. I'm not saying writers shouldn't be upset because they should, but it is making the situation look much worse than it is.
The six original writers were paid $3K each in streaming residuals last quarter for Season 1.
Suits was added to Netflix on June 17th where it streamed for three billion minutes in a single week, June 26 to July 2. Using Nielsen numbers, it streamed for about five billion minutes on Netflix during Q2. Previously it was on Peacock and we don't have the streaming data for that, but we can assume that it wasn't anywhere as much. Using the most recent data through July 16, it was seen for a total of 12.8 billion minutes.
Streaming services also doesn't pay residuals based on minutes watched, but based on a complicated formula.
Suits episodes are 42 minutes long, meaning the base annual residual is $10,034. Netflix US has more than 150M subscribers, so the subscriber factor is 150%. Their initial streaming residual payment would be $15K per episode.
However, that is just the initial payment Netflix needs to make. Subsequent payments for the actual streaming rights per year are adjusted down. This is the first year on Netflix so the residual factor is 45%. This makes the base annual payment $7,448.
Now, the show was on Netflix for 14 days during the last quarter, making their Q2 residual $286. WGA also imposes a 1.5% union due plus $25 per quarter. This brings the payment per episode down to $256.
Considering how few of the episodes they wrote, this seems almost reasonable. It would be a better comparison of we could see how much they make compared to TV reruns or home media sales.
So about $40k shared among all writers seem almost reasonable had they written all of them, and we keep the same ratio…?
6k per person for a full season on a really popular hit show seems absurdly low
But we’re not talking about salary here. We’re talking residuals, per quarter, paid on top of the salary they received for the original work.
For a show that is 13 years old. Collecting $6k per quarter for work you did 13 years ago and that you have to do absolutely nothing for anymore seems pretty good to me?
There’s a hell of a lot of working class people who would absolutely love to be getting paid like that. Trying to frame this as the working class vs the rich seems really dishonest. Do TV writers even understand what the working class is, or how much we make? I sure as hell don’t collect $6k per quarter for work I did 13 years ago. If I did, I’d be rich.
Not that I'm trying to still for the corpo here, but this is a per quarter payment. ~$270 per episode from this single quarter just based on viewers from 2 streaming services. We don't know how much they've got paid in aggregate for this single episode.
Presumably they got something upfront/hourly initially and they've been paid residuals for many years, as they did the work in 2011 and episodes have been rerun alot on network tv.
Idk how much is reasonable for the work they did do but it's certainly been alot more than this small payment.
they're probably going to make 5k a year for 6 months a work for 30 years from 11 episodes of 1 show. they might be owed more, but there is a ton of missing context around this that passing judgment on what could be a simply outdated contract from before streaming was a major consideration. if this is just a fraction of what an equivalent contribution to a show would have made from TV reruns or home media sales, then there is a conversation to be had, but no one has brought that up.
It's 3k to a few of many writers for 11 total episodes. We don't know the actual streaming numbers of those exact episodes either. Could they be paid better? Maybe, but no one has compared this to the traditional residuals they did get.
I'm a former musician and record label employee who's been screaming "told you so" for years.
I hope the writers get what they're owed, but don't hold your fucking breath
I don’t understand how streaming isn’t just considered syndication. It seems like a dictionary definition of what it was, even if it didn’t exist when syndication agreements were made.
It’s a rerun of a show on a separate channel/platform. And the writers/actors should get the agreed revenue for it the same as if it were on TMC, nick at night or Netflix b
Indeed. an impartial judge wouldn't let studios split hairs over words like this but as long as they're appointed by politicians, they will side with whoever has the deeper pockets, because that's what's required for a continuing bright career.
I don't get any money from the systems I setup at work as an IT worker years ago, even if they are used every day in perpetuity and make the company billions.
Where's my income in perpetuity for creative problem solving?
It should be in your bank account instead of the pockets of investors that do 0 work and generate 0 value
Exactly. That person should unionize themselves and get that money back instead of complain that others might have a living wage.
If investors do 0 work and generate 0 value, why are they included at all?
Writers and actors should cut out investors and make their content independently. If they need money, they could borrow some under the condition that they share the profits if their content makes money. Wait a second...
It's almost like there are multiple independent streaming services doing just this but without the vc money!
Ok… but then why would they pay to have it done in the first place?
I’ve solved issues that have saved transit riders hundreds of thousands of hours of time… but so have other people. I don’t know how such an accounting of the return for investment I made would work.
When my solutions stop working as well, due to misc design/need drift, how do we decide how much I lose and the next me gets?.
This just in: different payment structures are different. Different valuation of output is different. Unfair under-valuations are unfair. What a discovery.
Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work? Your compensation package was different. Did you not have a steady job? Did you not know you were going in there next week?
I think the latent question here is - how were expectations and/or contracts for writers any different from hourly workers who have never expected royalties?
The previous comment did most of the work for you. Writers, actors, crew, and generally everyone involved in the entertainment industry does not have a salary gig like office workers. They aren't working consistently--which has only gotten worse in the streaming era--and thus rely on royalties as part of their total compensation.
So, in summary, they are completely different situations that cannot be directly compared.
I don't think I'm ignorant of the gig-work nature of these things - I am, by choice, a contractor, but in a different field (engineering services). But my contracts specify that the deliverables are "works for hire" and that the client owns all IP, and I am not entitled to residuals or royalties or any other income from the work I've done under such contracts.
I just genuinely don't know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?Because there are plenty of analogous (i.e. IP-generating) jobs that don't have such arrangements.
I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?
What do you mean by "more", and relative to what? The main complaint from writers are that in recent years the trend has been them all getting paid significantly less. Not just a few percentage points, more like 1-10% of what they used to get.
So, they want to get paid the same as they used to, which is more than currently but not "more" when looked at from a longer time frame.
“Works-for-hire” is exactly the key point here.
This is about who holds the IP. Sometimes, depending on the employer and contract, an engineer will get to share in a patent created in the course of the job. Or might have incentives such as Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or options.
So it’s not true that the IT folks are exclusively paid salary. Many share in the risk as well as the returns of their firms.
Let’s unpack that.
Yes, there are ‘writers for hire’ in licenced tie-in fiction and comics. These authors get a flat advance BUT they still get royalties based on the number of books or comics sold. That is - base payment and then returns based on success if the product.
Film and television writers are compensated by residuals in addition to salary. The studio owns the IP but the creators have a stake. It’s a risk and return sharing relationship with the studio. That’s the standard arrangement.
How is this different from an ESOP or options as an incentive remuneration?
How would an IT employee feel if a firm licenced the IP and then excluded its value from the calculation of ESOPs and options due, or the dividends on the nonvoting shares issued to employees?
It's different with writers, because if their contracts worked like ours did they would have no hope of retiring. So when a fat fish like Suits comes along everyone who has a hand in making it is hoping to swing that either into money or more lucrative work.
That's the way I've come to see it. Actual writers may disagree
There are freelance/gig workers in other industries. Programming has had a massive freelance market for ages. It's practically unheard of for them to receive royalties, so it seems like you don't need to rely on royalties.
And writers do have a salary gig in the vast majority of cases. It's just usually not a long term position. They are hired for the duration of the project, and then need to find something new.
That's not unique to writers or Hollywood at all. Many people are hired for the duration of a project, including managers, engineers, construction workers and so on. None of them receive royalties.
Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work?
Writing as a profession gets this too in many scenarios.
Your compensation package was different.
Almost everyone's is. It's all based on what you can convince people to pay you and the real winners are the ones who are friends and family of the ownership and/or executives, always.
Did you not have a steady job?
Can good writers not land steady jobs? Of course they can! Have I always had a steady job? Of course not!
Did you not know you were going in there next week?
I have had many roles in IT that you never know when something can or would happen to terminate employment. I've had an entire department let go so they could shift the work to another group. I've had acquisitions happen where getting a pitiful severance is commonplace (and severance only ever comes when you give up all rights to sue anyone at all ever who worked for said entity giving you said pittance. You're paid for your SILENCE.) I've seen MANY contract roles where a hiring manager on a whim can choose to terminate employment and you're left holding the bag. As an employee you NEVER know if you're going in there next week, you just hope that you are. After all, you are an employee at-will. This is most roles as very few have duration contracts overall.
I wish IT workers would unionize and demand better pay - but then outsourcing would be even more prevalent than it is. Show business isn't known for meritocracy in high paying roles anyway.
Paying people in perpetuity for doing one role for a small period of time is aligned with permanent ownership and dividends of something. Why writers wouldn't just ask for stock or buy stock with earnings like everybody else is puzzling. There are so many stories about abuse with contract negotiation by people at all levels of showbusiness that i'd argue the whole thing should be overhauled but any disruption causes some to win and some to lose... and we couldn't have anyone brought down to the same level of anyone else, could we? Let's just keep those executive pay and bonus structures the same as they've always been too while we're at it, wouldn't want to stop their meteoric rise in wage y/y while the rest of us get boned.
Lol you getting exploited makes you a bitch. IP creators striking for better residual payments is pure common sense.
I'm sorry you don't understand how markets work.
Did you take your job at a rate of pay based on getting paid residuals in perpetuity?
This is like you taking a contract where they continue to pay you a licence fee for each server that they use your product on, then they move the product to a cloud system so they can get the output of 100 servers with only a single server licence.
Wait writers normally get royalties for their work? What the fuck that's amazing, so Netflix is just in violation of a contract then? Why doesn't the WGA just sue them?
If they have a contract to receive payment perpetually why are they striking instead of litigating?
Because the contract probably pays differently depending on the broadcast method and didn't take streaming into account
I think I can see where you are coming from here. The difference between your creativity and writers, actors, musicians is that while your work is used by the company you built the system for that company isn't selling it to someone else. You built infrastructure.
Writers, actors, and musicians work is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.
The platform that IT Engineers created for netflix is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.
See what I did there? Your argument is that they are more important but in reality they are replaceable like everyone is. Most of the writers out there aren't in high paying GRRMartin level roles, they're writing episodes of sitcoms and reality TV. The quality is all over the place.
so you saying, if a book are publish and sold, a writer only paid for writing the book and all the profit should go to the publisher only?
or song writer should be paid one off for writing a song and all the profit should go to music label only?
and no, netflix not selling the platform. it is like saying Grocery store sold their store everyday. it make no sense. the engineer is a builder, they build a platform. netflix pay them for the platform, netflix sell stuff on said platform.
you are dumb
book author get paid for writing their book, and plus royalty when the book are finish and sold to the public.
How about if one person should make money in perpetuity for doing a job, everyone should?
You want to keep paying the architect, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and all the other construction crew that worked on your house right?
Oh wait... not that...
Maybe payment in perpetuity is a bad idea because it just funnels wealth to the few at the expense of the many... I mean it's ok to charge people a billion times for something done a single time right?
There's a huge philosophical discussion here, but instead you want to throw names. Things are the way they are overwhelmingly because of arbitrary bullshit.
Intellectual Property is a construct enabling monopolies and generating billions of dollars off the trivial reproduction of work done by others. All this perpetual money making bullshit is just piggybacking off of something that never should have been.
Intellectual Property is abused by monopolies, sure, but it's not a construct made by those monopolies. If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That's the idea behind copyright.
If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That’s the idea behind copyright.
Copyright is all about preventing anyone else from profiting off of your work by simply copying your work. Thanks to Mickey Mouse that duration is now life+70 years which is absurd.
Distilling the concept down and removing the nuance: As of today if you produce a written work you have monopoly control over that work for life+70 years unless you sign contracts stating otherwise.
Today, copyright as a construct creates monopolies that survive the creator.
In the case of Drug copyright, the duration is 20 years from the invention, which generally ends up being about 10 years after clinical trials to make money before anyone can make a copy. I struggle to see why the rules do not evenly apply, but the rationale behind drugs seems to be that humans benefit from them being available for as cheap as possible. If we had 20 year durations on TV and Movie copyrights it would be better for the masses and would give creators decades to earn profits on their work.
Drug makers try everything possible to extend copyrights on their drugs by doing things like creating medical devices with superior delivery methods in the case of injectable drugs. Since the new delivery method is more effective the old one is generally not used and so generics have to then wait for the delivery method to be out of copyright... This is just one example though. There's no promises a generic drug ever comes to market if the drug is not widely used. The same shenanigans would be used by the entertainment industry to re-package their content with remastered versions or re-scanned original films like they have done with DVD, Blu-Ray and Streaming versions. Extended editions would also be an option... but the original copy would be free for all to enjoy after 20 years.
Why anyone is able to profit off of the original edition of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for another hundred years is beyond me, it should just be free and available to everyone imo. The money has been made.
That's my opinion anyway. Monopolies and income in perpetuity are horrible concepts generally only abused by the few at the detriment of the many. In the real world many just pirate content anyway. If it were up to rights' holders NO copies even for personal use would be allowed. They would just have us pay per view even for copies we purchased.
wow, so dumb trying to sound intelligent.
"funnel wealth to few". this is what happenning now.
the people striking won't get rich from what they are asking for. they are asking for liveable income. they are only asking for a tiny portion from the collective profit of work that have their name in it. and they not only asking for money, they asking to be treated like a human being at their workplace.
architect are rich as fuck. plumber are very well paid.
"Intellectual Property is a construct enabling monopolies and generating billions of dollars off the trivial reproduction of work done by others. All this perpetual money making bullshit is just piggybacking off of something that never should have been.". and wtf are you rambling here?
don't talk shit when you never try working like them.
My argument wasn't that they are more important. My observation was that the things writers, actors, and musicians produce is being sold over and over and over for other people's profit.
Apparently my mistake was in thinking that the IT infrastructure created was purely infrastructure in the same vein as electrical, plumbing, or even physical buildings. I didn't know that the IT systems created to provide streaming services was being sold to other streaming platforms without credit to the designers.
And before anyone thinks I am saying electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the like aren't creative I am NOT saying that. A family member is a plumber and the stuff he has to dream up to get stuff to work is incredible.
I have the same stance. Just because I designed a product, I don't get a percentage of each product sold.
Because if we did that for everyone who were responsible for it, it'd skyrocket the said products price.
Honestly.
I don't understand why people are so up in arms around artists and the entertainment industry. Flat payment is commonplace in most industries. These people agreed to the payment they were given.
You basically agree to it with a knife in your back because it is the only deal available and they're using the money and power against your desire to be heard or seen.
Welcome to the world of minimum wage service jobs for something like 30% of the population.
You should support the actor's and writer's strike. That's what I'll keep bringing up here, do what you can to make things change.
I have been supporting it. I haven't starred in a single Holywood movie since it began and I haven't written shit.
That won't not a permanent option for some of us now, right?
Do what you can, that's all any of us can hope for.
It's small, but just talking about it and send a message of support on social media is appreciated.
Maybe they'll even actually see it.
There's a donation fund to help the strike continue. The writers aren't calling for a boycott yet.
https://mashable.com/article/how-to-support-wga-writer-strike
refuse to watch, read, play, or otherwise engage with anything created by an AI.. we just make it a fundamental demand.. we don't want any of that shit..
Actually boycotting ironically hurts in this situation.
Writers and actors are encouraging people to keep watching and taking about shows & movies because that underscores the value they bring and are trying to get recognition for, ultimately bolstering their case.
Keep watching anything and everything folks!
When are people going to understand that what you know, what you can do, value, truth, integrity and love have absolutely nothing to do with how much you get paid? The world makes much more sense if you stop assuming being a good person makes you rich. The opposite is true, being a psychopath is far more profitable.
If we placed the appropriate value on the people who reduced suffering the most, there would be statues of Edward Jenner everywhere and he would have been the richest person in the world.
There is an inverse relation between the wage a job pays and the contribution to society that the job makes, with a few exceptions like doctors. The highest paying jobs are very often parasites on society. This seems to originate from the Calvinist work ethic where meaningful work is its own reward.
~ paraphrased from David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs
Most doctors aren't paid enough either, and the supply of doctors is kept low to keep the price of care high, the cost of becoming a doctor is inflated by, among other things, the amount of residency programs available is limited making them very expensive to get into.
The whole thing is engineered to extract wealth, not functionally deliver a supply of goods and services to those who do work.
with a few exceptions like doctors
Even then... Elective plastic surgeons make far more than virologists or ER techs. Radiologists can earn more by owning an MRI machine and charging for its use than by billing to interpret the machine's results. Hospital administrators at big clinics earn more than staff physicians. Insurance company admins can earn more than doctors. Shareholders in medical firms earn most of all.
The fact that I had to look up who Edward Jenner was, and that I (unfortunately) immediately know who Kylie or Bruce Jenner is (to use the same last name), cynically proves your point.
Nurses and firemen should drive lambos, bankers should eat scraps. But alas, human nature rewards greed, but expects humanity.
Gross. Writers should be paid fairly.*
Edit: Previously read "Shame on Neflix". See thoughtful reply below.
While I don’t disagree with the general state, I don’t see how it’s Netflix. They didn’t produce or create Suits, nor were the initial broadcaster, so the contracts were set long before Netflix
How streaming doesn't count as broadcasting is a tad too convenient for the studio to not be a deliberate loophole. Even when the language is tested in court the lobbyism favors the deep pockets asking to split hairs clearly in bad faith.
Ha, I didn't understand that, but now I do. Thanks. And agreed that the general state is a shame. Writers deserve to be paid.
This is ignoring the history of how writers traditionally got paid. Residuals made it so that the longer the writer was in the game the more they were supported by the raft of their body of work similar to authors. Residuals were originally fought for by another strike ages past so that a writer was paid a little bit every time an episode was aired as a re-run .
Now re-runs barely exist because of on demand and writers for streaming get paid peanuts. Successful writers have to write like demons and face burning themselves out just to get by. All because the streaming platforms can technically say "it's not a rerun". We as a society respect creative IP... Until that creator is on the platform of industry content streaming because a narrow definition of what counts. If it were any other platform like a network it wouldn't matter who originally contacted it- if you air it a writer gets a share. So Streaming platforms get a massive business advantage over everyone else by screwing over writers.
YouTubers get paid on a more respectable model for the content they produce on these same principles than industry writers.
What a weird measure of time for a show. It's not a song. Why not use something more suitable, like views?
Edit: it's 50 million hours. If each episode is about an hour long, then that's about 50 million views. If there are 10 episodes per season, then that's 5 million viewers per season.
It’s semantics, but the equivalent for a song would be plays. I think the problem with using views or plays for a metric like this is that they don’t account for people that take in the entire piece of media. It considers people that accidentally click an episode and then close it after some seconds, and people who watch an episode from start to finish, to be the same. One of those people are going to see a lot more ads than the other, thus making the company more money. Just my hypothesis tho.
I wasn’t implying they get paid better. The comparison to views vs plays was done to address the “It’s not a song” comment. How did you get that implication from my message?
It's because that's what's rare. Back in the day being literate was extremely rare and most families couldn't afford to lose the free child farm labor for them to go to school, let alone pay a full time teacher and build a school house with learning materials. Now with free education and tools like computers that make that kind of work and others such as manufacturing with machines and transportation with cars etc. very cheap and plentiful, the hard and rare thing now is to find people who actually like and excel at socializing and connecting businesses and consumers to make deals. AKA middlemen. I don't like it either but that's the fact. If it were so easy, everyone would just become the middlemen. Connecting person A with person B is actually a lot harder than it sounds.
Of course, most of us are neuro divergent introverts on the spectrum. Hence why us lowly workers who stay clammed up while working from home or holed up in our cubicles and barely venture outside to hang out in the break room let alone go out for networking events won't become those middlemen and watch our negotiating power and salaries falter.
If all content (all content) was paid for by tax dollars, it would not only be ad free, but there wouldn't be huge companies standing in-between the artist and the consumer as far as getting the artists paid. And it wouldn't cost that much. Like less than what you pay for having all streaming services simultaneously.
But imagine the controversy a government would receive broadcasting various kinds of content. People deride the BBC as a mouthpiece of whichever party is in power despite immense work making it as impartial as possible
Some years ago the BBC itself ordered a study by Nottingham University which did show that the BBC consistently was pro-whatever-party-was-in-Government, so not being pro a specific party but switching from one of the parties of the power duopoly in Britain to the other as they alternated in Government (funnilly enough giving very little airtime to the smaller leftwing-ecologist party and tons of airtime to smaller far-right parties like UKIP).
However that's about the News, not the rest.
Mind you the BBC also does in it's contents invariably beautify the view about certain slices of British Society and British History but that's the same as the 100% private content producers in the US also do, so it doesn't seem to be an explicitly "Public TV" thing.
I’m unfortunately not very familiar with the BBC other than Top Gear and some of their fabulous documentaries. Thank you for the insight!
Well, I lived in the UK for over a decade, having immigrated there from Portugal via The Netherlands, and was quite shocked after having been there long enough to start paying attention to Politics and Society as a whole, that my image of it that was formed when I was a kid in Portugal in the 80s was very different from the reality I found on the ground in the late 00s and beyond.
There is a huge "keeping up with appearences" strain in (mainly English, worse the higher the social class) British Society that would be seen as hypocrisy in, for example a place like The Netherlands, and that has a huge impact on the BBC because it's always controlled (both via seats in its Board and those chosen as Editors) by people who come from the english upper classes, so you end up with the kind of things that are important in "Opinion Forming" of the Public (i.e. the News, politically relevant documentaries and such) being carefully managed to produce the "right opinion" ("rightness" being defined by that slice of English society that dominate the BBC's Board and Editors, so for example they're unabashedly pro-Monarchy).
Also the UK has Censorship, in the form of what's called a D-Notice, where the Government can stop the publishing of certain stories if deemed "against the national interest", plus things like Libel Legislation are extremelly broad and seem designed to stop whistleblowing, to the point that for example some years ago an Ukranian Oligarch sued in the UK an Ukranian newssite which had denounced actions of his in Ukraine, and the case was accepted by the British courts because "the website could be accessed from Britain".
The result is that the creative and apolitical programs from the BBC are often top-notch whilst the rest is Propaganda, elegantly done and not at all in-your-face (mainly through half-throughts, false dichotomies, uneven selection of speakers for different sides and selective picking of things to report) but still done to "make opinion" not merelly "inform".
Mind you, this is not just the BBC, though it does manage to be worse in this than the other TV channels in the UK.
Unsurprisingly the British Press is the Press least trusted by the locals in Europe.
Really interesting information! It’s a shame that they’re not as trusted as I thought in Europe, I revere their short-wave long range news broadcast worldwide. It’s an absolute tragedy Associated Press doesn’t do the same
I think having all art that can find an audience funded this way would help this issue more than hurt it.
And then we get into the weeds of how do we decide who gets grants? I’m a fairly enthusiastic watcher of Linus Tech Tips, and he discusses that the entertainment tax grants the Canadian Government gives out are so complex that only the largest companies (the ones who do not need the grants) can hire people to navigate the bureaucracy for the tax breaks. Is choosing artists going to be an America’s Got Talent competition? A random draw? What source do we get viewer/listener numbers from?
I would love to resume the federal government’s artist programs like under the New Deal, but the reality is that our culture is more niche and divided than ever. Rather than swing and jazz being unquestionably dominant for music in the days of yore, now we’d have to check and verify every SoundCloud rapper, YouTube artist, and pop-megastar.
Some of your questions are covered in the video I linked. Others are kind of indirectly answered.
Jesus Christ, if my tax dollars were going to the absolute garbage content that's being currently produced I would personally run for office to repeal that legislation.
And if the quality is so low when billions are on the line, I am terrified of what we would get when it's government funded. Even now, you don't need to look far to see how poorly our taxes are spent. Look into how construction companies take advantage of government contacts.
Then why aren't you running?
Sounds like you oppose PBS? no? Or the taxes the FCC pays to media corps that come out of your paycheck?
When can I expect you to announce you candidacy?
Go run, big boy. See how many people agree with your ideology. I dare ya.
Government funded art has a tendency of being loyal to their patrons, i.e. the government, which stifles the very essence of the art itself. All content is not for every body, due to taste, and interest. You're also talking about doing away with advertising, hahahahahahahaha.
You need to watch the film Cradle Will Rock if that's what you think.
You should watch it anyway because it's a great movie, but it's also based on a true story about people getting government funding and using it to put on a socialist musical, which made the government freak out and shut the show down. That is what would stifle art- not artists being loyal, artists not being allowed to dissent.
Such a great movie. So many things to think about after watching.
Sadly whenever I tried to get people to see it, they took the government side. Spending my High School years in Utah was horribly stifling.
they are not shill or bootlicker. they're not backing up anybody but themselves. "if i was paid one time for my job why would they get more" the same mentality with "homeless people should just get a job" and "why would i pay for others Healthcare". typical selfish american.
No, it's just ridiculous that these well-off Hollywood writers are demanding special treatment. Practically every other profession works on a salaried basis, in practically every corner of the world.
They aren't demanding that their colleagues who work behind the scenes like the set crews, editors and support staff get residuals.
No, their motive is entirely selfish and they come off extremely entitled when they place themselves above the rest of the people who are responsible for creating a product.
Well duh, the lower your incomr is compared to others the less of life's pleasures their able to afford. If everyone else starts doing better then costs increase as demand rises and now I can't afford shit.
So I've got mixed feelings on this. First off I'll start by saying the execs at Netflix, like execs in general, are vastly overpaid, and there's definitely room to cut from there to spend elsewhere. The thing I have trouble with is reconciling the streaming model of paying a fixed $XX a month for unlimited watching with paying out residuals. Residuals easily work out when you've got sales of items like tickets or DVDs/blu-rays or broadcast licensing to play at specific times where you can split up the fractions and work out who gets what ahead of time. With streaming, however, you can watch an unlimited amount. So does that mean they take the total time watched of all shows/movies and divide the $XX a month among those based on licensing agreements? How do you determine what gets a bigger cut?
It's kinda like how moviepass failed when they let you watch unlimited movies at the theater. In that case they were covering the cost of individual tickets and also physical theaters are much more expensive to run, but still there are issues with the "all you can watch" model. Another major issue is that there is so much content out there. Heck, most entertainment I get these days is from "free" youtube videos. You're going to get a lot less in residuals when you're competing with so many other sources of content. Execs and other higher-ups always got a disproportionately large amount of the pie, but on top of that, the pie is distributed among many more sources of entertainment.
I can't think of a more fair model than "sum up what the user watched, divide that across what they watched, distribute according to whatever agreements they have with those rights holders. At least then Netflix gets out of the business of being the bad guy.
"Hey if you don't think you're getting your cut, take that up with the network that sold us your show for pennies"
Why make the math so hard?
If the company is selling/lending their content to another, just give people a fixed % of the deal, agreed beforehand, basically like ownership shares paying dividends.
If it's first party, set an engagement metric or two (minutes watched or whatever) that trigger a bonus payment.
Everyone's paid shit these days it seems. I feel like teachers/healthcare workers/IT people need more raises too. Idk why we're so focused on just writers...plenty more important people out there getting shit pay... especially teachers in America who have to deal with so much bullshit.
The writers are on strike at the moment. It's really weird that you don't think that's of interest.
Because I put things in tiers of importance in my head and theres jobs that rank wayyyyy above writers that need our rally cry way more in my opinion.
I'd heard that the Duchess of Sussex used to be an actress, but I'd never seen her in anything. It was a little strange at first to see her playing a paralegal.
For me it was a little strange seeing an unknown actress playing a paralegal become some popular public figure in the UK.
Then you're a part of the problem. Supporting billionaire corporations making stockholders richer.
You should always care when labor goes against the plutocrats. And you should support it. That you don't like the quality of the results is a product of said plutocrats putting chains on them.
Here's a thread that puts it well:
Of course. It's all about the bottom dollar. No gives two shits about how good something is.
Personally I have a music background, I love music and am a capable guitar player, I've studied theory and listened to everything (just about) under the sun. From bluegrass to polka. I like it all.
So when I hear the studio release of paparazzi by Lady Gaga I hear mediocre cookie cutter albeit will produced music. However I once saw a YouTube video of Lady Gaga performing the song on piano live and it was absolutely amazing she is a true musician. But that's not what sells the studio version of the song is what sells. Nobody's going to buy Lady Gaga playing the piano while singing. At least not at that point in her career.
So if that version of paparazzi sells let's make 9,000 other paparazzi's and sell them. That's what makes money and everybody else can go to screw themselves.
I've literally only known about the strike bc it keeps getting mentioned on here. There's just so many options of entertainment.
Assuming the current all you can watch flat fee model is unsustainable, how do you think a model like videogame (Steam, Epic, etc..) would be perceived? Lower monthly sub. Originals are included. Wanna watch something else? You can watch 2 episodes to start. If you wanna continue buy the season. Sort of like videogames where there are demos.
You said they got 3 billion as if they got 3 billion dollars. In reality Netflix paid for the rights to distribute a show and paid for the infrasture to stream 3 billion minutes of it in hopes that people keep renewing their subscription. It definitely made them a lot of money, but not 3 billion.
If those 3 billion minutes were watched non-stop 24/7 for the paying subscribers it would make at least $486,111.11 for Netflix assuming the subscribers paid for the cheapest subscription at ~$7. That's still a lot of money, but they also pay for their own upkeep, servers and much more.
I know most people don't have the cheapest subscription, and also that they don't watch 24/7. But it puts into perspective that Netflix doesn't earn that much on one series.
To add: they also make their own shows and productions and they pay to put shows up on their service that are not their own productions. I don't know what a show like suits will cost to be put on Netflix, since they don't produce the show, but I'd imagine that's not cheap. And I guess the writers get a percentage of the money earned on the selling of those rights (depending on the contract they have with the original studio)
And the paying of the writers is in the hands of the studio selling the rights, not Netflix.
Yes, I agree with you. I'm saying assuming. I don't think they'll go.. You know what? You're right.. We're gonna start paying more. Something will have to give. I'm saying is there a diff business model?
3,000,000,000 * $15 (assumed Netflix plan/user) = $45,000,000,000
Damn! Just for one show?!
IP Laws need to change: Melancholy Elephants is a great Hugo Award winning short story about this train of thought.
You can do any profession on which a company make long term profits on employees' or freelances' work. Such as science, programming, business development, etc. Amount of residuals paid is zero ($0.- gross).
Media company want to treat writers and actors as any freelance. The issue is that freelances and employees deserve residuals as actors and writers, but it won't happen. It is easier to remove existing benefits labeling them as "privileges", than give more benefits to all