Nearly 90% of all TV shows are packaged by talent agencies, and nearly 80% of those shows are packaged by WME and CAA, according to data collected by the Writers Guild of America West.
In a review of the 2016-2017 television season, WGA West found that 87% of the more than 300 series produced that year were packaged by the agencies, and that “packaging is dominated by WME and CAA,” which accounted for 79% of all the packaged series.
The guild has been holding a series of membership meetings to discuss updating its 42-year-old agreement with the Association of Talent Agents – called the Artists’ Manager Basic Agreement (AMBA) – which the guild says is so outdated it’s left the door open to the growing threat of conflicts of interests on the part of the agencies.
Deadline obtained a copy of the study, which is being distributed by WGAW to members at the meetings it has been holding with writers as the guild prepares to renegotiate its agreement with the ATA.
According to the WGAW’s data for 2016-2017:
WME was the solo packager of 84 series and shared packaging on 59 others
CAA was the solo packager of 64 series and shared packaging on 61 others
UTA was the solo packager of 35 series and shared packaging on 53 others
ICM Partners was the solo packager of 14 series and share packaging on 30 others
Paradigm was the solo packager of three series and shared packaging on 10 others
APA was the solo packager of two series and shared packaging of one other
Rothman-Brecher was the solo packager of one series and shared packaging on two others
Gersh shared packaging on two series.
The packets also say that the “conflict of interest” inherent in packaging includes:
Agencies are paid by the studios instead of by commissioning their clients
Agency compensation is taken out of both the show’s budget and its profits
Agencies have little incentive to defend or improve quotes (writers’ previous pay) because their compensation is not tied to the well-being of their clients
Agencies often make more on the back-end than most creators
AMBA has never prevented agencies from packaging or holding ownership stakes in productions that employ their clients. Rather, it doesn’t allow agents to take their 10% commissions on projects for which they are also receiving a packaging fee. Union leaders, however, believe the big agencies are getting so rich and conflicted over their packaging fees that representing their clients is no longer their primary concern.
Packaging, however, is not the only problem. Under a section called “Agency as Employer,” the guild’s packet says the agencies – and WME and CAA in particular – are also involved in a “conflict of interest” with respect to producing content. “WME and CAA are becoming active in content production, financing and distribution,” with “projects set up at Netflix, Apple, Hulu, Amazon and YouTube,” the guild told its members.
WME’s “related production entities,” the guild says, include Endeavor Content, IMG Productions, Media Res and Bloom. CAA’s “related production entities,” the guild says, include Tornado Productions and Platform One.
To add historical perspective, the packet notes that a 1962 “Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit forced MCA-Universal, the largest agency/producer, to exit agency business.”
The guild has yet to reach out to the Association of Talent Agents to renegotiate the AMBA, but it’s certainly setting the stage for those talks by making the case that talent agents have a fiduciary obligation to put the interests of its clients ahead of their own.
“Agencies are fiduciaries” under California and New York law, and in most other states as well, the guild says, “with full obligation to their clients, including the obligation to avoid any conflict of interest or to make any deals that benefit the agent at the client’s expense.”
The role of a fiduciary, the guild told its members, is “to represent the interest of a client, with a moral commitment to put the client first. A fiduciary is expected to refrain from acting for his private advantage or otherwise contrary to the interests of his client; the fiduciary should fully, without compromise, assert the complete and unmitigated interest of the client.”
As a showrunner leaving one of the WGA meetings told Deadline: “The issues are really simple and clear. If your employer is representing you, that’s not cool. I think every writer understands that.”
“The ATA will respond to the WGA’s renegotiation proposals if and when they come to us with a request,” ATA executive director Karen Stuart told Deadline.
Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy
—
Hmmm…in much packaging there’s strings attached. You think…naw!
The Writers Guild of America West and Disney/ABC TV Group have unveiled participants in separate training programs designed to create opportunities for writers from diverse backgrounds.
The WGAW has set nine honorees for its 2018 TV Writer Access Project. The recipients are nine diverse writers whose work will be spotlighted by the Guild. They will also partake in workshops that will help them develop to pursue careers in television.
To be considered, qualified WGAW in underrepresented categories — minority writers, writers with disabilities, women writers, LGBT writers, and writers older than 55 — submitted a script. The 2018 honorees were selected from a pool of 135 submissions.
2018 Drama Honorees
Sean Calder – “Maria Full of Grace”
Juan Carlos Fernandez – “Sunpatch Alley: P is for Pilot”
Rick Marin – “The One-Percent Solution”
Hannah Park –“ Imposter Syndrome”
Kristen SaBerre – “Code Noir”
2018 Comedy Honorees
Marla DuMont – “The Sex Offender Next Door”
Samuel Garza Bernstein – “The Secret World of Danny Rizik”
Ryan Sandoval – “The Stadium Usher”
Matt McConkey – “Hey Girl”
Meanwhile, the Disney/ABC TV Group has selected 10 writers for their 2018 Writers Program, which offers mentoring and workshop opportunities for participants. The program is in its 29th year.
Comedy Writers
Adán Peña –Wall Street analyst
Ritza Emmanuelle Bloom – Issa Rae Productions’ online content creator
Krystal Javier – Former wedding videographer
David Radcliff – Educator and journalist
Jimmy Mosqueda – Post-production supervisor
Octavia Bray – Showrunner’s assistant
Drama Writers
Pornsak Pichetshote – Graphic novelist
William Garroutte—Computer repair consultant
Claudia Forestieri – Emmy-winning news segment producer
Brian Shin –Professional poker player
Want to read more articles like this one? Subscribe to Variety Today.
12:40 PM PST 1/31/2018 by Jonathan Handel Hollywood Reporter
jh@jhandel.com
jhandel
Still, the forceful yet nuanced statement says, “a writer achieves or retains membership despite any personal criminal history.”
The Writers Guild of America West announced a “Statement of Principles on Sexual Harassment” in an email to its members Wednesday morning, supporting a “zero tolerance policy” and industrywide approach. But in a break with such organizations as the Motion Picture Academy and even, perhaps, the Directors Guild, the union says it will not expel members based on accusations or even legal adjudications regarding sexual harassment.
“The WGAW believes the current social outcry against sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace is not just warranted, it is long overdue,” begins the statement. “It is the legal and moral responsibility of our employers to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of [federal and state antidiscrimination] laws. Unfortunately, their policies have historically failed to do so. [Therefore], we must take action on behalf of our members to address these issues.”
“To that end,” the statement continues, “the WGAW supports the creation of a meaningful industrywide policy agenda that is fair, legal and effective.”
But, in what some may find the most uncomfortable part of the statement, the union notes that “WGAW membership standards are defined by our constitution, labor law and requisite employment by signatory employers.” The reference to “requisite employment” reflects the fact that to become and remain an active member, a writer must sell or option a certain amount of material, within set timeframes, to a studio or production company that has signed on to the guild agreement.
The statement then emphasizes, “A writer achieves or retains membership despite any personal criminal history.” That contrasts with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which, as a voluntary membership organization rather than a union, has said, “There is no place in the Academy for people who abuse their status, power or influence in a manner that violates recognized standards of decency.” It expelled accused mogul Harvey Weinstein in October.
Weinstein is also out of the Directors Guild, which is a union. But the DGA didn’t eject him: He resigned — a perhaps crucial distinction, even if he did so under pressure. Weinstein also was banned for life by the Producers Guild (after resigning), but that organization is not in fact a union: Despite its guild-like name, it’s a voluntary membership organization with no legal standing in the employer-employee relationship.
No doubt weighing on the WGA leadership was the organization’s complicity in the 1950s anti-Communist blacklists, for which leaders of the major Hollywood unions all apologized in 1997. In addition, the guild is apparently wary of being dragged into numerous, contested allegations.
“The WGAW is a union, not judge or jury, and cases of harassment and discrimination should be adjudicated in a court of law or through legal policies of employment,” reads the statement. In contrast, the Motion Picture Academy’s policy explicitly stipulates that its board of governors may reach a finding that a member has violated its rules.
On the subject of just what “zero tolerance” actually means, the guild explains, “Zero tolerance means that every claim of harassment or discrimination is taken seriously, and the investigation of every claim is thorough and transparent,” but, in a recognition of concerns being voiced by many in the industry, adds that “zero tolerance does not mean the absence of due process, or that there is a one-size-fits-all punishment for every incident.”
The statement also refers to the 2006 Friends case, where the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of several writers on the show who were sued by a former assistant for sexual harassment based on her having to routinely listen to, and transcribe, sexually vulgar jokes. The court reasoned, in part, that writers rooms for shows with sexual content can be freewheeling in a way that might be inappropriate elsewhere.
“The WGAW acknowledges that creativity requires a unique workplace,” says the statement. “There are no words or ideas that can be off-limits, and deliberately pushing the boundaries of good taste, or social and political correctness, is instrumental to the work we do. But there is nothing about creativity and humor that requires individuals to fear for their physical or economic safety.”
Finally, the statement acknowledges the need for pay equity and equal opportunity. “Because harassment and discrimination are products of an institutional imbalance of power, the WGAW believes that there is no solution to harassment that does not include efforts to address the economic and career disadvantages that burden women and other protected classes.”
Read the full statement below:
The Board and Officers have identified the following principles as our starting point toward meaningful change in our industry’s treatment of sexual harassment and discrimination.
The WGAW believes the current social outcry against sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace is not just warranted, it is long overdue. Sexual harassment is a form of employment discrimination, which is illegal under federal and state law. It is the legal and moral responsibility of our employers to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of these laws. Unfortunately, their policies have historically failed to do so. Since it is the right and obligation of the WGAW to support the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, we must take action on behalf of our members to address these issues. To that end, the WGAW supports the creation of a meaningful industrywide policy agenda that is fair, legal, and effective.
The WGAW supports a zero tolerance policy for any form of workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment. Zero tolerance means that every claim of harassment or discrimination is taken seriously, and the investigation of every claim is thorough and transparent. Zero tolerance does not mean the absence of due process, or that there is a one-size-fits-all punishment for every incident. The WGAW supports a fair and legal process that is consistently and transparently applied. The WGAW also believes that it is a perversion of due process to implement policies that protect the accused or the employer, instead of the accuser, that create obstacles to investigation, or that discourage victims from filing claims.
The WGAW acknowledges that creativity requires a unique workplace. There are no words or ideas that can be off-limits, and deliberately pushing the boundaries of good taste, or social and political correctness, is instrumental to the work we do. But there is nothing about creativity and humor that requires individuals to fear for their physical or economic safety. Assaulting, demeaning, or diminishing anyone is wrong, and doing so in the workplace based on gender or other protected attributes is illegal. The WGAW condemns this type of behavior, both toward its members and by its members. It demeans our profession and our industry as a whole when a hostile work environment is considered normal or acceptable.
WGAW membership standards are defined by our constitution, labor law, and requisite employment by signatory employers. A writer achieves or retains membership despite any personal criminal history. The WGAW is a union, not judge or jury, and cases of harassment and discrimination should be adjudicated in a court of law or through legal policies of employment.
Because harassment and discrimination are products of an institutional imbalance of power, the WGAW believes that there is no solution to harassment that does not include efforts to address the economic and career disadvantages that burden women and other protected classes. Pay equity and equal opportunity are necessary to the solution. The WGAW will actively seek effective programs that promote gender equality in our industry. The WGAW will also investigate any pattern of retribution by employers toward individuals who file claims or who speak out about harassment. No member of the WGAW should tolerate any form of backlash against hiring or working with women due to fear or discomfort around this issue.
These principles form the basis of our policies and actions going forward. We are committed to not merely stating what is right, but to doing what is right, for our members and our industry. We can no longer leave issues of harassment and discrimination solely in the hands of our employers. In addition to the action items above, we will seek every opportunity for change, including: partnerships with our sister Guilds and unions, surveying our membership, creating awareness and training programs that are actually effective, working to correct the toxic culture of discrimination within our industry, and negotiating policies with our employers that focus on protecting victims rather than the companies themselves. There is no issue more important to a union than ensuring a safe and fair workplace for all. That is our goal.
Ensuring a safe and fair workplace for all Gets Zero disagreement from the Ol’ Dog!
Can five more days of talks avert a strike when the union wants a $535 million contract and the studios are at around $180 million
The Writers Guild and Hollywood’s studio alliance resume talks Monday morning in Sherman Oaks, but a strike seems increasingly probable after the WGA’s condemnation of studio proposals — and in light of an analysis by The Hollywood Reporter that indicates the guild’s demands are roughly triple the size of the deal the studios likely are willing to make.
Indeed, an informed observer speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, says the disparity is even more extreme.
“Based on an objective review of the WGA proposals to management this month,” said the observer, “it’s safe to say that the ‘asks’ for health and pension plans, plus ‘middle class’ writers, plus matching up with [Directors Guild] residuals on SVOD [streaming video on demand], AVOD [ad-supported VOD] and premium pay, plus all the others would result in management paying 3x-5x the norm.”
The guild said last week that it will strike on May 2 if there’s no new deal in place by the current contract’s May 1 expiration. The union has attempted to turn up the heat by notifying ad buyers that a strike could disrupt the fall broadcast season and telling AT&T and Time Warner shareholders that a walkout could reduce the attractiveness of the telco’s proposed acquisition of the media conglomerate, dependent as it is on writers to create content.
In addition, the WGA will be seeking and almost certainly obtaining a strike authorization from its members by April 24 in a vote for which some suggest the union deliberately laid the groundwork.
If a strike is to be averted, some serious concessions will need to be made (and fast) by one or both sides. THR’s analysis shows a three-to-one ratio between the cost of the WGA proposals and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ likely bottom line — and that’s a $350 million gap that negotiators will find tough to bridge in the next five days of talks.
Read More
WGA Pension Plan Proposals a Matter of Dollars and Percents
Costing out the WGA proposals is easy because the guild has publicly priced its demands. “We estimate that our current proposals would cost a total of $178 million over the entire industry,” the union noted in its letter to ad buyers last week. The letter says, and the WGA confirmed, that these are annual costs. That puts the aggregate cost of a three-year deal at about $535 million.
But the studios are looking to do a deal at about $180 million, according to THR estimates and guidance from an informed source. For all the talk of principles and issues in labor negotiations, at the end of the day, studio negotiators have a bottom-line number they’re willing to live with, sometimes called the “package size.”
Peering Inside the AMPTP
The AMPTP and WGA declined to comment for this story, so THR started with historical data. In 2004, the WGA deal was reportedly worth $58 million. In 2007, the studios made what they called a $130 million offer, which the WGA said was worth only $32 million; let’s split the difference and guesstimate $80 million.
That was a $20 million increment in one three-year negotiating cycle. To understand more recent trends, look at the package size for the larger actors’ unions. In 2005, SAG and AFTRA announced a $200 million studio deal, while in 2008 the AMPTP made what it called a $250 million proposal. In 2011, a down year because of the national recession, the package was worth $170 million according to SAG-AFTRA, and in 2014, the union says it achieved a $200 million deal.
Those ups and downs, combined with the historical size of the WGA deals, suggested that the AMPTP’s bottom line figure for the WGA this year is $125 million to $150 million over three years, but the informed source said the top-of-range figure was just a bit lower than the actual number. That would seemingly put the AMPTP number at no higher than $170 million to $180 million.
Read More
Will Hollywood Writers Go on Strike? The Tricky Economics of “Peak TV”
THR also tried costing out the package from the bottom up, starting with the DGA deal reached in December. It included 3 percent annual wage increases, enhancements to digital residuals (primarily for reruns of SVOD product) and a variety of director-specific changes. The AMPTP utilizes a process called pattern bargaining, in which the pattern set on basic wage increase and residuals for the first above-the-line union that negotiates in a cycle — frequently the DGA — is essentially mirrored for the remaining unions, each of which then get a few bespoke enhancements as well.
For the WGA, those 3 percent wage increases amount to about $150 million or so over three years. That calculation, which a source confirmed, is understood by first looking at the increases: a 3 percent increase in year one, an additional three percent increase in year two (thus, a total increase in year two equal to six percent) and yet another three percent increase in year three (i.e., a nine percent increase from the base year). Three plus six plus nine suggests a total increase of 18 percent. The actual figure is about 18.4 percent, because like compound interest, the wage bumps actually grow multiplicatively, not additively.
Next, we have to determine what wage base to apply the 18.4 percent increase to. The WGA West reported total member earnings of about $1.2 billion in 2015, but that figure has to be increased to account for WGA East (which doesn’t publicly report) and increased again to reflect an estimate of 2017-2020 figures, but then decreased because these are total earnings, whereas the basic wage increases only apply to wages that are at scale or some multiple of scale, such as scale plus 10 (110 percent of scale, with the extra 10 percent to cover the agent’s commission) or twice scale. In contrast, a writer who gets, say, $300,000 per movie isn’t affected by increases in scale wages (wage floors).
Applying the necessary increases and decreases yields total scale wages of around $800 million, according to a knowledgeable source, and multiplying by 18.4 percent equals about $150 million over three years.
Read More
Could Canada Be the Beneficiary of a Writers Guild Strike?
Next, the residuals increases. The WGA West reported total digital residuals for TV and SVOD reuse of $25 million in 2015. Add 33 percent as a rough approximation of the WGA East — it’s half the size of the WGAW but many of its members work in news and public television rather than areas covered by the AMPTP contract — then 30 percent to bring the figure forward to 2017, for a total of about $45 million per year or $135 million over the three-year contract.
What the AMPTP did for the DGA, and is understood to be willing to do for the WGA, is to increase a portion of that figure, representing SVOD product (think Netflix) rerun on SVOD and TV product rerun on AVOD platforms such as Hulu, but not TV product rerun on SVOD (such as when a cable or broadcast show is distributed on Netflix).
Since we’re talking about an incremental increase of only a portion of that figure, it’s probably fair to assume that we’re looking at an increase of around $20 million at most. Throw in another $10 million for miscellaneous enhancements over three years, and the result is a $180 million package. Meanwhile the WGA wants $178 million in each of the three years.
WGA Package Breakdown
Taking a closer look, here’s how the WGA proposals appear to break down:
* Shoring up the guild’s troubled health plan would cost an estimated $56 million (AMPTP analysis) to $90 million (WGA analysis) over the three-year life of a new labor agreement.
* Improving the pension plan’s funding status could cost $25 million per year, or $75 million (THR analysis).
* Reversing screen and TV writers’ recent wage declines could cost upwards of $75 million (THR analysis in process).
* Three percent basic wage increases would cost around $135 million (see above)
* The DGA pattern increases in residuals could be around $20 million (see above).
* For the WGA’s demands on a number of other issues such as family leave and some other wage bumps, we threw in $30 million as a rough guess.
* Next is the cost of revising the WGA’s 35-year-old anemicpay TV residuals formula, which currently yields guild members about $8 million per year. They want the DGA’s formula, amounting to a big increase, so let’s suppose they want to triple that figure. Adding $16 million per year comes to $50 million over the life of the contract.
Not that it matters for purposes of this breakdown, but the pay TV proposal is extremely unlikely to find traction. For one thing, the formula — a flat annual amount payable when a pay TV show like HBO’s Game of Thrones is rerun on pay TV — is decades old. The amount, first negotiated in the early 1980s, has been increased from time to time since, but the approach has remained unchanged. It’s inferior to the DGA’s top-of-the-line formula based on subscriber count (subject to a ceiling) and SAG-AFTRA’s mid-level six percent of the license fee.
Revisiting a 35-year-old arrangement is unlikely enough under the best of circumstances, but add in the backstory and a reopener is probably dead on arrival: back in the 1980s, the WGA itself initially rejected the DGA formula, went on strike for a flat amount, then later went on strike again — this time seeking the DGA formula after changing its mind. Studio negotiators have long memories and, indeed, AMPTP president Carol Lombardini has worked for the organization since its formation in 1982. The WGA will likely get a bump in the flat fee schedule, but not the DGA’s formula.
In any case, adding it all up accounts for $475 million of the WGA’s stated $535 million package — not bad for a rough estimate.
And we still have the WGA’s own $178 million per year valuation, which leaves the union proposing a figure roughly triple what the studios appear to have in mind.
Profits or Not? It Doesn’t Matter.
The WGA supports its case by saying the companies made $51 billion in operating profits last year, of which its $178 million per year would equal just a third of a percentage point. However, it acknowledges that that figure includes income from non-core areas, which can include theme parks, cruise ships, local cable systems, animated films, news and reality TV. Operating profit also doesn’t reflect any deduction for taxes, interest charges or depreciation. And at least some of the studios may be more challenged than their parent companies.
Taking a different tack, one can also point to high and even stratospheric executive salaries and talk about redistribution. To be clear, the WGA is not making that argument — although some people might — and it’s a bit of a glass house, given the income inequality within each of the guilds. Still, knocking off a few tens of millions from CEO and other top executives’ salaries across eight core AMPTP members could bridge that $350 million gap pretty quickly.
Those arguments will variously appeal to some and repel others, but the cold truth is that it doesn’t matter either way. The bargaining room at the AMPTP’s Sherman Oaks offices simply doesn’t function as a referendum on corporate profits or income inequality. To believe otherwise — to the extent of seeking a triple-size package — may be the path to studio hardball and then a strike with an outcome unlikely to favor the writers.
—
The views expressed in Mr. Handel’s article are not necessarily those of the Ol’ Watchdog.
*In fact with all the sophisticated media manipulation going on these days, he (The Ol’ Dog) is not even sure those that he, himself, expresses here are really his own either! But, but, but…
UPDATE with more info: Responding to press inquiries, the WGA says it’s willing to return to the bargaining table “whenever the AMPTP is ready to meet and invites us back” – even as WGA leaders are urging their members to authorize a strike.
The talks for a new film and TV contract broke off Thursday, and even though both sides have now committed to returning to the bargaining table post haste, just how far apart the two sides remain is evidenced by the fact that they can’t even agree about who broke off the talks, with each blaming the other.
Even so, it appears that both sides really do believe that the other walked away first – meaning that neither side is lying about it as they prepare to resume negotiations.
“The WGA broke off negotiations at an early stage in the process in order to secure a strike vote rather than directing its efforts at reaching an agreement at the bargaining table,” the AMPTP said on Friday. “Keeping the industry working is in everyone’s best interests, and we are ready to return to negotiations when they are.”
The guild sees it completely different, and says they have a tape to prove it. “Last Thursday night at 9 p.m., the AMPTP advised the WGA via voice mail that ‘we don’t see any need to meet tomorrow,’ meaning Friday March, 24th, the last day scheduled for negotiations,” the WGA said in a statement. “That’s their right, and the WGA will recommence negotiations whenever the AMPTP is ready to meet and invites us back.”
But the AMPTP spokesman said that management had good reason to send the voice mail – and has an email to prove it. “We provided them with a package proposal on Thursday, and instead of responding to our proposals, they said they had no moves and were going to get a strike authorization vote. They were the ones who walked away when they said they were going for a strike authorization, and then they sent us an email saying they would get back to us the next day, and they didn’t.”
Responding to the WGA’s statement that it’s willing to return to the bargaining table whenever the AMPTP is, the AMPTP spokesman said: “We’ve not heard back from the WGA directly, but as we’ve indicated from the beginning, the AMPTP is ready to talk when they are.”
Asked if the AMPTP is ready to return to the bargaining table as soon as Monday, the spokesman said, “We’re ready when they are.”
The WGA West sent out a letter to members today:
As you know, our scheduled negotiations with the AMPTP concluded last Friday without a deal,” the WGA West said today in a letter to their members. “Despite the fact that we have withdrawn almost 50% of our economic asks, the companies have yet to put an economic offer on the table. Even with their record profits there is, apparently, no money for writers. That was unacceptable on Friday; it is unacceptable now.
With our contract set to expire May 1st, the WGA negotiating committee unanimously recommended that the WGAW board and WGAE council approve a strike authorization vote. Since then, both the Board and Council have voted unanimously to send the strike authorization vote to the membership.
Voting will be conducted online and at special membership meetings in mid-April. At these meetings our elected leadership will lay out the full status of negotiations as well as our bargaining strategy moving toward contract deadline. After all member questions have been addressed, the strike authorization vote will proceed. We will update you after the balloting and meeting dates have been finalized.
If the strike authorization vote passes, the Board and Council, in consultation with the negotiating committee, are empowered to call a strike, if necessary, after the contract expires at midnight on May 1st.
Our goal remains to negotiate the best possible deal before that date. We ask for your continuing solidarity and support.
