The latest gambit by the Writers, as their strike drags on with no end in sight, is to create their own internet channel to distribute their own original content and earn advertising revenue from it.
It’s an intriguing idea and, with proceeds promised to a Solidarity Fund (give financial assistance to members of other unions who are hurt by the strike), this could turn out to be added leverage at the bargaining table and a big morale booster all around.
Of course, that’s the best case scenario.
The problem with StrikeTV is all the complications it is likely to encounter.
Most importantly, the viability of StrikeTV goes to the very core of the stated reason for the strike in the first place -- the financial windfall that internet distribution promises.
What if the money doesn’t come in? What if the product isn’t any good or, worse, is too expensive to make a profit?
StrikeTV could quickly backfire. Suddenly, the AMPTP could point to it and say, “See? It’s not so easy, is it?”
I’m not saying StrikeTV won’t work. I’m saying the odds are stacked against it, and therefore the Writers need to approach it not with their usual temerity, but instead with the forethought of an attorney cross-examining a hostile witness. Most importantly, the Writers-cum-producers-cum-network-executives need to do some serious homework and some major-league preparation.
Here are just a few of the potential stumbling blocks:
1) Union cast and crew. Let’s face it -- we’re generally pretty decently-paid artisans (when we’re working). This means that even the most humble of productions is going to be pretty expensive once you start using IA crews and SAG talent.
Sure, projects which will donate all present and future revenue to strike funds can probably use an all-volunteer cast and crew. But what about projects where the Writer-Producer retains the rights and the potential to earn future revenue? This is an aspect of the productions which is being heavily promoted by StrikeTV.
In this case, Union Cast & Crew should be properly compensated at Union Scale. Barring that, if Union Waivers can be obtained, then the Crew should at least participate in the Distributor’s Gross Revenue -- it’s what Writers claim is fair, so they’re basically obligated to offer it on their own projects.
We’ve been told that StrikeTV is working hard to figure out the best way to manage this tricky situation, and we are giving them the benefit of the doubt that something reasonable will be worked out before productions begin.
But the problem here is that this already dangerously close to proving the AMPTP’s claim that internet distribution is not viably profitable right now.
2) Production Value. There is more to creating a good show than just writing it. You must have good people to make it (see above), but you must also have deep resources to create the look that you want.
This means good cameras, plenty of lights, proper sets and locations, good props, microphones, trucks, etc.
And that all costs money. Even if you’re calling in favors, that costs money.
The overall quality of the shows is going to depend in part on how good they look and sound. No one should be tuning in expecting to see something as lush and exotic as Lost, or as gritty and raw as Law & Order; but they still can’t be underwhelmed -- it’s got to look good.
3) Advertising Revenue. This is the single most important aspect of this whole enterprise, at least in terms of StrikeTV’s bearing on the outcome of the Strike itself.
This experiment simply can not afford to fail in this regard -- each show MUST MAKE MONEY. Not only that, the money has to be serious. Think about this. If StrikeTV doesn’t earn, at an absolute minimum,$2500 per show, then how can the Writers who run it justify their claim that a Writer of an episode of Bionic Woman should get more that $250 for an internet repeat?
(The value of any WGA deal has to be multiplied by 10 in order to take into account all of the other Union residuals which would result from pattern bargaining -- therefore a $250 Writer’s residual actually amounts to $2500 in total residuals).
Don’t misunderstand me here -- I’m not suggesting that the $250 fee which was proposed by the AMPTP last month was even close to fair. What I am saying, though, is that if you can’t definitively prove otherwise, you should keep the evidence off the table.
SUMMARY
I don’t have enough information to say whether or not StrikeTV will work or fail; whether it will begin some boon cycle for internet production, or become another InnerTube-like victim of simply “not getting it” when it comes to internet distribution.
But I wonder if the folks running StrikeTV know either.
We basically got into this mess of a strike because the WGA “best cased” the outcome. I don’t want to see the Strike prolonged because someone repeated that mistake.
The best case in StrikeTV is that the AMPTP is cast aside and Writers / Directors / Actors / Anyone-with-a-creative-bone-in-their-body will discover a method to make money with their productions on the internet.
The worst case is that StrikeTV will prove to be undeniable proof that the Writers need the Studios more than the Studios need the Writers.
The reality is likely to be somewhere in between.
