'Suits' Was Streamed For 3 Billion Minutes on Netflix and the Writers Were Collectively Paid $3,000
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.
And here we have the typical "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude. How lovely.
Found the CEO...
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.
/c/theydidthemath
similar numbers to Spotify, but sadly there's no musicians union
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.”
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.
I'm a former musician and record label employee who's been screaming "told you so" for years. I stopped paying attention to the pittance I get in streaming revenue because it impacts my life that little.
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?
Maybe you should join a union about it
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.
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.
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.
Better they uploaded it on torrent and asked for donations
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.
What can we do? I don't live by anywhere they are striking.
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..
Donate to the entertainment community fund
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.
"It's Free Money" Studio Executives
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.
"suitable" ha
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.
Lol. Lmao even. Have you never heard what happens to government funded research papers?
tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video
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.
You are talking to yourself.
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.
I'm watching suits right now... On Netflix.
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.
You mean c-tier acres Meghan Markle?
Me too, as I type this. Getting to the end of season 3 for the first time!
Then you're a part of the problem. Supporting billionaire corporations making stockholders richer.
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.
Solidarity, a rising tide floats all boats. The enemy is not at your side.
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.
Netflix got 3 billion from one show, plenty sustainable to me.
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?!
and no royalties? $3000, would be few, even for only one professional writer.
IP Laws need to change: Melancholy Elephants is a great Hugo Award winning short story about this train of thought.
Now do musicians!
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
You licking boots or not? It's correct information but sounds like you're defending it.
Seeing how writing absolutely nosedived after 2-3 seasons, I find it hard to sympathize with them for ruining one of my favorite shows.
Might not have ruined it if they were paid properly.
Are they complaining about not getting a fair salary while they were working on the show?
And generally the pay doesn't correlate with quality in hollywood. I'm really confused about what gave you the idea that it does.
Warning: unpopular opinion here.
From the article:
That means that despite the show being a resurgent hit, there were no big secondary payouts.
So, I am an engineer/scientist. Products that I have developed/contributed to development are used by billions of people. Most likely you, the reader of this comment are using it right now, because some of the products I worked on are telecom products, that are widely used to transfer information.
The amount of secondary payouts I receive is EXACTLY ZERO.
My honest question is, why those writers should be any different? They should be paid when they make their products, according to the contract they signed. But why many think they entitled to something more?
And no, I do not think that argument "but it is difficult work, it is not constant" works here. There are lots of difficult, non-constant, seasonal, whatever jobs there that pay even less.
Crab in a bucket mentality.
"I don't receive residuals, so why should these writers? The executives are entitled to all the profit."
If all us engineers got paid every time our code was used, the Internet as it exists would be absurdly expensive. Really, it couldn't exist. Thank god engineers don't have the same "I need to be paid every time something I created is used by anybody" mentality. You're building on the work of millions of people before you, you owe it to others to contribute (and make a living in the process).
Of course, the industries are different in important ways. But you should be able to explain the differences, not just wave them away with "ur just jelly lol"
IMHO, copyright and IP law is ridiculously protective. People should get a few years to benefit from their creations, then they should be public domain. This lifetime-plus-70-years bullshit is stupid. Companies are exploiting those stupid laws to milk us on every platform for decades with each media artifact, and artists and writers just want to get a cut of the action. IMHO, it's the wrong fight, and I can't really support them in it: "give writers a share of the rent you milk from us" is not a cause I wanna get behind.
You get what you demand, and what you bargain for, which is why they are now on strike. You valued your knowledge, experience, and expertise in telcom, in different ways, and less over the long term, than workers in the entertainment industry, who, for the majority of the entertainment industry's existence, have been taken advantage of by the producers of that entertainment. You decided to work for a salary and benefits, and got yours upfront, their industry works a different way as a result of historically predatory entertainment industry practices.
You should also be paid more, you have been instrumental in creating billions in wealth for people who cannot do what you can do, you should get more.
Like others have said, this is the wrong mentality. Instead of asking "why should they get it when I don't?", You should simply be asking "why don't I get it?"
Turning us against each other is how the ruling elite stay in power. 💪
What's he's saying is those ruling class shouldn't be getting it either because it's a silly concept lol.
Road crews don't get paid from tolls. Power plants don't get paid beaucoup. Etc. Etc.
The root issue is the company profiting endlessly or simply not paying appropriate wages. IP law absolutely needs to change.
Melancholy Elephants is a great Hugo Award winning short story about this train of thought.
This is the right answer! I agree that this is the point
My honest question is, why those writers should be any different?
So I am also an engineer. Products that I have developed/contributed to development are used by millions of people. (I'm being a bit cheeky here by copying you, but this is true of me too.)
The compensation packages of engineers are wildly different than that of writers because our jobs are steady.
The compensation structure of writers is designed to carry them between shows when they are not making any money. They also need excess cash to fund retirement savings, insurance, and other benefits because they are unemployed for long and unpredictable stretches.
The residuals system was designed to address this very specific structure of the writing profession. As engineers, we don't have these wildly unsteady employment schedules, so the residuals system is not warranted in our profession.
Your experience as an engineer/scientist is valid, but you have to understand how wildly different writing is as a career path, and how compensation packages are different out of necessity.
And no, I do not think that argument "but it is difficult work, it is not constant" works here. There are lots of difficult, non-constant, seasonal, whatever jobs there that pay even less.
Sure, industries like retail, tourism, and food service have similar weaknesses, but those industries are unskilled. Writing is highly skilled labor. WGA members are responsible for writing the most valuable media on the planet, American film and television.
The distinction between writing and these other industries can be measured in dollars.
Sure, industries like retail, tourism, and food service have similar weaknesses, but those industries are unskilled.
I understand what you are trying to say, but no they really aren't. They require a very different skill set than being an engineer or a doctor, but I guarantee that you do not have the skills that I do with knives, playing with fire, and making knives. I know this because an engineer doesn't have the time to spend 20 years working as a cook/chef, and 2 as an apprentice blacksmith. That being said, I'm useless if you hand me math above pre-calculus. I can remember algebra and pre-calc, but I don't remember calculus any more.
There's no job that is "easy." In all actuality the lower the pay, the harder the job is to do. There are very few exceptions to this rule.
I took hard jobs because I'm a pyromaniac and so I made that work for me. Cooking and blacksmithing are just playing with fire.
I don’t have an answer but I don’t necessarily agree either. However I updooted because it’s interesting discussion and you were nice about it.
You , I like your positive attitude
It's because of people like you that scientists get treated like crap. You also deserve to get paid for the things you create.
Another counter argument:
Residuals are analogous to equity in the tech industry.
You almost certainly received part of your compensation as stock or stock options. You can hold onto your shares and receive dividends long after you have left the company you contributed to.
Residuals are like equity in a movie or film, rather than a company.
As the other poster stated, you get what you negotiate for. If you don't negotiate for those secondary payments then you don't get them. It's right to argue when it's "right or wrong" for those payments but you can argue whether it's fair.
The corporations take on the risk but when it pays the payout isn't fairly distributed. It unfairly goes to the top players who didn't take any risk on because they are seperate from the corporation.
Also just because you don't get any doesn't mean nobody else should. You can try and negotiate that with your employer if you want. If you keep that mentality then you're only bringing everyone else down to your level. We should be elevating each other. That mentality is just jealousy and it will keep you where you are.
Sure, but when the risks the capital takes are so low & long-term as in showbusiness (everything got consolidated af), and the payouts so huge compared to cost (especially excluding like top 5 most payed ppl on the project) ... you might think that the negotiations weren't made fairly on equal grounds.
Otherwise, if there were meaningful risks, the corps would have no problem sharing (=lowering) that risk at least with immediate stakeholders/workers. I bet most writers would take minimal or no pay to get in on the profits (that can last decades). Most writers work on several projects a year so so if business risks would be actually important, lowering them via lower initial costs for shared uncertain future profits would be a win-win scenario.
I think you're missing a detail here, which is that before streaming was a thing writers would make significant amounts of their money by getting a show syndicated on a network, that was the whole deal. Streaming is being treated differently, effectively resulting in then receiving a very large pay cut because even if they make a successful show the payout doesn't come.
And it's true they could structure things so that they don't receive a secondary payout, but their base salary was negotiated with that later payout in mind. You and I don't receive secondary payouts for our work, but our salary is also adjusted to recognize that.
So, I am an engineer/scientist. Products that I have developed/contributed to development are used by billions of people. Most likely you, the reader of this comment are using it right now, because some of the products I worked on are telecom products, that are widely used to transfer information.
You're an employee, actors are (generally) independent contractors so the comparison breaks down. Most people who don't understand the situation have been making this comparison.
The closer analogy for you would be if you, as an independent engineer, created a library that Oracle licensed instead of bought. Something they are bundling into their latest database server.
Should you, as a developer, take less per unit because Oracle starts selling through a new channel? Say the Windows app store instead of through their website directly?
I mean, it's ok if you feel like that's ok but I don't think most people would agree with you when they really understand what's going on.
The unions gave the studios a sweetheart deal in the infancy of streaming so that it wouldn't smother in the crib. Now that it's profitable, don't the artists and writers deserve the same level of compensation for streaming as they get through other channels? Not more, just the same.
Who is getting money from your work? Do they deserve it? More than you?
Having the good fortune to have money earlier shouldn't entitle someone to more money later. Investors are important, but shouldn't be allowed to have all of the benefit.
Do you get stock RSU, Stock options, or other in incentive for general success? For writers residuals are more directly tied to their work. And there's a bit of a difference in terms of residuals being understood as part of the upfront contract risk/reward.
I worked on products that many Lemmy users are using to read and post. I don't expect residuals because that's not how my industry was built / ever worked.
Writers are in an industry that previously paid them every time their work made money. That's the difference.
I'm an engineer too.
You're an idiot, we should get paid more, the money goes to the moron marketing druids, not the ones who actually make/patent things like us.
You don't seem smart enough to be a very good engineer, but then again you typed this almost certainly using tech I worked on.
Engineers are absolutely the shittest negotiators. They bring so much fucking value and are happy to get a mug and a pat on the back for inventing something that makes a company millions. Compare that to sales where often the top performer can make close to the CEOs pay.
Bootlicker spotted...
Don't ask why they should be getting pay pay outs.... Ask why you aren't!
Writers don't get paid engineer salaries.
Bcs taking someone's work & capitalize on it just because the original worker didn't have the means to do so ... some people might see as immoral in a lot of cases.
One of the cornerstones of capitalism tho.
Also note the huge difference scales, bcs it matters a lot: if you sell a peace of tech, or business, or property at fair price (like dcf or whatever), then you already got compensated justly or as close to that as possible with the information available at the time. But if you were forced to sell at an arbitrary fixed rate bcs the buyer forced you into it from their position of power over you (and made a huge profit in a short amount of time from that) ... you might feel different about the situation.
Like, even your, if you would be able to get secondly payouts, would you not collect them?
Also, if the negotiations & payout would be fair, the strike would not make financial sense for any party, or have an effect on the business.
Ooh boy you’re gonna get the “anyone rich is evil give me free stuff because you have more” mob all animated.
But you’re right. They have a contracted rate to do a job (good or bad, fair or not). It makes for a flashy headline to say “look what the downstream revenue was”.
Only 14% of SAG members made enough money this year to get health insurance. Similar is true for the WGA. The low income economy that industry is fueled by only ever worked because of the residual system.
Okay you weren't picked for any shows the past three months but that's okay because your residuals cover rent and health insurance.
Not anymore, because the streamers refuse to pay residuals.
You couldn't make a less informed comment about this affair if you tried, really. There was an existing system, companies took advantage of a loophole in that system to profit more and give execs massive pay days whilst giving the people who did all the work nothing, and now the people who did all the work are refusing to work until they get paid again.
I don't know what people like you are hoping to achieve here other than demonstrate a profound level of dumbassary.
Instead of making up a scenario in your head and then getting riled up over it, why don’t you read the level headed and educated responses that have been written?
Didn’t the writers get paid a salary during the production?
yes, they sure did, but not enough, because at the time they accepted their last labor agreement, they were being paid when the studios and producers were selling their work on in other distribution avenues covered by that agreement, and now they studios are selling them on in other avenues of distribution which weren't covered by that agreement, and aren't compensating them for it.
It's really not that difficult of a concept. It's all in the employment agreement you work under.
I get why this is something that comes to mind but the idea is changing the way things are done to pay the labour more of the value of the product they produce.
It's basically just updating their agreement to work with streaming and other new avenues to make it the same way it worked for them on network TV before.
