Writer's Guild Going on Strike

Paul F said:
I don't mind the minimum wage not being a 'livable wage'. There should be 'filler' jobs suitable for people just getting started or wanting part time work. But even $15/hr ($31,000/yr) is going to leave you with $25,700 after taxes (in CA) or $500/week. No one but a kid living at home can do anything with $500/wk.
Click to expand...
I’m curious, does anyone in California actually work
for that type of wage? (Obviously high school students
or part timers, as you said it makes sense for.)

One thing to remember though is not everywhere is
California (or Alaska) and hugely expensive. I’m
assuming California’s state minimum wage is much
higher than the federal one? There are still some
places that you could live on $15/hr. But expensive
states certainly have no excuse for not having a
higher minimum wage. Where I live employers
are offering about twice the state’s minimum wage
and still having problems finding people. Heavy
inflation in the last few years. I could see the logic
in having minimum wage tied to inflation too.
 
Each county has its own minimum wage. The lowest being $17.50 in Alameda (east bay, San Francisco) and the highest being $18.50 in Mountain View (silicon valley). The average rent in Mountain View is $3280/month. So you and a room mate could share an apartment and have $2670/month left over after paying rent. If four of you got together, you all would have $8600 of hard cold cash after paying rent. Oh, but that's not including taxes.
 
The pain continues. Between heavy losses in the streaming market, a 14.5% raise for actors and other increased benefits, we can expect to see more of this - This past week, Bob Iger announced that Disney would be targeting cost savings of nearly $7.5 billion and reducing its content spending by approximately 20% from two years ago.

The strike settlement will have a short-lived celebration. It's unfortunate that the streaming bubble is in decline.
 
If anyone's interested, it looks like there's a flash sale for the publication Puck, which bills itself as "The inside conversation at the nexus of Wall Street, Washington, Silicon Valley & Hollywood."

Use the discount code ZAZ21

https://puck.news/join/?_cio_id=f6c...ource=customer.io&utm_term=f6c60612ed66cee121

John Brawley recommended to me a newsletter that is published there called What I'm Hearing by Matthew Belloni. It's sort of inside baseball in Hollywood dealmaking. He vouched for the quality of the reporting: https://puck.news/newsletter_conten...-a-i-fight-zaz-blowback-awards-shows-blues-2/

It's sort of academic to me since I don't work in filmmaking proper, but nevertheless of great interest.
 
Yes, nice. Cable will have nothing worth watching and the Wardiscoparaisneyflix company will offer a $150/month subscription.
 
Tom Roper said:
Now read Zaslav's Q2 2023 Earning Call and tell me again how cost savings during the strike isn't paying forward.


Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD) Q3 2023 Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...

I mean, I think savings during the strike are pretty much a zero sum game? "Woo-hoo! We saved all this money! Uh oh, we've got nothing new to show people. Quick, greenlight extra productions!"

I sort of thought the cost-cutting measures they're referring to are all the canceling of shows/movies, selling off of assets, and layoffs. Zaslav has earned a grim reaper-like reputation.

But the original debate about strike-related savings was that they would enable the AMPTP to hold out and break the strikers. That clearly didn't happen.

I'm not sure this merger will clear regulators. In the past, I wouldn't have doubted it. But we're seeing a lot of antitrust action lately, especially against Google and Amazon. (Long overdue, in my opinion.)

I think the bundling makes sense. Streamers can bundle services together and offer you a bigger package at a favorable rate. But they're still competing against each other, so the customer is less likely to get screwed.

I don't buy the idea that they need to be big to compete with Netflix. I think Netflix has excellent diversification of its offerings. But a smaller streamer should.be able to do that on a smaller scale or go in a different direction and specialize.
 
ahalpert said:
I mean, I think savings during the strike are pretty much a zero sum game? "Woo-hoo! We saved all this money! Uh oh, we've got nothing new to show people. Quick, greenlight extra productions!"
Click to expand...

I think of it more like the strategic petroleum reserve, they were able to draw down on some of the reserve to replenish later. screens did not go dark on any of 500 channels, shopping, reality, sports, reruns. Many people would not have noticed a difference. There was a time when the broadcast day was 2 or 3 channels 6:00am to midnight.

I sort of thought the cost-cutting measures they're referring to are all the canceling of shows/movies, selling off of assets, and layoffs. Zaslav has earned a grim reaper-like reputation.
Click to expand...

In as much as you count perception as reality that could be true but I see it as just business. Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and Vanderbilt were known for their grim reaper reputations as well.

But the original debate about strike-related savings was that they would enable the AMPTP to hold out and break the strikers. That clearly didn't happen.
Click to expand...

It's "clearly" naive to believe 20th century strike breaking was ever a goal. The strikers see it as "us vs them" but they elected to take 6 months unpaid leave, bargain for a better deal, which I'm not sure they got. I do not believe they were represented well, but if they are happy that's all that matters. They were not locked out. The Pinkerton's were not hired. It was not strike breaking. This strike ended the same as every modern collective bargaining settlement, with the strikers declaring victory and management saying it's a good deal for everyone.

I'm not sure this merger will clear regulators. In the past, I wouldn't have doubted it. But we're seeing a lot of antitrust action lately, especially against Google and Amazon. (Long overdue, in my opinion.)

I think the bundling makes sense. Streamers can bundle services together and offer you a bigger package at a favorable rate. But they're still competing against each other, so the customer is less likely to get screwed.

I don't buy the idea that they need to be big to compete with Netflix. I think Netflix has excellent diversification of its offerings. But a smaller streamer should.be able to do that on a smaller scale or go in a different direction and specialize.
Click to expand...

This could be true but the shareholders expect movement through growth and earnings, not just gamely competition, within the bounds of law.
 
Regardless of our views, the annual reports for the next couple of years will tell the real story. I didn't read much into Zaslav's pontificating about paying down debt. 2022 was a significant financial disaster. The 2023 report is due out soon. I'm looking forward to reading the financials. Even then, that report won't tell us much. It's more what happens in 2024.
 
It's these headlines that tell the story. Strike or not, people are going to be out of work.

"Netflix Is Slowing Down Film Production in New Strategy"
"Netflix set for slowest revenue growth as ad plan struggles to gain traction"
"Disney is slowing down when it comes to making movies and TV series for its Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm franchises"
"Apple TV+ and Paramount+ are considering bundling their streaming services as media companies seek answers to streaming profitability"
 
Paul F said:
...I didn't read much into Zaslav's pontificating about paying down debt. 2022 was a significant financial disaster.
Click to expand...

What I should have read into it is that they didn't produce product so the only thing they could do with subscriber money is pay down debt. That's not a good story for stockholders from a company that lost $7 billion last year and as of Q3 2023, is losing subscribers.

Losing subscribers and losing money? How do you recover from that? Oh, I know, bundle two streaming services like Apple and Paramount are consdidering. Oh, that will work.
 
Last edited:
Tom Roper said:
I think of it more like the strategic petroleum reserve, they were able to draw down on some of the reserve to replenish later. screens did not go dark on any of 500 channels, shopping, reality, sports, reruns. Many people would not have noticed a difference. There was a time when the broadcast day was 2 or 3 channels 6:00am to midnight.
Click to expand...

Screens didnt go dark because it takes at least 6 months to shoot and edit most things. So, the drop in revenue lay ahead.

In as much as you count perception as reality that could be true but I see it as just business. Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and Vanderbilt were known for their grim reaper reputations as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on the merits of Zaslav's strategy. I'm just saying that when they talk about cost savings and paying down debt, I thought they were principally referring to his campaign of cost-cutting which has been aggressive and began when he took over.

It's "clearly" naive to believe 20th century strike breaking was ever a goal. The strikers see it as "us vs them" but they elected to take 6 months unpaid leave, bargain for a better deal, which I'm not sure they got. I do not believe they were represented well, but if they are happy that's all that matters. They were not locked out. The Pinkerton's were not hired. It was not strike breaking. This strike ended the same as every modern collective bargaining settlement, with the strikers declaring victory and management saying it's a good deal for everyone.
Click to expand...

Even financial newspapers called the outcome a victory for unions, albeit not the resounding victory of the UAW. By breaking the strike i meant that if the union turned down a deal and then later accepted it (or worse, accepted a worse deal or the original deal) because their membership caved because they could no longer hold out without paychecks but the company could hold out because cash flow was positive for them... I thought that was the original theory of strike savings benefiting the AMPTP.

This could be true but the shareholders expect movement through growth and earnings, not just gamely competition, within the bounds of law.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're arguing in favor of monopolization here. But the idea behind bundling is that it would lead to subscriber growth and staying power.
 
Paul F said:
It's these headlines that tell the story. Strike or not, people are going to be out of work.

"Netflix Is Slowing Down Film Production in New Strategy"
"Netflix set for slowest revenue growth as ad plan struggles to gain traction"
"Disney is slowing down when it comes to making movies and TV series for its Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm franchises"
"Apple TV+ and Paramount+ are considering bundling their streaming services as media companies seek answers to streaming profitability"
Click to expand...

People talk a lot about "zero interest rate phenomena" that occurred up until the recent spike in interest rates. Basically what free loans incentivized in industry. To some extent, I think that's what happened with streamer investments and their debt-fueled content competition. But now it's much more expensive to borrow to invest. Couple that with the inevitable demand to turn a profit and here we are.

Not to mention that actors and writers are a bit more expensive now. And Marvel tentpoles have been foundering at the box office.

But yeah, Matt Belloni on Puck wrote "What should be a time of relief and celebration as the SAG-AFTRA negotiations near their end is more akin to what soldiers experience in countless war movies—the horrors of battle are giving way to the equally grim reality of the new world for which they fought."

It's interesting to me that Netflix's ad-supported plan is struggling to gain traction. I know that FAST streamers (free ad-supported TV) are enjoying rapid growth. But maybe Netflix's ad plan is the worst of both worlds -- subscription fees and ads. The nice thing about FAST services is you don't need to sign up or make any commitment. I'm hoping that they may even chip away at longstanding piracy habits.
 
Paul F said:
What I should have read into it is that they didn't produce product so the only thing they could do with subscriber money is pay down debt. That's not a good story for stockholders from a company that lost $7 billion last year and as of Q3 2023, is losing subscribers.
Click to expand...

Paying down debt that was incurred to finance growth and expansion is the first priority for both credit holders and stockholders, just as it should be in our personal lives. If you actually read the entire Q3 earnings call transcript, you will read forward looking statements that the company places a higher focus on younger viewers and linear tv, news and sports, gaming and the primarily non-paying subscribers. The longer-term concern expressed is in navigating the continuing trend for declining ad revenues.
 
Holy canoli

Screenshot_20240107_180446_Chrome.jpg

According to axios,

The NFL made up 93 of the top 100 broadcast programs last year, according to a Sportico report citing Nielsen ratings. That's up from 82 last year and 72 in 2020.

Why it matters: As on-demand content moves to streaming, live TV events — especially sports — are the only thing left that can draw huge swaths of Americans together at the same time.
Click to expand...

Broadcast is becoming synonymous with NFLTV
 
This is really crazy to me because that 2023 bar is about as accurate as it could possibly get for my own viewing habits and I would never expect it to be the same for so many others.
 
NorBro said:
This is really crazy to me because that 2023 bar is about as accurate as it could possibly get for my own viewing habits and I would never expect it to be the same for so many others.
Click to expand...

Shockingly, you are not unique. Or even uncommon:evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top