ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Rattner discusses the Hollywood actors and writers strike and the industry changes and concerns driving the strike.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: on.msnbc.com/Su...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/...
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/...
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: on.msnbc.com/Re...
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersTH-cam
Find MSNBC on Facebook: on.msnbc.com/Li...
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: on.msnbc.com/Fo...
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: on.msnbc.com/In...
Steve Rattner: Why the Hollywood strike is proving so intractable
#Hollywood #Strike #Streaming
There's a certain irony that I'm watching this summary about streaming services on TH-cam and not MSNBC itself
I was thinking the same thing!
LOL!
Same! I'm watching on TH-cam and not on MSNBC
I was thinking the same thing...and I'm also using an ad blocker
@@theSl33p3r62 Same here. I haven't seen an ad in literally years. Once they stop being intrusive and, in many cases, insecure, I'll consider letting limited ads through my blocker.
Let's see the graph of CEO pay laid over the traditional media companies stock value
THIS^
Thank you! I just posted something similar
Don’t recall where I heard this, but someone said (in the past week) that if each of these company’s CEOs gave up 2% of their salary, this would be over.
@@sassysls1851 yep. The america that emerged during or after the '80's (where conservatives brainwashed americans and brits that extremely little regulation was good bcuz somehow ppl would simply rationally behave as if a utopia of sorts) has rotted to the core over the 40 years. Time's up on this decadent economcally -destructive social experiment, with socially disruptive homelessness in the US, 70K deaths from Fentaynl alone in 2021-- i mean ffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Touche'! 🤺
Kinda hard to feel bad for the streaming services when the CEO is making 200mill a year.
Well we all know that won't happen. What will happen is the streaming services will raise their prices to pay the higher residue fees, which will lead to less subscribers, which will lead to less residue fees. It's like saying we aren't making enough money to pay our employees a living wage, so we'll raise prices, but then people stop buying. There's a fine line to this all and the rich have too much power in our society. They won't ever give up a bit of that power or money. That will be what eventually brings down this great nation.
Kinda hard to feel bad for actors when the top actors makes more than CEOs.
@@Andy-oy3yg apparently math is pretty out of your mental realm: the vast majority of actors literally just scrape by, and i mean actors with regular work! Your ignorance is probably bot produced or just new-conservative-merica-idjit produced, or auto-trolls funded by rightwingers/russians/chinese
@@Andy-oy3yg There are more CEOs making tens of millions than there are actors making more than you. The conglomerates stonewalling won't last long if the best astroturf they can put out is like you... But we already knew the studios forgot how to read or reach people
@@heyaisdabomb Tax the rich. Before Reagan and Trickldown a 90% top rate on tens of millions in income served to discourage the rich from squeezing every dime out of us. It prevented the 1% from hoarding money out of the economy (and Reagan letting them resume it caused recessions because pulling money from consumption economies will always do that...). Basically they could drop a few tax brackets by reinvesting in their companies or donating most of it (just less than 90% of it) to a small number of carefully chosen real non profits like colleges and hospitals. Money that they *had* to reinvest made them the most return as higher pay and lower prices erasing absurd executive pay disparity, providing living wages for all AND actually preventing inflation that the Chicago Economic theory (AKA Supply Side or Trickldown) was founded to convince us will always result from higher pay. Naturally paid for by the wealthy who were spending the 70s sabotaging that top rate with extra loopholes allowing them to fund BS think tanks spreading propaganda instead of sharing the wealth.
Bottom line is there are dozens of major corporations so badly run the only reason they can still turn a profit at all is that they treat their workers and even their customers as crush zones that can absorb all the costs of their poor leadership. Except we're pretty much at our limits and can't be squeezed enough to cover for the incompetence at the top. But if we tax them then they lose the incentive to so ruthlessly exploit us. It's worked before and this time we'd know how to keep them from sabotaging it again.
"Super committed" to coming to an agreement? Last week, they said they would "Starve" the people on strike out.
I'm getting closer every day to cancelling Netflix.
Super committed to ending the strike by destroying organized labor...
@@kamalohimOrganized labor needs to be destroyed
@@DemonDog444 Only the ones where they provide, actual, critical services.
The rest, who cares!?
@@DemonDog444 wealth inequality is what needs to be destroyed, my man.
What if we took the CEOs paycheck and put it somewhere else
I just pay no money for the horrible films and series today
There is only one CEO. There are many actors. They can be replaced by the guy standing behind him in line easily. The CEO, not so much.
@@TRAILERSallthetime Most of the CEOs aren't doing very good and should have never been hired.
We could also take SOME of the actors and writer's checks. If we're talking multi-millionaires, Brad Pitt and Dwayne Johnson are high on that list right next to David Zaslav and Bob Iger. Even your average Hollywood writer makes $200 000+ which isn't exactly below the poverty level. I mean I'd be less inclined for the writers to take a paycut but if we're looking at helping out the "little guy", those writers making $200 000+ aren't it.
@@orlock20 It's their empire, the writers and actors are just living in it.
Well, since the decision makers are having trouble adapting to market changes, their bonuses should be eliminated until they adjust and innovate and right the ship.
💯🔥💯🔥💯🔥
It's the same story everywhere, isn't it?
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses
🤬
I don't know if they are having trouble adapting rather they all are older, come from an old system where they have benefited and are incentivized to keep things as is
@@weird-guythey have, perhaps the better solution is commercials.
@@weird-guy You're conflating a few different things. The beef is with the studios, who create the content, and with the distribution model, like Netflix. Netflix also became a studio by directly creating the content too. The streaming platforms make a ton of money. The studios make a ton of money. They are sort of in cahoots b/c their distribution contracts aren't the same as with previous syndication. Streaming can certainly raise prices (and likely they will continue doing so for their own profitability) but I don't think that would end up going to actors or writers anyway.
It’s INSANE that Hollywood puts the blame on the actors and writers like it’s their fault for the streaming services.
JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EMPLOYER. Even more so with all the small players that contribute to the movie business, of which there are thousands. Many people take less money just to be involved in 'The Business', but enough is enough. They need to get PAID.
@@jamespardue3055 couldn’t of said it any better!! I 100% Agree!
I am not on the side of the streaming companies, but honest Streaming services is not lucrative businesses but it's what the customers want. So, in reality, the customers are the ones driving this change. Until people are willing pay more, or have less streaming, there needs to be a way for these streaming services to bring in more profit. The only thing I am really baffled is the pay of the top executives who rolled out the streaming services are still getting paid by millions that don't add up... so, if the actors and writers aren't getting paid by much, then the top executives who rolled out the streaming services, shouldn't get all of the pay.
Streaming isn't even the problem, if TH-cam can track views, why can't Netflix?
World changes with time. Internet put lots of printed media out of business, newspapers, bookstores…etc. Streaming is an entirely new business model. So far only Netflix is profitable and it’s from bleeding money for years. It is ridiculous and obscene how CEOs of large corporations get paid so much more and there should be a limit but that doesn’t change the fact the industry is changing. It might no longer be a sustainable career path. I don’t think the strikes will yield anything meaningful unfortunately. Streaming is passive and these companies have tons of existing contents to last them awhile without any new contents. On the other hand, how long can actors and writers go without income? So time is definitely not on the striker’s side.
It's not intractable. The very, very rich could and should let their greed aside and concede.
Let's state the obvious: it's exactly like a lot of economy experts are saying. If corporations keep this rate of greed, soon there will be NO ONE left to make them very, very rich in the first place.
Greed is a disease. There's a HUGE difference between ambition and greed; between growth and greed. You DON'T need greed to be ambitious and grow.
Greed is the ongoing mass extinction event. Greed is the apocalypse.
Greedy right-wingers can't stop crying about what they call "wokeness". That's funny because there's NO wokeness happening at all.
The world sleeps while greed consumes it whole.
This!
@@Kc-dq7zj Thanks! ❤️
@@paulolima6407Probably the most intelligent comment I ever read on a mainstream news outlet post. 👍
Historically the rich will push things so far that no amount of money will be able to save them from what they've got coming.
I am stealing the part about “greed is an ongoing mass extinction event” and pretending I came up with it on my own 😂
Singer Peggy Lee sued for residuals after the movie "Lady and the Tramp" was released on VHS. She said the technology did not exist when she made the movie. She won the lawsuit.
I think the actors and writers have a hard time believing the studios are having difficult financial times with record executive pay in recent years. Just to show how tone-deaf the studios are Disney CEO Bob Iger just signed a new contract paying $27 million a year yet is arguing they are justified in paying writers and actors less. This is just one example.
And he's not even the worst offender, just look at the Warner Bros. CEO pay
CEOs being overpaid is nothing new. That's been going on for a century or three.
@@MrBrock314 Yeah but THIS century is when it went from 75 times a regular employees's pay to 600 times.
That $27 million a year is half of what Iger’s pay used to be under the old contract.
@@MyToranja At least Iger took a hefty pay cut. That’s about half of what it was under the old contract.
of course NBC universal is going to say striking actors and writers are bad lol
He said "writers and directors" twice. The directors got their deal really quick. The writers and actors are on strike.
Ouch. More than twice. I heard him do it a third time.
@@sandal_thong8631I have no idea how this guy is on TV. He has negative charisma.
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT ARTISTS. Let the greedy CEOs of Hollywon't burn. 🔥🔥🔥
"Reflect upon the Past.
Embrace your Present.
Orchestrate our Futures." --Artemis
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end.
Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins.
Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed.
In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled.
But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain,
We must see all in nothingness...
Before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
@@arabwaluigi5248 Qualifications. Misspeaking aside, he's qualified.
Facts to them 🥴
This is where Sony comes out on top amongst the major Hollywood studios. For good reason, they clearly decided against starting their own streaming service, most likely because they saw the market was too crowded and that it wasn't all that profitable. Instead, they have made the smart decision to license their movies and TV shows out to other streaming platforms, i.e. Netflix and Disney Plus. Clearly, Sony saw that the real profit to be made from streaming services was in licensing, rather than running their own streaming service, which hasn't worked out for virtually all the Hollywood studios.
I saw a graph of streaming services recently with one bar titled, "other" and must have included Peacock. Guess that one's got to go. Maybe companies like NBC and Paramount can invest or reinvest in Hulu and make that one of the Big Three or Four which includes their content.
Just went back and found 1. Amazon Prime , 2. Netflix, 3. Max (maybe), 4. Disney+, 5. Hulu, 6. Paramount+, 7. Apple, 8. Other.
This. I loved that in the early days of Netflix as a streamer, I could find a range of shows there and I only had one streaming fee to pay. Then everyone built their own streamers and pulled their content back out. So now I rotate my payments because there’s no way I’m paying for all of those when I can barely find enough time to watch. I’d love to know the economics around more studios and rights holders potentially reverting to a situation where they license out their catalogues instead. As it is, HBO and Paramount don’t even keep their own original shows on their own streamers so as to avoid paying residuals. So then why am I subscribing if I can’t get your full catalogue? It’s really become a circus.
@@carolineneisha Not to criticise you, but I find it strikingly odd how so many people seem to think it was better to have just one streamer, i.e. Netflix, where all content was hosted. Because for a while now, one of the criticisms of The Walt Disney Company has been that they're too big; that they have too large a share of the movie industry. But I'm having a difficult time reconciling this anti-monopoly sentiment directed at Disney, with the pro-monopoly sentiment expressed in favour of Netflix.
I understand why there is a preference for a monopoly in streaming: it's convenient to the consumer. But anyone who takes that position is technically in endorsing a monopoly. And I just can't agree with it.
@@Ngamotu83 I hear that. I’m not actually advocating for a return to a monopoly situation, but certainly not one where there are too many streamers, almost all of whom are losing money while top execs get paid well and the majority of actual creators don’t. I’d love to know the economics around it, but for me having 3-4ish streamers who either consolidate their libraries and/or compete for licensing the content catalogues of the major studios would be much more sustainable. Studios make rather than lose money, streamers gain exclusive content that attracts subscriptions, consumers have choice, and creators reach an agreement around fairer residuals. My frustration is that nobody is benefiting right now: not studios, streamers, creators, or viewers. I don’t claim to know what the solution is given the way capitalism functions, but it’s not this.
HBO the channel relied upon Universal and 20th Century Fox for their movie programming until the agreements with those respective studios ended in 2021 and 2022, respectively. And the availability of the movies was only concurrent with the airing on HBO or HBO Max. The same thing applies now, but only for Warner Bros movies.
These streaming services "aren't making money" but how do we know that when they won't even release their numbers to the public? 🤔
The only ones making money are Netflix and Apple.
they release their numbers in quarterly and annual reports as required of publicly traded companies.
If they were not making money there wouldn't be so many of them.
@@noway1844 You never lived through the dotcom era, did you?
@@noway1844 not true. during Dot Com and other eras of new industries.. investors would provide funding to multiple startups in that industry in hopes that their company would take hold and eventually make a profit. When Netflix was the only real streaming service option, they had a kind of monopoly. Blockbuster tried to compete, but failed. and went bankrupt. Now some movie studios like Warner Brothers Disney, Paramount etc, which had no way to offer their movies online for streaming, had to take what Netflix offered them, NOw they are trying to do their own streaming services, and it is bleeding Netflix. And as those companies like Disney Apple, Paramount etc are starting out.. they are bleeding money too. There is a really interesting documentary on this story. Broadcast tv is dieing. I know no one that watches broadcast tv anymore.
Would love to see a chart of CEO and other executive salaries
I suspect it was 24x the pay of the basic worker ~1980, then 40x a few years later, and probably 256x now. We needed a salary cap in 1980 like for sports players.
@@sandal_thong8631 Unfortunately, it's antithetical to capitalist ideals or so capitalists like to say. Which is why that version of capitalism is really just called greed.
Pay the writers what they're worth! Pay them! Stop corporate greed!
If you want art or artistry, don't look at Hollywood.
@@12Nordsee Not anymore for sure.
As freda suggests, GREED has destroy the entire industry.
@@12Nordsee True. Factory filmmaking is at an all-time high.
Paying Hollywood writers what theyre worth = LOL
Have you seen a Hollywood movie recently? The writing is TERRIBLE!
Maybe they ARE paying them what theyre worth..... and theyre just not worth very much.
@@nottiification Bad timing for writers renegotiating contracts when people are criticizing the writing. But much of that is the decision of the execs who greenlight bad stuff, perhaps personified by James Gunn writing his own Superman movie for an additional paycheck, instead of hiring someone.
Oh for crying out loud. It's writers and actors on strike NOT directors. If Steve can't get that right, perhaps we need to question his math also.
Annoying as heck, but not a deal-breaker for what they're trying to inform us on.
All union members in the industry are shut down, indirectly if not directly. Drivers, caterers, camera, grip, electricians, wardrobe, prop and set people, makeup, directors and production - nobody union in film or TV is working. Sets are totally shut down. That's easily 185,000 people idled in NYC alone, maybe millions across the country. Just so you know, it's not only the actor and writer guilds that are on strike that are not working. It is all of us.
It’s funny how all the news organizations owned by these companies are trying to say that the studios ain’t got the money……
Right! They’re in on it with the owners.
It's not that they don't have any money, it's that they have less money. In essence, the actors and writers are fighting for a larger piece of pie when the pie is half missing. The people at the top who own the remaining most of pie have no desire to share it when it's decreasing. That would require a paycut, something which none of the people above want.
Just in the US, we have over 200 streaming services, most of them appeared within the last 5 years and ALL of them demanding subscriptions. The streaming bubble is on the verge of bursting because there is only so much the public is willing to spend. Theaters are not much of an option anymore because it costs too much and often a waste of time. Movies are averaging 50-300 million just to make, and EXPECT us to support them regardless of whether or not we like them. And the one thing the studios refuses to discuss is reducing the board members, directors, producers and actors' salaries.
I support the writers and the actors. The corporations changed the industry and must adapt contracts to fit those changes. They are the ones that went whole hog to streaming and created financial situations that may ruin them all. Meanwhile, they keep swinging for big products rather than creating smart and smaller media options. Like they said, we will end up with like 4 streaming services that look more like the cable model we all hated and ran from. Regardless, these companies will need new media to compete and new media comes from writers and actors.
Exactly! Well said!! 🔥🔥🔥
They're the ones who made decisions with such far reaching impacts, the contracts HAVE to change (and their version of "historic proposals" is a complete 180 of what working creatives mean)
Or said another way, studios now directly control the distribution of their product again (which is the whole reason for the Paramount anti-trust court case in 1948).
Hollywood wanted mass immigration and globalization. Well… now they have exactly that: less demand, more supply.
Corporations (and Society in general) don‘t owe them anything.
I mean, they can try and convince the multi-million dollar execs to give away their profits, but that's been futile for decades. Asking for a larger piece of a shrinking pie isn't exactly a winning strategy.
@@MrBrock314 Seems to be a winning strategy for the execs. Why?
5:43 - "the media companies have their own set of issues" OF THEIR OWN MAKING.
Why exactly is it now my talented friends and coworkers' fault that these conglomerates spend like crazy, buy each other and shower gold on their CEOs like there's no tomorrow??
It isn't just CEOs who get showered on - it's not like the A-list actors and writers are hurting either. If we're ok with Brad Pitt and Dwayne Johnson making millions, Bob Iger and David Zaslav have just as important of a job.
Brutal, tough, competitive market. But somehow the CEO's keep getting richer.
Yes and the issues those media companies have was brought on by THEIR poor decisions and over confidence. Now they want the artists to shoulder the burden. When the uncreative lawyers began making all the decisions, this was inevitable.
Maybe the ceos don't need millions every year 🤔🧐
Maybe congress should change the tax code to generate more revenue and social welfare programs by going back to pre-Reagan era tax policies. Millionaires and Billionaires taxed at 90%.
Boom. Now we have heavily subsidized college, better welfare programs, and a culture shift on greed.
@@ColinPMcEvoy High taxes on wages doesn't hurt the rich. It only hurts middle class people trying to get rich. That's because most of the wealth that these rich people make is not W-2 income.
This is so mind blowing. I was born in 1956 where the "good ol' days" was watching television. . .FOR FREE. Cable and Streaming services. . .it's just out of control. I've cut the wire from cable years ago and I'm happy. I have Roku which costs me nothing except for the device.
You can still watch the same 3 networks you watched in 1956 over air for free by law.
Don't you have to pay for your internet connection to use a Roku Box?
@@johnmoore6853 you do, but in his defense, if you already need internet in your home for other stuff the internet might be a necessity. But it's not exactly "free" either.
@@johnmoore6853 Yes. Internet bill is $40/month. Originally $70/month but I get a senior citizen discount
@@washo2222 OK thanks All. I wasn't sure how it works
I hope the strike never ends. No more actors or writers, no more silly movies or TV shows. I prefer this.
Ringland. tvOS. Show
I legit want to see the timeline where there are no new American Hollywood productions. Maybe we will go back to cable TV.
The latest right wing talking point is that high paid actors should take a pay cut. Notice how they don’t ask CEOs to take a pay cut.
they should both take a pay cut. It is certainly not right-wing to criticize entitled, overpaid and often talentless actors
so now an emotionless overacting actor will should be kept getting high pay with production profit, stock profits, etc etc. but the CEO is an EVIL demon for his profit gain.
The fault is in the ceos and companies, not the workers.
It doesn't matter because in a decade or two AI will be good enough to make a TV show for individuals just based on a couple of sentences. AI can already make scripts, music and still images.
@@orlock20 That depends if you consider "making" the same as copy and paste. As sophisticated as AI is, it doesn't create, it copies. It may copy from a LOT of different sources but it's not truly creating something new - it's a mashup the same way a mix CD is a mashup.
Computer code is an algorithm - you put in an order and out comes the result. Fancy code means fancy results but it's still an algorithm with predetermined endings. AI still doesn't have the ability to truly create from scratch.
What it does is mimic creation by copying very quickly. So you can tell ChatGPT to make a story involving a castle, Spain and two cowboys and it will write something very quickly. But, if you were a literary analyst, you'd realize it was either a) copying the style of several existing authors OR b) creating a story using a well-known method very much the same way you create Madlibs by inserting nouns, adjectives, etc but with a much better algorithm for making sense.
Is that new? Yes and no. It's new the same way Madlibs is new every time you play it. But if by new, does it invent a new genre? a new storytelling method? Unique characters heretofore unheard of? No, it can't do that because that would require original thought which AI doesn't have.
@@MrBrock314 Procedurals are the same story with slight tweaks and are very popular. Just look at all those popular lawyer dramas where the guy arrested didn't commit the crime Game shows and reality shows are basically procedurals too. AI can do those things just as well as any real human.
@@MrBrock314I agree with Orlock here. A good story writer will have a story to tell regardless of how it comes about. (Most of the stuff they try to feed us is recycled low quality "content" anyway.) Good storytellers won't have to focus on bringing their story to life as much as they'll need to worry about having a GOOD story. All I see currently with all these strikes is the opportunity for some small teams to swoop in and make a killing while everyone else is waiting for something to change.
Industries are dependent on everyone in the chain from execs and shareholders who provide the money and management to the support people on all levels who keep the production going to have a product at the end.
It all starts to break when we decide who gets what. Must always remember that every single job is important to the whole. It’s not meant to be a get rich quick scheme for the ones at the top.
Top exec culture must correct itself to remember they have nothing tangible without all the workers
I'm not sure where you've been for the last 100 years but it's ALWAYS been a get rich quick scheme for those at the top and those aspiring to get there. "15 minutes of fame" didn't become an expression by accident. "Overnight TikTok sensation" "Viral TH-cam video" Do these sound like "hard work pays off" schemes to you?
One thing is not mentioned is that you can stream the traditional channels and cable ones, through TH-camTV for instance, so there’s overlap as well. This is a huge indictment on the cable industry and the outrageous prices they charged, and also the quality of the content.
free R Kelly
Perhaps. But as soon as you pay for three streaming services, you're paying as much as you used to pay for cable. And with cable you'd get 300-500 channels.
@@RobertFalconer1967 not necessarily, because you can share accounts, and just TH-camTV without any other streaming suffices, plus if you have Amazon prime for your purchases, you get that streaming too. Nobody needs 300 to 500 channels, and many of them you’d have to pay extra for anyway.
Meanwhile, in countries like South Korea, what happened was the media companies saw this happening years ago and acted on it.
Mainstream TV networks like KBS, MBC, and SBS invested heavily on their dramas, then exported them abroad, setting off the Korean wave alongside the 1st Gen K-Pop groups. Then cable TV networks like tvN and JTBC followed suit in the 2010s, and since they have less broadcasting regulations, they now have freedom to experiment with new genres and storylines.
When streaming became more popular, all of these networks pushed to have their shows to be on streaming apps like Netflix, Disney+, and Coupang Play. Which means they had a massive advantage when COVID hit, because they have a presence in every media platform.
@@RobertFalconer1967what kind of streaming services are you looking at? 😆 They don't cost that much.
Why not have representatives from both unions on to discuss this? They could tell Joe and Mika that the studios rushing into streaming and running into profit problems is not relevant to their legitimate issues.
Instead, you have a paid contributor who’s checks are signed by NBC Universal saying how the studios are “poor”.
Great points!!!
* also, _whose_ checks..
Right, the CEO of Disney and WB convinced everybody to go to streaming. Keep telling yourself that. Don't pay any attention to what happened before the streaming revolution - aka the world's biggest age of piracy. Studios moved to streaming because the public was already going there illegally.
Broadcast and cable have been going the way of the dodo for 20 years, sped up by the legit switch to streaming which has reduced piracy dramatically. The same thing Spotify did for songs.
Its not JUST writers and directors who get residuals its EVERYONE who worked on that project. From the Actors down to the hair and makeup, costume, etc.
Thats not quite correct. Contractual crew members do not qualify for residuals. Only writers, directors, producers and actors ( known as "above the line")
@ShootingArrows not everyone on a set is contractual. If they're on a union set then most if not all people on that set are union members too and get residuals from an episode of series they participated in. I know a SAG actress currently on strike and I'm getting my info from her when we were talking about how these streaming services are now taking series or movies off their app to avoid paying residuals. She said her makeup artist no longer gets a residual from the show.
@RoseStarr Interesting. I work in the industry in South Africa and we all are on contracts. We do not have unions this side. Does residuals always form part of compensation on contract if you are part of a union in the US?
@@ShootingArrows Residuals are not part of unions. Book authors get residuals but they aren't necessarily part of a union (some are but most aren't).
@@RoseStarr I'd heard about them removing content from streaming which seems counter-intuitive since they'd want a lot of content to keep viewers. If residuals are tied to the subscribers and not the views then it would make sense to remove stuff people aren't watching.
Reminds me of Blockbuster Video store where they only had so much shelf space, so used it for the big hits; if you wanted something old or obscure you had to go to a mom-and-pop rental operation or buy it.
You saw how he skipped over the AI part. The companies want to scan the background actors' images and voices with a one-time payment and free use of their likeness. So think Avitar technology in TV and movies from a handful of actors to non.
I have seen comments on why do actors / writers get paid residuals (royalties) in the first place because they film the movie / show just the one time, so why should they get paid perpetually. They don't understand that each time a show is aired on broadcast / rerun / syndication / online rental, the network that airs it gets NEW money from that activity, so logically, portions of this NEW money goes back to the creator as income. In streaming, only the streamers know exactly what the streaming activities are and how are they attributed to subscriptoin money. This transparency is NOT released to the actors / writers and so there is no accountability to share streaming revenue with them. This is what needs to change.
We can only hope for a very long strike. There is so much content out there already with some of it very good. Will many people miss the current content that was being produced? I don't think many will miss it. I even forgot that there was a strike underway.
How is streaming a money loser when Netflix is pulling 1.6 to 4.5 billion a month? How much is their overhead? Someone is lying
People were freaking out about Netflix churn a year or so ago. Probably because employees got stock bonuses. They probably can control costs for only their exclusive content. People don't like it, but once new customer growth ended, they needed to cut back on friends sharing their plan. And of course piracy is still a problem.
The chart I want to see is the amount of money the higher-ups in these companies are making over time.
No point in torturing yourself - it won't get lower.
I literally miss the days when tbere was only 2-4 streaming services. The problems came when EVERYONE felt they needed their own exclusive streaming service
That's how capitalism works: if you see someone making money doing something, you make a calculation on whether you can get in on that, and how much market share you can get, along with what the price might drop to with another competitor (you) in the mix. When studios were getting snooty with Netflix, and they saw they might make their own streaming service(s), then Netflix felt they had to create their own exclusive content to keep subscribers. This made other services feel they had to make their own exclusive content too, raising costs. And if you wanted to see theirs, you might "churn". I imagine this might be what HBO did years ago, in making their own content rather than just being a platform for showing other companies' movies.
@@sandal_thong8631 Yep, Capitalism doesn't breed innovation. It breeds iteration.
Networks buy too much trash and duplicate shows. All of them need to trim the fat. Executives and producers need to focus on a fewer number of quality shows and people will gladly pay a premium for premium content. The entire industry needs to change from the ground up, because patching what exists is not going to work long term.
Or they'll return to piracy if they price is too high which is what people did before streaming.
Rattner neglected to mention another form of media that competes for eyeballs on TV screens, and that's video games. Sometimes I don't watch shows for days, even weeks, at a time. For a large number of folks, video games offer better storytelling and immersion compared to crap shows that have come out lately.
The very rich seem to have forgotten that starving the poor, increasing the poor, then heaping repercussions on them when they complain, is how they ended up with their heads in baskets...
i.e. The French Revolution.
@@weird-guy country doesn't matter when you're sick, hungry, and poor.
Let’s dump streaming platforms so CEO’s get kicked where it hurts them! These actors and writers are mostly MID-Low income workers. We need to support them
And go back to cable?
Good luck with that.
I don't support crappy writers, crappy shows, entitled actors, braindead super heroes, or the123rd prequel to Star Wars
Stop acting like most of these writers have made incredible scripts. Most are mediocre writers.
No don’t unsubscribe, the actors want them to reveal the numbers that the shows get
Kudos to Mr. Rattner for slipping "oligopoly" into a fluid, flawless analysis.
There's also the issue that many of the most highly rated shows on streaming, have a viewership that would have had those shows immediately cancelled as a a total write-off on a broadcast network
This is quite false. The highest-rated streaming shows way outpace broadcast shows. They just don't make any money for it. Squid game had a BILLION viewers. The only broadcast thing that competes with that is the Superbowl.
@@MrBrock314 The figures for Mad Men, Torchwood, Dirk Gently, to name a few of the bottom feeders, and even Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, are unimpressive. Yet cost a lot to make, per episode.
There's definitely going to be some consolidation, but the bigger issue is they've all been favoring quantity over quality. It doesn't help that Netflix has encouraged a binging business model. So all these companies have been spending wildly and getting little in return because they've been spending it on crap results which then gets consumed in a weekend. Of course when that kind of cash burn is the business model they're going to make less money. What makes Disney infuriating though is they have other revenue streams (ie parks & cruises) which are historically profitable but they too appear to be mismanaged (ie Galactic Starcruiser). I think the comparison to the airlines is unfair though - the airlines have pretty much always been unprofitable, but the same cannot be said of media as a whole.
what this overview fails to cover is that the CEOs are the ones that decided to follow this new business model, it was not a decision made by the performers and artists. The studios are not willing to take the consequences of their own decisions and instead feel that they should take from the labour.
The work the labour does has not changed, why are they expected to pay the bills for the decision made by the CEO? I thought you get to be at the top because you are willing to take the risk.
Cuz ur not the boss. Duh.
The bigger streaming companies other than Netflix, like Amazon (Prime), Alphabet (TH-cam) and Apple (Apple+), have very deep pockets and are not dependent on streaming for the lion's share of their revenue and profits.
Why should a company use it's non-streaming revenue to pay extra for the people producing it's streaming shows? That makes no sense.
@@Hedgehobbit Well some don't even pay their own workers a liveable wage, so might as well pay a part of your employees a liveable wage.
@@Hedgehobbit Steve Rattner stated correctly that the streaming companies are losing money right now. My point is that the larger corporations are able to invest today for future returns.
But even with those companies, their streaming platforms do need to be able to sustain themselves. Otherwise, they are just losing money for their companies. There's no incentive to keep those platforms alive if they can't turn a profit.
@@Ngamotu83 Yes, profits must come eventually. Losing money to win market share is not something new and startups usually don't turn a profit for many years. One extreme case that turned out pretty good is Amazon.
CEOs were telling their workers throughout the pandemic how much record profit was occurring-its not our fault CEOs lie every time they open their mouths trying to cry poverty conveniently when they have to return to the negotiation tables every 4 years. But these unintelligent CEOs with inflated salaries set up the dominoes to this streaming issue. They never understood the business in the first place and yet were at the wheel. They just thought it was a cash cow that would self run and they get to collect their inflated salary. Perhaps the CEOs should learn to run a better business and share the wealth this entire time instead of just giving themselves millions in bonuses every time a merger happens. Maybe they would have had more hit shows and loyal workers retaining the talent if they didnt cancel shows left and right- in the middle of production just to avoid paying residuals and the wage increases that come with more seasons. Spare us-just another media outlet trying to smush together a defense for CEOs. I wonder who's funding this channel?
Let's not pretend here that we don't know what happened. That CEOs were the ones trying to print money out only for their benefit to the point content was oversaturated and the intellectual property machine was pushed to pop these movies out really fast to save on money in result making this oversaturated library of sequels and prequels and done in low quality because they would rather run business this way or drink sewage than to ever pay everyone correctly and do a few high quality produced movies a year and not dozens of sorta okay movies a year. They stretched the workers too thin for too long. A strike was inevitable the way CEOs commandeered the business all these years screwing over the workers and unions.
I read that graph a bit differently. Yes, streaming is double either broadcast or cable by themselves, but taken together broadcast and cable are still ahead of streaming. And broadcast and cable are typically bundled together in households. So seen that way, it’s actually 51.4% vs 37.7%.
It's really interesting to see that only figures like 'advertising revenue' is hardly the revenue that streaming services usually have, is being shown here. Such a biased view. Great acting and storytelling is what makes a good show. They should cut down on CGI instead!
The same thing happened in the music industry. The record labels didn't plan for or adjust to streaming, so when it came time to cut costs to save their profits, they took the money from the artists.
Golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. The people at the top always make that choice.
Quality news reporting in this bit. Of course, maybe they should have mentioned the salaries that the big streaming execs are taking home in 2022 and 2023 to balance the story that "there's no money in streaming"
These streaming services are cheaper than cable which is why they are not bringing in enough money, they bring in stock value but not actual profit. I know people will hate this, but I think they will likely bring in a content creator fee of say $1 per month per subscription and divide that up by view time to the actors and writers who earn less then X from the project. That way the big earners such as producers and big actors don't get the majority of the pie.
15 streaming services is not cheaper than cable with 15 channels.
@macmcleod1188 cable with 15 channels is not really comparable to the amount of content from a streaming channel unless you like those channels. Besides people paid more then $15 for cable in the past, which is proven by how much more money cable companies brought in during that time. Cable companies brought in many times more revenue than streaming companies do today because people paid more for it. Most in the $60-$100 range.
Plus netflix is $7 per month with ads. Cable companies will charge you $5 a month just to pause the service.
@TheBestNameEverMade is just a fact we had a good deal with Netflix and then all the rights holders started about 15 different streaming channels.
None have enough content. You can binge/ finish a channel of quality content in 1 to 2 months.
@@weird-guy what you are describing is basically having 15 cable TV services.
Not many people can afford 500 bucks a month for cable TV.
@macmcleod1188 netflix never made cable TV money though although they are quite profitable still.
The reason everyone gave up cable is that they would never stop trying to raise the monthly fees on us; the only way to get a decent deal was to threaten to quit it altogether!
VERY nicely explained . I wish more news were like this.
Have them retrained to work at Starbucks like biden did the Oil, Mineral & Coal workers! 😂
Actually you're not far off. I lost my job at a magazine printing company 15 years ago when everything went digital. So I changed careers. Had no choice. These Hollywood people might want to think about changing careers. No joke
@@johnmoore6853I'm sorry to hear that John. I hope you found something you like doing?
@@josephsonora3787 Oh yes. I have been working at a chemical company since then. It was a strange transition. But something I had to do. I'm thinking that these Hollywood people may have to do the same. Not to sound nasty towards them but hey, Welcome to the Real World folks.
Problem is that with cable and streaming we all have stuff to watch for years!
In other words, with the sheer volume of entertainment, will any one of them be missed? Not really. If I didn't know there was a writers/actors strike, I wouldn't have noticed.
And story and qualify content for hours
I think Barry Diller had a great point when he mentioned the big reason these studios are losing money is BECAUSE the competition is creating runaway spend on the manufacturing side which then isn't actually justified by the viewership of these shows and movies.
The fact that the top 10% of actors make MORE MONEY than the top 10% of executives is never mentioned. Tom Cruise made over 100 million last year, did he work 1000 times harder than most crew members on Top Gun Maverick??? Or is it because he is an EP, just like the evil executives everyone is blaming of greed and wage theft??
Margot Robbie will likely make close that kind of money this year with Barbie, though less than a year ago she was in not 1 but 2 major box office disasters in 3 months that each lost 9 figures.
The reality that both of these insane comp packages have to come down in order to get budgets back into some kind of balance with the actual revenues the industry makes today, and stop pining for some past utopia that probably didn't exist back then either.
If the people at the top of the industry are creating such inflation to these budgets, of course the studios won't be profitable, which means less work for everyone who DOESN'T get residuals but still somehow manage to make a living when work is plentiful.
I support the workers wholeheartedly, but I don't support some workers making 1000 times what all the other people in the production are making. Star actors are basically doing exactly what the greedy execs are doing, they're just pretending to be the good guy while equally contributing to an unsustainable doom vortex of higher costs and lower revenue.
Those who are unfairly profiting from the work of others, whether behind the scenes C-suite execs or camera-facing, globetrotting influencers (sorry, "movie stars") should get with the program and in solidarity take a 25/35% pay cut. They'll still keep the lights on at the mansion and the budgets will be more realistic to the potential revenue these products are ACTUALLY generating under new consumer trends.
Gavin. Ringland. Can do it all this week but it all this info about it is going on with my. Ringland. Offers
Bottom line: lots of folks spend more time on TH-cam, Instagram, and TikTok than they do sitting down and watching a TV show on network television or a streaming series.
Once some people have binge watched Stranger Things, Wednesday Addams, Mandalorion, etc -they’re bored. Then they scroll through TikTok or watch vlogs on TH-cam. I’ve heard some of my coworkers say they don’t even watch TV. Less revenue for the actors/writers/studios. It’s the sad reality.
you are right, I do not watch TV shows any more, most of my viewing is on TH-cam or playing video games
@@777poco I heard some streaming shows are for binging when they come out, others are dropped weekly. I tried to watch a broadcast show or two, and they didn't air the next episode the next week. So I forgot about them. They want people to watch every week they need to air it every week, even if people are out of town or preoccupied, then just air the "missed" episode before the current one like AMC's _The Walking Dead_ used to do.
A few years back three broadcasters (NBC, HBO & AMC) aired three sci-fi shows the same night (Sunday) at the same time (9PM) and said "watch our show live." Yeah right. I think they were _Timeless, Westworld,_ and _The Walking Dead_ (involving time travel, androids and zombies, respectively, for those not familiar).
I am bored 20 minutes into those horrible products of streaming services
"I'm Super committed" ... "stupendously, greatest cinematic masterpiece of all time, four stars from the critics" committed.
Hollywood executive talk.
Very informative by the man that manages Bloomberg fortune
TH-cam is all I watch (some TikTok too or Facebook's Reels). I rarely watch any streaming services I pay for (probably will cancel some soon) and with TikTok and TH-cam anyone can monetize their audience they build thru creating interesting content.
The writers and actors need to wake up ... things have changed!
This is the clearest explanation of this I've seen.
They didn't care when manufacturing jobs were lost due to automation......... learn-to-code....... Oh wait...LOL ai can do that too
Now we know why they want to cancel tiktok in the US. The media companies are losing ad revenue to tiktok.
...and china is definitely saving weird info about people. but yeah, it is probably a reason.
@@bobloblaw9679both. Not to mention you have a foreign power gaining money off of another country (in the billions) for ad revenue while taking that revenue away from the broadcasting channels.
In other words it’s psychological warfare. Get control of the media and control the message. It should be outlawed because it does nothing to actually help the country. Not to mention everything regarding the damage of social media.
No, it's because tiktok is communist trash
TrickTrash will be used as a subversion and psychological warfare tool of Beijing.
I would love to play around on Tik Tok, but it's been well known since before it became popular in the US that it is an unsafe platform for your data. There are real concerns about it being used to harvest data to be used against our country.
By the way.. Netflix been releasing crap for many many years... Remember cuties?... I haven't. Never forgive Netflix for their crimes. I cancelled mine.
" bunch of asshols killing another bunch of asshols "
~ellie Williams ~
I'm super happy that the enemies of art are destroying each other
Trump and the GOP grandma?
Can't wait for MTG and Boebert to have a mud wrestling contest grandma. 😂😂😂😂
@@b.t.2795 🤮I just threw up in somebody else's mouth a little. 🤮
Good job on NOT reporting how much the C-Suite officers make at those companies.
If you work outside of SAG there is no one to back you if the independent film maker does not honor your contract. Sure, you can hire an attorney but that takes more money that you probably had coming in the first place.
Thank you Mr.Rattner for reminding America that Ronald Reagan was the world's largest Scab and endangered our country by hiring non-union certified air traffic controllers.
Ceos dont want to lose their profits. Greed is the reason why the strike hasnt ended yet when the writers and actors are trying to be fair and reasonable
THIS
Whenever I want to watch a movie, I usually pull a DVD or a blu-ray disc off a shelf. Whenever I want to watch a series, I almost always do so on DVD or blu-ray. New content does not interest me. So, I have no idea what the new series are and the recent series were.
Can we please acknowledge that this mess is because of CEO mistakes but they are making record payments and wages while everyone else pays for their mistake. The solution is get rid of CEO and high payments and look hard at tiktok.
Or quadruple the amount for the subscriptions. TH-cam went up by $3.00 more a month. It was $10.99 a month; when I purchased a subscription over a year ago. 7:57
Hmmm, no mention that CEOs are wanting to pay extras for one day of work and use their likeness in perpetuity through AI. 🤔
I know you're also a corp, and those places are probably advertisers with you, BUT shouldn't you provide ALL the relevant info?
Because that was a lie. Read SAG-AFTRA own negotiating status.
@@Hedgehobbit bruh, it literally states that on the Sag Aftra strike site.
So you believe the studios who only kind of stated background would have control of their likeness?
I tend to believe the screwee over the screwer in such things. 🤷🏻♂️
@LivingThroughMusicKC Did you read the Status of Negotiation document? It's 12 pages and goes into more detail.
@@Hedgehobbit yes, and do you see any counter offers or just rejections?
I mean did you read it? Where is there anything to definitely say that it is a lie?
Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos (Netflix) both got $10 million raises from 2021 to 2022, to over $50 million/ year each. That's $25,000 per hour, every hour, for 50 forty hour work weeks. For each of them. Somebody please explain how this is an indicator of a bleeding company going broke, that claims it can't afford to compensate its essential workers fairly. About to cancel my subscription.
I do not care if they ever work again.
Very cold and ridiculous
@@christopherliverman8333 They can learn to code.
TH-cam is basically eating Hollywood's lunch and deservedly so.
And it sound like they're on the side of the corporate greed. Sounds like their bosses at Paramount told them to do this segment and make the numbers in a way to make it look like streaming "losing money" when Netflix just said they had over 5 million new subscribers
More subscribers doesn’t mean more profit.
@gdogg239 it does when your execs and CEOs are making MORE on their bonuses. Industries all across the nation love to put out this narrative that they're not making a profit. Yet they find money to pay the CEO, President, and other Execs muli million dollar salaries along with 6 figure bonuses and all other type of perks. If the company not making a profit then the people overseeing that need to be fired.
Residuals are an important issue for the actors. It is criminal that a number of examples of actors who did not get residuals were children or less famous mature actors. Clearly, the people with the power are happy to take advantage of less sophisticated actors who haven’t lawyered up. Examples? Brady Bunch, Vincent Price from the MJ music video, Drake who was on DeGrassi High. Kudos to actors who are speaking up to explain the reasons behind the strike.
Steve conveniently ignores overseas revenues
Are they striking overseas?
@@kated9914 No, but it's part of the pie. It doesn't matter where the revenues are coming from, just that the studios are receiving it. Steve also didn't include YT and Tiktok revenue generated by the studios on his last chart. For years this was a problem in Sports strikes where the Leagues would tell the players "you don't need to see the books, you just have to trust us when we tell you how much revenue we receive" but the players' unions didn't fall for it and once they saw the books, magically more revenue appeared.
Exactly. Studios act like they now make a show or movie and it will only air or stream on one network or service. But all the studios lease shows and movies to other studios and networks after the initial release or run. They lease to both domestic and foreign streaming services as well as cable television across the globe. They even lease them to be viewed on odd things like airplanes. Studios are still making money off of showing content and making merchandise from movies like the Wizard of Oz and TV series like I Love Lucy 70+ years later. Don't believe revenue is only from streaming memberships, it is not.
I'm sorry but this presentation does not communicate what's at the heart of the problem. It's not economics trend data. It's that pay/income has shifted to corp execs away from the workers (writers/actors) because it's not set up for equity to the writers. And it's been squeezed into shorter duration of paid weeks/months compared to the older TV model. Imagine having to raise children on 14 - 20 weeks of pay compared to 40+.
Why can’t streaming platforms just pay residuals to actors based on viewership to make things fair?
Because that would mean they would have to split the revenue amongst more people than they intended.
They don’t wanna give up the power.
Because they are greedy parasites who have been enabled by people without a backbone or common sense for generations.
That is what they are doing and that is why their residuals have collapsed. Instead of selling a show to TVLand and getting a big payment. It doesn’t matter how many people watch TV Land the money has been paid and the residuals are paid. Now a show that is sold to Netflix may end up having 50 viewers, or 500 viewers, but the whole pot is now split between all the viewings that going on at the same time in the same month. It is the model that Kindle uses for their shared library. Everyone pays $9.99 a month. Then everyone reads. Then at the end of the month the number of pages read is counted, that month’s pot is divided among the authors. But the pot in streaming is pretty small because they have spent a great deal on setting up the services, creating content, and pleading for subscribers. Without those inputs the service doesn’t exist. The model has changed and in reality the entertainment industry is the only industry I know of where people can get paid again and again for their original work. In other industries, you create something for the company, you are paid and then the company can use it over and over again and you don’t ever get paid again. I understand why the creatives believe in the model, I am just saying it is a unique model and doesn’t make sense to the rest of the world that gets paid once for a job.
Streamers can't pay residuals per view because they don't earn money per view.
One graph glaringly missing from this biased analysis, is a graph of the CEO pay… He pointed out many times that revenues are down, but never mentioned how CEO pay is up?! Those CEOs get $20 million annually or more… yet the company is suffering on profits? Gaslighter.
The companies need to figure out a new plan forward but they can’t pay CEO’s and shareholders and then crap on the people that make it
These companies you were talking about in this case, our some of our most progressive in Liberal companies in Hollywood. These Hollywood movie moguls are some of our most vocal and progressive supporters of our Democrat party. These writers are striking against the Hollywood movie companies.
That's what you get when you have a two-party system. You are stuck with the lesser of two evils.
What I disagree with is that he talked about in his report that revenues are down for these companies and impacting stock prices. However executive salaries and bonuses are through the roof. For example, Bob Eisner makes $78,000 a day plus a $20 million a year bonus. So why should he cry poor for the company when he is taking a dump truck load of money home every evening? One of the things not discussed is that when people perform or write for these shows or in movies there was a scale that was created based on television broadcast setups back in the 1980s. I did the research for it in the 1990s for the negotiations for AFTRA. So, I know that they're still being paid on tables that I did the historical research on and have not changed. For example, they were being paid based on a table that worked out for a 28-episode series. They still use that same table and same rate but now they only have five to 8 to 10 episodes. So, they have essentially cut their pay in half. Is a writer or actor supposed to live on that kind of wage? And we're talking about the basic below the line not major stars. They're working off the bottom of the scale and currently not making a living wage. It was barely a living wage when I did the research as a contract negotiator in 1995. I am certain it is below a living wage today because they are using the same tables that I used.
Let's face it: It's time for actors and writers to move on :-)
This is why I don’t watch corporate news media anymore. See how quickly they jumped to making the case for oligopolies?
The Apprentice I suspected was garbage so that's why | never watched not even one episode and time has proved me right.
10's of millions of viewers and 15 seasons suggest otherwise.
So called Reality TV really isn't real unless you are gullible and think WWF wrestling is real.
I don’t think anyone cares about stock prices. All that matters is profitability.
We must stand shoulder to shoulder with our union brothers and sisters, who are fighting for wage increases. Many Americans are having trouble making ends meet with this Biden economy, and the runaway inflation that we have all been experiencing. These writers in Hollywood workers are no exception. We must stay in shoulder to shoulder with the union workers and is Democrats in the shift that they be paid a living wage.
Why would anyone vote for a Republican? They don't listen to facts or reason, they don't give two sh!ts about anyone but the rich and powerful, and they are working hard to ensure that your children will never be educated but rather sent to the mines once more.
Really? Biden? Nope! It's Corporations. Open ur eyes! We now have a corporate government. And if we don't vote out these congress folks soon we are done! They go in making 200k a year and after a couple of terms they are millionaires....do some research...try some critical thinking!
I'm doing better than ever under Biden.
Maybe you should get a job.
@@nottiification. I am very happy for you and at your financial success. I have been working hard for a Democrat party for at least 40 years. My first job is building signs or Hubert H Humphrey. He was a progressive before we even coined the term. His autograph picture is hanging proudly on the wall in my office.
I am shot after by OK many state and local Democrat party officials who want to be elected or reelected to their office. I have been extremely successful in this regard. A 40 hour work week is a luxury and I spent a great deal of time in DC which is where I am today. I am between meetings with my clients. Thank you for your advice, but I assure you I am working extremely hard. Stay safe and stay healthy.
Its not a biden economy!! Biden has reduced inflation and exploded employment stats!!
The company always seems to make enough money to pay the CEO and board members a kingly sum. Never have any money to pay the people that produce what is sold. We never talk about that.
I say strike all you want. No one cares.
With the crap TV shows that there has been for a long time, I have to wonder if anyone will actually notice that they are on strike.
@@BlondieSL they may notice but it has no negative effects on daily life so therefore doesn’t matter.
@@GeorgeSkinner-eq1jd Agreed.
@@BlondieSL 👍
You cant be having ultra rich lifestyles of top executives and huge margins for shareholders when the backbone of your content / product made by writers are barely at or just above the poverty line. If you think they dont deserve more certainly we the viewers deserve better than the current mediocre content thats made because of cheapskate production where writers are excluded from the whole cycle of production reducing or eliminating rewrites that actually results in good content. The same is happening to actors to a lesser extent - its about sharing the pie more or less equitably so that people can do good work. A restructuring is needed.
Perhaps (this is a novel idea) cut the pay of the execs who are making these money-losing decisions rather than of the workers who are scraping to get by already because said execs are hoarding all the money.
that was a BRILLIANT way to show what's going on. Wow........
. . . OUR ADVOCATE PRESENTS THE CASES OF EACH SUCCESSIVE GENERATION , AND CLOSES WITH THE LIVING . . .
Adjust the salaries of execs according to their performance.
would like to see the graphs of stock payout and executive compensation compared to the revenue. I bet those look a little more like the S&P
This was a great data analysis of how times have changed and how people really are still watching stuff like crazy, but the money is going into the greedy pockets of corporate people instead of the working people
"none of them are making any money." I guess they'll have to cut the CEOs salaries. Seriously why is the CEO over-pay factor not in this coverage? It's as if this broadcast was put together by the CEOs themselves. Puke.