Handel: We Need a Multi-Union New Media Working Group
He predicts “more unrest” in the coming years and doesn’t (this time) mean union politics.  It’s worth a read.
29 Comments
Leave a Reply
SAGWatch – Observing the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA
We Support One Union for All Performers
No Barking Dogs, No Faction Propaganda
Our goal is to keep the membership informed of important and interesting developments in the never-a-dull-moment world of the Screen Actors Guild, AFTRA, and the other entertainment unions.
You can stay up to date by subscribing to posts, comments, or both.
Suggestions, complaints and comments are always welcome, no matter what your opinion may be on any aspect of life in our unions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MERGER DISCUSSION THREAD
If you're interested in our running SAG-AFTRA merger discussion, it's here.
Please feel free to join in.
Documents from the 2003 Merger attempt are available here.
Recent Comments
- No Drama Me on Blind Item of the Week
- Jeff Brian on Howard Sets Six Member Team to Meet with AFTRA
- geo on Blind Item of the Week
- Jack on Blind Item of the Week
- Marisa Redanty on Blind Item of the Week
- geo on Blind Item of the Week
- Sheffc on Interactive Committee Member Quits, Blames NDA
- Sheffc on Blind Item of the Week
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
Categories
- Animation Contract (9)
- Basic Cable (12)
- Commercials Contract (80)
- Editorial (6)
- Exhibit A – TV Theatrical (476)
- Interactive (29)
- Media Business (301)
- Miscellaneous Hate Mail and Threats (5)
- New Media (1)
- Non Broadcast (6)
- SAG Politics (588)
- SAG-AFTRA (334)
- Uncategorized (597)
- Union Politics (122)
- We Remember (43)
Blogroll
Meta
Powered by
WordPress and plainscape theme.
I think Handels idea of a joint task force on New Media and excellent one. Creating a group of SAG-AFTRA-DGA-WGA and others would be a great step foward, and prove invaluable for future negotiations. Imagine all working toether as one – now that’s what I’d call unity….and leverage
Fantastic idea….really smart…unions should jump on this…management may or may not but doesn’t matter..it’s very forward thinking. glad i read it…
Blog is nothing but speculation and certainly we won’t see a leap forward as in HOME VIDEO to NEW MEDIA … that kind of change won’t happen for decades … that’s why this contract was so important … WAS … as it’s been sabotaged, thank you, by those who know what’s best for us … ie control the business. I’m still waiting for the blog on White’s connection to the hedge fund manager, where’s that, Mr. Editor?
–
Ed. Comment – Connection to “the hedge fund manager”?
This is an incredibly practical idea, one that should be ventured and coordinated immediately.
I agree that it is a great idea. If SAG can ever get their deal done like good “little children” as Rosenberg so kindly says, then a joint task force to protect rights is perfect.
The only problem is that some in SAG think they have different “needs” than others, and therefore they likely wouldn’t play very well with the other boys and girls. Again, the name Rosenberg comes to mind. Ahem.
Great concept, but would be highly difficult to achieve given egos and greed on the part of some individuals and groups within some unions.
I don’t know that we can wait for the unions to initiate this. The battle within SAG will go on at least until the Sept elections. The Academy has been addressing is subject through “emerging new media’ seminars. I’d like to see something similiar arise outside the unions and then invite them in as participants. Anyone interested in meeting about this?
vote yes…get a life…what are you trying to do here…White has vast experience and respected by everyone…you are really a damaged person…wow…
you are so transparent….scortched earth mentality…
ED..don’t take the bate….don’t bite …..he’s trying to create the news…tell a lie long enough and it becomes accepted as the truth…here we go…’CIVIL WAAAARRR”
lol
My, my VOTEyes. Please do tell us WHO this mysterious hedge fund manager is. I await the details. I know you so desperately want to save us from ourselves and our blindness to corporate manipulation right from within SAG.
Vague allegations are not worth a bucket of horse piss. *puts VOTEyes on “Ignore”*
Handel is right, we do need a multi-union working group on new media. It should be composed of a combination of folks in the unions who are knowledgeable of the specific capabilities of new media, those who have worked the contract, and knowledgeable staff from all of the unions involved in the WG. Now is a good time with the access to the books that all unions who signed their TV/Theatrical have. Giggles is right, it would be nice to have some genuine unity to address the challenges, and this is a prettt good idea overall.
JC
OK voteyes…officially on ——————ignore——————
we can liken this to the “naughty.nasty chair”
Spam filter keeps sucking up my posts … I wonder why
–
Ed. Note – we’ve found an interesting feature of the spam filter that we’re working to streamline. It finds chunks of a word or phrase which can trigger a filter designed to eliminate something else. For example, filtering “porn DVD” eliminated any use of the letters DVD, even in conjunction with residuals. So, we’re working on it…but it’s a big task.
Membership First’s tactics should not deflect the adults in the room from conducting business.
Fear tactics and lies? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
We must be ever vigilant and vocal, but not to the point of distraction where it takes valuable energie and resources.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202426582778
If this were Rosenberg or Allen you’d be all over this like a cheap suit … and editor it’s “bait” not :”bate” …
dare ya’ not to take it …
–
Ed. Response – That wasn’t my “bate,” but thanks for the note. Your link is to an article that says a lawyer who has been charged with crimes invested in White’s company. If it’s your suggestion that White should somehow have known about the illegal and presumably secret activities of an investor in his company, that’s pretty far fetched. That would be like saying anyone who got paid interest on their savings account knew that the president of a bank hadn’t paid his taxes.
I hate to be a dose of cold water. I’m not against the idea, and would agree that it’s better to try to look forward than to put one’s head in the sand. But I have little faith in its effectiveness.
The reality is that committees of any kind don’t yield progress. The interplay of market forces is what produces the future. Regardless of what such a committee has to say, there are so many other concerns at work that it’s unlikely such a Working Group will have any real impact on things.
Look at efforts like the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. It is supposed to take into account all sorts of factors and then produce “fair” results. Its actual ability to do so has been dismal, and nobody agrees with its outcome except those who happen to come out on the good side of its decisions.
In 2006, SAG, AFTRA, and the JPC jointly commissioned the Booz Allen & Hamilton consulting firm to look at the way talent is compensated for advertising in television, radio, and new media. The firm came back with some innovative ideas that would make the talent payments more closely match the actual ROI to advertisers, rather than historical formulas based on tradition. The idea was to tie compensation, at least roughly, to the number of eyeballs (or ears) associated with the plays of the commercial. The study ran some models that would move money around but maintain the same total compensation.
SAG’s first response? It was worried about doing anything that would change the historical distribution of payments among members. In other words, you can change the formulas as long as the use of the formulas doesn’t actually change the historical payment patterns.
Well, of course, that defeats the whole point.
I;m not saying SAG is necessarily the bad guy in this. As a union, it has a duty to protect its members’ earnings. So perhaps the point I’m really making is that the concept of innovation and flexibility implicit in Jonathan’s suggestion is in direct conflict with the realities of unions and collective bargaining. SAG would have to undergo a sea change in attitude before such a committee would have any relevance.
Such a sea change is possible. The union representing painters in downtown Los Angeles for years had a traditional contract that called for basic pay Monday through Friday during the business day, and overtime outside of that. This created a huge problem because people want painting done during nights and weekends when business hours are over. The union changed its approach so that painters could be scheduled on nights and weekends without a heavy penalty, and the volume of work for members skyrocketed. That was smart, and it took some courage (although since the members were sitting around waiting for work, maybe not that much courage).
SAG isn’t in quite the same situation — yet — but a similar attitude would be needed in order for ideas about responding to new technologies and media channels to take any effect. I have noted before that if, as some claim, eyeballs are moving from conventional channels to new ones, the compensation should move with those eyeballs. They’re the same eyeballs, and producers aren’t going to want to pay twice for the same eyeballs. Thus, if compensation for “New Media” (a term that has already lost ability to describe accurately the new channels in question) is going to go up, the compensation in traditional media is going to have to do down to pay for it. But talk of actually reducing traditional compensation for, say, network television play would be considered absolute heresy. That’s the main reason I think the Working Group is not likely to lead to much of a useful result.
Of course, there are those that approach the contract as a lobster trap, such that compensation can (and should) always go up in every area and can never go down. That’s certainly a popular opinion, but in the long run it’s not a viable one. Look at what it did for the steelworkers in the U.S.
VG
Ed. Response – That wasn’t my “bate,†but thanks for the note. Your link is to an article that says a lawyer who has been charged with crimes invested in White’s company. If it’s your suggestion that White should somehow have known about the illegal and presumably secret activities of an investor in his company, that’s pretty far fetched. That would be like saying anyone who got paid interest on their savings account knew that the president of a bank hadn’t paid his taxes.
That’s not the point, Mr. Editor, why didn’t this story make your blog, certainly there is a debatable issue here … whether or not Mr. White, who is now, the NED … and hasn’t been vetted, I might add … KNEW what this clown was doing. “Oh, he only invested 4 times … in 11 months …” Come on, something smells here … you OVERLOOKED it.
–
Ed. Response – The story didn’t make the blog because a) we didn’t see it, and b) it doesn’t seem to involve SAG. Even in the article there’s not the slightest suggestion that White did anything wrong.
I;m not saying SAG is necessarily the bad guy in this. VG
No, never, Voice Guy.
I’m just hoping VoteYes will still be around with that name when it’s time to ratify the Film/TV deal.
VG
KY,
Well, at least this time you used quotes. Unfortunately, you use them to surround YOUR paraphrasing which is NOT what Mr. White is quoted as saying.
‘ White, former general counsel of the Screen Actors Guild, said he has met with Dreier, who he considers a “passive investor” in his firm, about four times in the past 11 months. “When we make profits, he gets a percentage out,” he said. “But he’s not involved in the operations at all.” ‘
Mr. White say he MET WITH Dreier about 4 times over 11 months, that Dreier was a PASSIVE investor in this firm who makes money only when the firm makes money, and that Dreier had NO involvement in the firm’s operation.
That a little clearer for you, KY? Want me to use big, block letters?
If you’re going to continue to attempt to be a muckraker, at least learn to read, and accurately quote your sources.
This is a non-issue and would’ve been for AR, DA, or anyone.
Easier for you to try and roil the waters further with this nice little diversion from the total lunacy of your hero’s actions the last week, though, than for you to try and deal with those lunatics actions.
Learn the words to Alan’s song yet? I hear you’ll be chanting it Monday.
VG
I read your post and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your thought about bravery to take any recommendation that fly’s in the face of what we get traditionally is true and the point.of all of this.
A committee of all the unions would be a waste of time for a lot of reasons. A better thought would be something like Booz Allen & Hamilton expanded and paid for by all the unions. The DGA did there own study, what they came up with was useful a year ago. Things are changing fast and not so fast at same time. I think the best model for what’s happening right now is Apple downloads and tivo. We can get numbers for both those sources to help in two different ways. Apple about EST because that’s what they do. Tivo will help with who is watching what and when. The ads that we skip through may not skipped as much as we would like to believe. I know in my case I forget that I can skip through sometimes.
Long story short I think that all the union are emotionally blinded and each has their own issues. I think independent study is the way to go and guts on the part of the unions to accept them.
On another note voteyes up until now you never offered a researched comment. In my mind someone fed you that nugget . I think you should go back and tell your MF masters they lost and the process will go forward with or without them. Your shill for those people and to muddy someones reputation behind a phony name is the lowest form of life
RE: #14
That’s a completely misleading edit of the WSJ article, and the implication that White may have been involved in Dreier’s unrelated activities is simply reprehensible.
The full quote is:
“White, former general counsel of the Screen Actors Guild, said he has met with Dreier, who he considers a “passive investor” in his firm, about four times in the past 11 months. “When we make profits, he gets a percentage out,” he said. “But he’s not involved in the operations at all.”
“Met with,” VY. Not “invested,” “met with.”
And you left out the “But he’s not involved in the operations at all” part completely.
Shameless.
Of course, if you’ve got a hint of evidence that contradicts this, please feel free to share it.
And about those meetings, the fact that Dreier knew what White’s firm was doing with his money doesn’t even begin to suggest that White knew, or should have known, that Dreier was scamming other people on a deal completely unrelated to White’s firm. You did realize that, didn’t you?
Gee, I understand that Dreier had a reputation as a big tipper. I guess the guys at valet parking are suspects to you, too, right? Shouldn’t they have asked where that money was coming from before taking it? They should have been suspicious, too, You would have been, right?
Dreier and his law firm contributed money to the Obama campaign, too. By your standards, that makes the election suspect, too. Take that to the political blogs and see what kind of reaction you get there.
You’re stretching hard here, VY. It’s pretty much a naked attempt to invent some darkness surrounding White, and then disparage this site for not sharing your fantasy.
If all you have is the idea “something smells” and that’s based on an intentional misrepresentation of the news, I suggest you think twice about revealing again the desperation you feel over the White appointment at SAG,
It’s my guess you’re beyond embarrassment if you see the need to try stuff like this, and that pointing out the lack of reality in your posts isn’t going to stop you. You should be aware, however, that continuing to post idiocy like this doesn’t mean it’s ever going to be true.
Meanwhile, back to Handel. By far the most important thing he said was to include ‘management’ in the working group. This is something I suggested eight months ago. The New Media negotiation should have been taken out of the contract talks altogether.
It is an area of dispute that has moved further and further from the traditional W & W conditions and closer and closer into the realm of speculation that getting agreement on the particulars has become a roadblock for the usual suspects.
This is a brand new business venture that needs to discover a working model that allows all sides to prosper. It should be dealt with as such and not confined to the heated crucible of contract negotiations. It needs media wizards, lawyers, tech geeks and business consultants from all concerned to create an experimental proposal that operates fluidly as breakthroughs occur.
We need to take advantage of the technology w/o being taken advantage of by the management. And I don’t think that both those conditions will be satisfied in the polarizing atmosphere of the current relationship we have with the AMPTP. We have to think outside the contract.
And THAT is what Handel is actually saying.
I completely agree with you Todd. Is there any way to organize the beginnings of such a venture outside of the unions?
#21
This sounds like something the AFL-CIO could be coordinating (if we can get them to blink at the Teamsters involvement). They’ve been involved with other unions dealing with automation and technology issues, why not here?
If not them, maybe the California Labor Federation.
I know you’re all desperately hoping David White doesn’t have some dirt under his fingernails, and, all I can say is – for your sakes, keep hoping!
–
Ed. Comment – Actually, we know he does have dirt under his fingernails. He got his hands dirty while working for the members for years, and in the unsuccessful C&A process. The kind of dirt David White has on his hands is just fine, thanks. At least that’s my opinion.
Ed. Response – The story didn’t make the blog because a) we didn’t see it, and b) it doesn’t seem to involve SAG. Even in the article there’s not the slightest suggestion that White did anything wrong.
You posted a story about Rosenberg carrying an unlit cigarette on a plane but a new SAG NED with association with an indicted hedge fund manager flies right over your head. And this is fair and balanced? You’re screwy.
–
Ed. Response – Let’s see…someone e-mailed us about the Rosenberg story, and the story that mentions David White’s name is linked from law.com. Gosh, amazing that we didn’t spot it. Maybe it’s all a conspiracy…
‘ White, former general counsel of the Screen Actors Guild, said he has met with Dreier, who he considers a “passive investor†in his firm, about four times in the past 11 months.
Hey Kneel NoClassMan, I’m not alleging White did anything wrong. That’s where your reaction and everyone else’s gets real interesting. I just want the story out. Why did a story of this magnitude get completely overlooked? Where did I indicate he did ANYTHING wrong? Your guilty conscious speaks for itself.
Quite frankly, there are a lot of questions surround White who ran a consulting firm that advised producers how to find loppholes in the SAG contracts and now he’s the one negotiating those very contracts.
Not saying he did anything wrong. You guys put Allen under a microscope, Alna Rosenberg farts in public and the world flips out.
White is mentioned in the same article that has a hedge fund manager under indictment and the story is muted. Strange.
——————–ignore—————————-
KY says
“Not saying he did anything wrong….”
No, just INFERRING, your specialty.
“…You guys put Allen under a microscope, Alna Rosenberg farts in public and the world flips out…”
When he “farts on”, then craps all over, ALL the people he supposedly represents, it’s germaine, especially on this site.
“White is mentioned in the same article that has a hedge fund manager under indictment and the story is muted. Strange.”
Because it had absolutely ZERO play in regards to anything that’s releveant to this “fight”.
If you were “mentioned” in, say, a story about child molesters in your area, regardless of the fact that you were mentioned saying “I don’t know of any, and have no children so I wouldn’t notice anyway”, would that be worthy of scrutiny if this board were about education?
Nevermind. That comparison’s far too deep for you. Have a 4th grader explain it to you.
#27 Shame on you Neil…now that’s just going too far!!…
why are you insulting 4th Graders???
Unless there is an allegation of wrong doing for Mr. White, there is no story. It is simple information to not that an investor in his company did something wrong. It’s only a story if the implication is that Mr. White is involved in the wrong doing.
And in terms of your god or gods, Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg, did it ever occur to you that they may have been leading you down the garden path?
This last year alone, Mr. Allen had 8 contracts to negotiate. Turns out, he didn’t negotiate any. The one that was completed was the Industrial contract that Aftra negotiated a one year extension of and Mr. Allen said, Oh, we’ll have what Aftra’s having. And he spent all this energy making you afraid that you are going to lose your residuals. That Producers are going to, overnight, start showing everything on the internet and stop showing scripted programing on TV. Now how much sense does that make.
I will tell you Mr. Allen was not and is not feared by the Producers, he is pitied by those who don’t hate him. He was basically doing harm to you and to me in the service of his ego.