www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/how-tv-writers-won-a-war?fbclid=IwAR085Bdwkk1zPeJXx1BkBy0kehFmDYhnor8STJOp3gWY-T504r0Gufq1uYw How The Writers Won the War
The old model of agents taking 10% worked because of aligned interests. The agent was incentivised to get the best deal for their client. The new model is the reverse and only works to benefit the greedy agencies. The only rational solution is to go back to how it was, but those big agencies will never go back to having a fair piece of the pie when they've tasted an enormous unfair piece.
Hey Cedric, thank you! And I do love teaching, whether it's in a formal setting in a film school, or doing one-on-one script consults. BTW I've just subbed to your channel. best Dominic
Good video. The strength of the packaging agents has always been their control of "bankable" stars but that name value is fast losing ground as keystone distribution transitions from theaters to streaming, where viewers search primarily for good stories and "movie stars" are largely superfluous. And covid has impacted this transition immensely. It's time for writers to claim their just rewards.
It's crazy how agents have become more powerful that their own clients. I heard that CAA believe they actually run the industry. I've noticed that in Hollywood there are a lot of "middle-men" - people who don't really have a discernible skill but love to be part of the industry - and become lucrative by positioning themselves in places where they make others believe they are needed.
Hi Krista - I’m pleased to report the standoff is over - all the agencies caved to most of the wga’s demands, proving that in television, story is the most important component. Lose control of that, you’re history.
Hi Josh - I don't think the agencies are anywhere near thinking of waving the white flag and accepting that they won't be able to rep any of the town's 15,000 WGA members because of their refusal to adhere to the WGA's rules on packaging and producing fees. And yet...if the writers learn to prosper without them, then who knows what could happen. My gut is feature writers are going to be in a lot of trouble without having the packaging skills of the top four agents at the side - per my film, story content - feature screenplays - need to chase talent to become marketable. And the agencies control access to talent...However TV writers could well prosper without their agents, if their bosses, the showrunners, band together and work to set up their own system for shortlisting writers. Which is exactly what they are moving towards as I type...
We live in a time that has made connecting easier than ever thanks to the technological advancements in communication and online platforms. The internet changed the game. I, for one, am welcoming the era which will see the death of the middle-men and gatekeepers of industries.
michael g hi - My suggestion for the agency’s name - Showrunner. It’s just an idea at the moment but I envisage that it could be run by mid level tv agents who defect from their old agencies and start up a new agency .
Your analysis has merit however the potential miscalculation in motivation of the agencies exists. Some of the agencies have taken private equity money with the understanding that they will grow the business such that there will be a big payday at the end of the rainbow, i.e. A public offering as you stated. Are these investors and the agents themselves who stand to make millions in the IPO going to go quietly into the night? Unfortunately, no. The private equity masters will absolutely not give them this option when their money is already invested. As for the agents? This is a financial existential crisis for them as their revenues and potential payoff and therefore, their standard of living go up in a puff of smoke. If the revenues fall at the agencies over time, as they will if they give up packaging, then many mid level agents will simply get downsized. From the writer's point of view, to compromise would be to screw over the very writers to whom packaging has affected the most and the very same people that are going to pay the biggest price in this battle, the mid level and beginner writers whom have lost the most with their salaries having remained stagnant during the boom; the ones whose employment opportunities, although somewhat mitigated by WGA initiatives, are being disrupted during staffing season; and the ones most likely to lose representation should the agencies decide to use this dispute to "cull the herd". The fight has to be won decisively for them as the showrunners are already rich and likely to rise from the ashes. These staff writers need to know that their salaries are not tied to agencies whose interest it is to keep the costs of the show down, whether because of packaging fees or as the affiliates of the Production Company who purchased the show. The writers have the upper hand as you have stated. If another party could see that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that the Emperor is wearing Wal-Mart and not Armani, the knockout blow could be thrown by SAG/AFTRA who could decide that they will threaten or even do the same thing and leave their agencies.
Thank you Ksawa for adding your insights. I hadn't considered the SAG/AFTRA angle, and I am persuaded by your argument that to compromise on a 50:50 split of packaging fees would in fact be a betrayal of the staff writers. Unless....What if the staff writers received a big piece of a putative 50:50 split of packaging fees between writers and showrunners? Could that compromise work or is total victory the only way forward in your opinion?
@@Scriptfella Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the historical precedent that residuals were typically a 1/1/3 ratio between writers, directors and actors? Therefore if they wanted to give up 50% of the packaging fee, then the writers would only get 10% with the ATA knowing that SAG/AFTRA would ask for 30 and the DGA 10 if and when they sit down to discuss this. Any percentage doesn't address the conflicts of the interest and not at all the Agency Affiliated Production companies issue. I don't see how there is room for compromise. In fact, I see this as the fight of the writer's lives if they want to be treated fairly by agents, as clients and not as imbeclies to be a taken advantage of by cunning wolves or as "assets" that help with the valuation of an IPO. Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that this went on as long as it has, it would never fly in any other industry. My only explanation is that agents are the ones who spun the fairytale and told the greatest story ever, that they are the ones with the power over the industry and therefore more important than the creators and studios. Maybe it's finally time for a slice of humble pie. I'd love for it to be a year or two down the road and everybody, especially the writers, actors and studios to realize. Hey! maybe we don't need agents. This new normal is okay. Neither me or my career is dying and that you guys (agents) exist because of us, and not the other way around.
Again, some great points, Ksawa, thank you. The WGA recently carried out a survey of its TV writers - 75% of TV writerss find their own work via their relationships with showrunners and other writer-producers. Established Television writers with good networks should be able to adjust to life without agents...not so easy for feature writers though, who need the agencies . to attach talent to their projects. Are the Big Four going to continue to support scripts from writers who have fired them? Regarding a 1/1/3 split of the residuals between SAG/AFTRA, DGA and WGA - I'm not on familiar ground, here but I can see how if that's the formula for residuals then why wouldn't the DGA and SAG go after a slice of the packaging fees? I guess the counter argument is that in TV, the packaging fees are attached to the script/story which is the golden goose asset, rather than other above the line talent. I came across a neat breakdown of how the 3/3/10% packaging fees are calculated by the agencies on Slashfilm here - www.slashfilm.com/wga-ata-explainer/ --------------------------------------- What is Packaging and Why Are There Fees? Strictly speaking, packaging is the process through which agencies will bundle together talent to sell as a single project. For example, when a director is attached to a buzzy script and a studio acquires them together, that’s a package. For writers, if they come up with an idea for a TV show, that writer’s agent will bring in a high-profile director or actor to board the show (often from the same agency) and put them together as a package. Agencies charge studios a three-part fee for assembling the package in a structure known as “3-3-10,” referring to how the percentages are distributed between the base license fee per episode, base license fees taken out of “net profits,” and adjusted revenue. On the client side, if writers are sold as part of a package, they don’t have to pay their agents the 10% commission fee. The Hollywood Reporter has a good breakdown of how these fees are calculated: 3: First, 3 percent of the “base license fee” per episode; the base license fee is a negotiated figure much lower than the actual license fee the network pays the studio. These front-end fees paid to the agency range from $15,000 to $75,000 per episode, or about $300,000 to $750,000 per season. 3: Another 3 percent of the base license fee per episode, but deferred and payable out of 50 percent of “net profits.” This is almost always zero, because only major hits achieve net profits. 10: Up to 10 percent (typically 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent) of Modified Adjusted Gross Receipts (MAGR), a form of revenue minus certain costs. MAGR is zero unless the show runs multiple seasons and is sold into aftermarkets like syndication (rare for shows made for streaming platforms). In the past, a hit could generate $50 million to $150 million for the agency; today, perhaps only $20 million - and even less for shows made for streamers, which is why front-end fees are higher. ------------------- I can't see this standoff ending any time soon. By the time the agencies have realised they're not going to win, and maybe offer to concede some of their packaging fees, their former clients could well have learned to live without them.
@@Scriptfella - Just to clarify, the 1/1/3 split is not taken from the 3/3/10. The 1/1/3 is taken from the residuals that were negotiated by the WGA for when the show, for example, goes into syndication. The 3/3/10 is a separate deal entirely between the agency and studio and so, if they were going to share this this, they would likely have to internally apply the 1/1/3 ratio to this portion of the payout. The link below, I believe provides clarity. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-did-agencies-offer-writers-one-percent-packaging-fees-1203548
@@ksawa70 Absolutely understood - and thank you for the HR article which is great - particularly on the point that the maximum the agencies can offer the writers is 20% of packaging fees -because if the writers get that, the directors will want 20 % and the actors 60% - leaving zero packaging fees for the agencies - who might as well go back to taking 10% commission at that point. Which would be a grand idea.
Hi Jack - the dispute between the writers and the agents is about packaging and producing fees. Traditionally agents have earned 10% from writers. However now that many of the big agencies are acting as producers, the argument is that the agents' interests are no longer fully aligned with their clients and the agents are breaching their fiduciary obligations to their writer and showrunner clients.
@@Scriptfella Can you talk about the Code of Conduct from the guild? Some agencies have signed it and other have not....I've been told. Would you sign with an agent who's agency did not sign?
@@jackhudkins542 If you are a member of the WGA you cannot sign with any agency which has not agreed to the Guild's Code of Conduct. As a non wga writer you can sign with an agency that hasn't signed the code of conduct but the moment you become WGA you will be obligated to fire the agent. Suffice to say it's a real mess...So if you've got an "in" at Verve...
@@Scriptfella I guess it's actually about money, with storytelling as an excuse, right? Just like "religious" terrorism is really about political power, with religion as an excuse... Anyhow, I'd love to hear your views on the future of "traditional" TV entertainment in the era of streaming services. I think that could make for a really interesting video. :)
