Spiteful Gersh Agents?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

    Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
    idk, do you really think they can back down? i'm not so sure the big 4 can. some of them are planning IPOs in the future, they actually need it to happen in order to remain viable as a business.

    i've thought that there might be a possibility of a new kind of agency where the B4 provide packaging services still. i thought i read somewhere that SAG tried to end the packaging fees first, but failed because they didn't have the leverage that writers do? does that sound right?
    As of right now, I think the likely outcome is that agencies will agree to give up a much larger share of packaging fees to writers. Which is still backing down from their current position. I'm not familiar with the SAG situation.

    Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
    there were some comments below the deadline article where there was some pushback. wonder if it's Gersh people trying to save face? who knows.

    what happens when you fire an agent that helped you get hired on a show? do they get 10% forever? something i haven't considered before now.

    best to Jorge, looks like he's going to delete the tweet. Gersh must be hurting, right? probably more than the B4.
    I don't know about the commission situation for fired agents (maybe some repped writers on here can answer that). I do think the middle-tier agencies are hurting more than the Big 4 and they will likely join Verve by the fall (maybe with the exception of APA since it's head of ATA).
    "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

      Originally posted by cvolante View Post
      I think they're probably terrified.

      We have indie films. We have indie web series. We have startup streaming channels.

      When people are having more success w/o agents than before, that's one more element of the industry that could go the way of Tower Records.
      Absolutely. This whole situation is a rude awakening to the possibility that they may someday be obsolete. In a way, it's kinda like travel agents being usurped by online travel agencies. Writers are already using technology (the WGA staffing submission system) to get jobs in the meantime.
      "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

        Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
        As of right now, I think the likely outcome is that agencies will agree to give up a much larger share of packaging fees to writers. Which is still backing down from their current position. I'm not familiar with the SAG situation.
        Based on conversations I've had with board members and some general tea leaf reading, I don't think the WGA would ever settle for that.

        Packaging fees are only one symptom of the disease that's ailing writer-agent relationships; the Guild has focused on them only because they're a big, sexy issue. It's not unlike how environmentalists confronting deforestation, climate change, etc., focus on the effects on charismatic species (tigers, elephants, etc.) for PR purposes.

        But in the same way that environmental calamity wouldn't subside if tigers and elephants were protected, neither will the writer-agent relationship be righted by agencies giving up part of their packaging fees.

        What the Guild really wants is for agencies to return to the tenpercentery business, where their only major revenue streams are client commissions-- no packaging fees, no production arms, no investment banking, no in-house ad firms, etc.

        The only way that realistically happens is if ICM and UTA scale back their businesses and if WME and CAA spin off their lit departments (or lose them entirely when all the agents flee the sinking ships). That-- or something like that-- is the bigger objective here. "The status quo +20% of packaging fees" doesn't remotely accomplish that. A settlement of that nature would thus be unacceptable to the Guild-- which, at the moment, seems to have 90% of the leverage.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

          Originally posted by AnyOtherName View Post
          Based on conversations I've had with board members and some general tea leaf reading, I don't think the WGA would ever settle for that.

          The only way that realistically happens is if ICM and UTA scale back their businesses and if WME and CAA spin off their lit departments (or lose them entirely when all the agents flee the sinking ships). That-- or something like that-- is the bigger objective here. "The status quo +20% of packaging fees" doesn't remotely accomplish that. A settlement of that nature would thus be unacceptable to the Guild-- which, at the moment, seems to have 90% of the leverage.

          Well, you know better than I, so I'm happy to accept that the WGA will hold out for more. This has already been an insane year in screenwriting business history, and it looks like it's going to get even more crazy.
          "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

            Originally posted by Friday View Post
            Maybe, the WGA and SAG should consider joining forces. Harder to ignore two unions. I heard a manager speculate that in the short run, the agencies are fine, but in the long run after 9 months, then it's starts to really hurt.
            ah, here, i found the reference. SAG tried to renegotiate their contract with ATA in 2002, which is when their contract was about to expire. here is an excerpt of the article:

            The alleged conspiracy to corner the market by the four biggest packagers, Lenhoff's attorney argued, started with the falling out SAG had with the ATA in 2002, when they couldn't come to terms on a new franchise agreement - known as Rule 16g. The main sticking point was that the big talent agencies wanted the right to invest in or be invested in by ad agencies, advertisers and independent producers. SAG viewed such financial interests as an irreconcilable conflict of interest, putting the actor in the position of being represented by an agency that could also be his or her employer.
            Lenhoff f& Lenhoff, i believe, sued two of the B4 but failed to sufficiently prove their claim in the court's eyes. there isn't a way for SAG and WGA to join forces as the time to renegotiate contracts is dependent upon WHEN the current contract expires which is at different times for each union.

            from what i'm reading SAG never renegotiated their contract because the agencies refused to sign onto Rule #16g, and i believe to this day they do not have a signed contract and are functioning without one.

            A renegotiated SAG franchise agreement was voted down in 2002 and remains unreplaced, yet the earth still spins in its orbit. That's because SAG quickly blinked and to this day SAG-AFTRA permits its members to be represented by ATA agents even in the absence of a franchise agreement with them.
            and as you can see above, the reason it has never been resolved is because the SAG didn't stand in unison, like the WGA has. they didn't demand every member fire their agent(s). so in the end, just how important was their Rule #16g? but the situation has also evolved to a greater degree since 2002.
            now maybe next year when everyone is closer to negotiating their master contract, SAG and DGA could possibly make similar demands, but i haven't heard anything really from that end of the spectrum.

            an excerpt from another article below shows that the "down the road" could be a rather bumpy ride, with the master contract of three guilds coming up for negotiation in 2020. all within two months of each other. May 1st (WGA) and June 30th (SAG & DGA).

            if the DGA comes to terms 6 months before the expiration date that would mean that some serious business would be happening possibly late this year.

            what might be a not-so-great outcome is if the DGA pre-negotiates to accept a percentage of the packaging fees that are higher than the 1% offered by the ATA but still lower than what the WGA would have settle for (much less agree to at all), because then SAG would possibly follow and that might weaken the WGA's stand.

            hopefully the WGA will not succumb to the pressure and be in a position to negotiate what's best for their members.

            it seems that what needs to happen between now and then (not saying i fully understand this all) is that if the studios can determine that they can work out successful deals with writers and talent without being forced into paying these huge packaging fees to the B4, then the guild might have a chance to find a positive resolution.

            but if the studios begin to lose money and don't see the value in the WGA's continued standoff, then that could result in the WGA having a fight on to fronts-- that's when we will need showrunners to really stand their ground. at least it seems that way. what i don't know is if Netflix, Amazon and other streamers fall under the master contracts with the producers.

            The WGA's current master contract will expire on May 1, 2020. The SAG-AFTRA and Directors Guild of America deals expire on June 30, 2020. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which serves as the negotiating arm for the studios, usually negotiates first with the DGA, which prefers to wrap up its deals at least six months prior to expiration in the belief that the promise of stability enables the DGA to achieve the best possible terms. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-more-1105208
            it's a very complex and interwoven issue that will no doubt be a while before it's reconciled. but then again, who knows, right?

            here's an article on 12 things to know to understand the situation.
            http://<br /> https://www.indiewire...ts-1202057979/

            happy reading. sorry to ramble so much, but this is an important issue for writers to understand, because it's our future.
            FA4
            "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

              Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
              ah,
              here's an article on 12 things to know to understand the situation.

              https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/wr...ts-1202057979/

              happy reading. sorry to ramble so much, but this is an important issue for writers to understand, because it's our future.
              FA4
              Thanks for providing these links.
              "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                I don't see how the studios love paying these "packaging" fees which is almost more like protection money. It's a huge added expense and it's off the backs of the real creatives that are actually stirring the drink. Plus, agencies insist on having the pieces they want to package together, so the studios might be hamstrung creatively. Too bad SAG didn't stand united or the circumstances have made it so they haven't stood with the WGA. I do feel like if major movie stars, tv stars suddenly unite with showrunners and great feature scribes, suddenly that would overwhelm the agencies.



                On a side note, is there an issue the WGA can tackle to get us back to the spec boom of the 90s? I read articles about the spec 90s with such envy.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                  Originally posted by Friday View Post
                  I don't see how the studios love paying these "packaging" fees which is almost more like protection money. It's a huge added expense and it's off the backs of the real creatives that are actually stirring the drink. Plus, agencies insist on having the pieces they want to package together, so the studios might be hamstrung creatively. Too bad SAG didn't stand united or the circumstances have made it so they haven't stood with the WGA. I do feel like if major movie stars, tv stars suddenly unite with showrunners and great feature scribes, suddenly that would overwhelm the agencies.

                  On a side note, is there an issue the WGA can tackle to get us back to the spec boom of the 90s? I read articles about the spec 90s with such envy.
                  From what I've heard, it seems like the studios hate packaging fees but are terrified of the agencies. I don't think most of us understand just how astronomically powerful the big agencies are (or are perceived to be). The agencies' power is why no one in town thought writers would actually fire their reps, and it's why everyone assumed, six weeks ago, that there was no way the Guild could win this thing.

                  I also think it's a big part of why the agencies are holding out. The idea that the Masters of the Universe could lose a fight with some grubby writers simply doesn't compute. The agents can't really put their fingers on how the ATA could possibly come out ahead in this fight, but they think the basic math is agents=gods, writers=mortals, and gods>mortals, so they don't see how they could lose.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                    Originally posted by AnyOtherName View Post
                    From what I've heard, it seems like the studios hate packaging fees but are terrified of the agencies. I don't think most of us understand just how astronomically powerful the big agencies are (or are perceived to be). The agencies' power is why no one in town thought writers would actually fire their reps, and it's why everyone assumed, six weeks ago, that there was no way the Guild could win this thing.

                    I also think it's a big part of why the agencies are holding out. The idea that the Masters of the Universe could lose a fight with some grubby writers simply doesn't compute. The agents can't really put their fingers on how the ATA could possibly come out ahead in this fight, but they think the basic math is agents=gods, writers=mortals, and gods>mortals, so they don't see how they could lose.

                    Good point. I think probably writers, studios, actors let agents become that powerful. Give them an inch, they take a mile. It's been going on too long. Some of those packaging fees are life changing. You can see how much they are by just looking at how beautiful those WME and CAA buildings are. Not only do writers not get any of it, but it works against them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                      As an extreme outsider on this issue, it seems the Guild (and writers in general) has a much better possible outcome on this, as opposed to the previous efforts (ie. strikes) against studios/producers.

                      In a way, doesn't this make total sense? The latter were our buyers, but the others are mere middlemen doing jobs that we (usually alongside our attorneys, @5%) are totally capable of doing ourselves.

                      As I'm always writing here in this place, a little entrepreneurism can go a long way. It does mean taking some risks, but the payoff potential is great, especially in the amount of control we may have over our destinies - and that of our I.P.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                        what i'm gleaning from the articles i've read, and what's the most disheartening, is that the B4 have literally controlled WHAT is on TV and with their power they have shut out tons of possibly amazing content because of their greed for packaging fees for the specific clients they were pushing.

                        it hurts my head to think of all the creators out there that got sidelined because of the B4's fvcking greed. imagine the possibilities.

                        not only that, but that is exactly why the average salary of mid-tier and lower tiered writers are making less now than ten years ago, and in a time when TV is on fire. it's just unfathomable to think about.

                        and right now seems the perfect time for SAG to throw their hat in the ring. i mean, they don't even have to wait because they don't have a signed franchise agreement with the ATA. so essentially they could poll their membership and take a hard line and tell their membership to fire their agents if they do not, first sign Rule #16g and they can amend their demands to reflect their own push back on packaging.

                        but, somewhere i was reading that part of the packaging included paying A-list actors $20 million a film. i think it's amazing that the WGA has the balls to do this. and if they are successful every creative talent will benefit.

                        imagine how many more films could be made if studios weren't inflating their budgets to compensate for packaging fees to the B4.

                        imagine a world where there are more than just superhero flicks.

                        now there's a thought.
                        "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          ATA Reaches out to WGA

                          as of 8:15 pm tonight, the co-president of the ATA has reached out to the WGA to restart negotiations next week.

                          Verve must have rattled them, a lot.

                          https://deadline.com/2019/05/agencie...ta-1202620989/
                          "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                            Makes you wonder if the reason why studios have less development money to spend on writers is partly due to them having to pay these exorbitant packaging fees. Maybe, some of the big time writers should consider flocking to Verve.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: ATA Reaches out to WGA

                              Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                              as of 8:15 pm tonight, the co-president of the ATA has reached out to the WGA to restart negotiations next week.

                              Verve must have rattled them, a lot.

                              https://deadline.com/2019/05/agencie...ta-1202620989/
                              Wow. Well, hopefully they're not dumb enough to bother coming back to the table with another joke of an offer, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next week. Probably nothing too hopeful, but you never know.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                                From the ATA: "We are open to concepts of true revenue sharing and have already committed to requirements of explicit client consent and overall transparency and accountability."

                                They are not giving up packaging fees or production arms. Both represent billions of dollars. There's just no way they're going to negotiate that away.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X