WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

    WGA membership overwhelmingly (7,882-392) voted to restrict agency packaging this afternoon. Hopefully, we'll see a major overhaul of this medieval system, which has provided exponential profits to those who should have been receiving linear compensation.

    I know this subject has been mentioned here, but think it justifies a dedicated thread.

    https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/wga-...ir-agents.html

  • #2
    Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

    Reading the link all the way to the final paragraph, that's the paragraph that says it all: 'Divide and conquer'.

    This is something that's done successfully all the time in business, politics, and diplomacy.

    That is, either the agencies change and survive, or they're divided into those who stay affiliated with writers and those who don't. The worst thing that'll happen to some of these writers is that they'll have to drum up (more of) their own business - which many do anyway - while holding onto that 10 percent they used to pay out for all of that extraordinary 'representation'. (This sounds a lot like DIY, which is sort of what I'd written about on another thread)

    Question: In the current contract that union members have (MBA), doesn't it lock in many production companies and all of the studios to work 'only' with agent-repped writers? Or is this a non-worry?

    Note: A reminder, I'm on the outside and don't really have a clue. I follow this stuff out of interest and concern for writers' success, as much as I follow North Korean nuclear diplomacy. That is, Kim Jong-un's missiles could affect me very directly, but mostly they're out of my control so I just offer up semi-informed opinions on things.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

      "exponential profits to those who should have been receiving linear compensation" is damn fine to-the-point description.

      Cat: The MBA is an agreement between the WGA and the signatory studios. It gets negotiated out every 3 years.

      That is not interconnected with the AMBA (Artists' Manager Basic Agreement) which codifies the working relationship between the WGA and the agencies. And which hasn't been updated in 40 years.

      And no you don't have to have an agent. My last deal was set up by producers who held an option on one of my scripts. I was between reps because an agent I had left the biz. All I had negotiating between me and the studio was an entertainment attorney.

      (Of course I used that momentum to go grab a new manager.)


      Now, what happened with that script was definitely a weird mix of luck and me and the producers' perseverance. In a theoretical sense it seems less likely to have happened without an agent. But I'm not sure the odds were much different than when I did have the agent. So much of it is luck and timing, and a case of the right studio exec falling in love with a script.
      Last edited by ExtHollywoodDay; 03-31-2019, 08:48 PM.
      - - - - - - -
      Script consulting still going strong.

      Details and updates here, as always: http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...ead.php?t=9901

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

        PS: there's a lot of confusion so I'll repeat:

        It's not 'packaging' that's forbidden under the WGA proposal. IE- the practice of agencies putting a director they rep, actors they rep and writers they rep onto a show together and collecting the 10% on all those jobs.


        It's 'packaging fees' which is the agency negotiating money for themselves off the top of the show budget that is not a percentage of any of the talent's work.
        - - - - - - -
        Script consulting still going strong.

        Details and updates here, as always: http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...ead.php?t=9901

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

          Originally posted by ExtHollywoodDay View Post
          ...Cat: The MBA is an agreement between the WGA and the signatory studios. It gets negotiated out every 3 years.

          That is not interconnected with the AMBA (Artists' Manager Basic Agreement) which codifies the working relationship between the WGA and the agencies. And which hasn't been updated in 40 years.

          And no you don't have to have an agent. My last deal was set up by producers who held an option on one of my scripts. I was between reps because an agent I had left the biz. All I had negotiating between me and the studio was an entertainment attorney...
          Yep, I understood what the MBA is; only until lately did I understand there was a separate AMBA thing. It's been forever since I've contacted agents about representation, so that's my excuse. (If I'm going to bang my head against an impenetrable wall it'll be to producers - those who actually make the movies - rather than middlemen.)

          As for my agent-only comment, I was talking about producers who are Guild-signatories, such as Lynda Obst (and that's knowledge based only on their responses to my queries in the distant past), as well as the studios.

          I read somewhere that anybody can actually sell to the studios, but then fat-chance of being able to do the polishing steps. However, I guess that brings up another point: You don't need an agent to be in the Guild, and I suppose I've conflated the rules or advantages about having an agent for some of these opportunities, versus simply being in the Guild in good standing.

          In any case, gaining membership in those cool TV writer rooms, and easier access to the big companies including doing polishes on your own sales, are just a few of the benefits of union membership, right? The issue I had been grappling with is whether those are achievable at all, or simply more easily, if you have an agent. (Managers are another animal all together, I get that.)

          As I say, though, little of this matters to me in my particular circumstances moving forward. I don't want to write for TV (unless maybe some day it's for a TV spin-off of my own films). And if I do sell a script, you'll probably be surprised that I'm not looking forward to endless rewrites in a multi-year development hell. Let somebody else who's better than I take it over the finish line! I'll get my sale price, plus still get a bit of a cut of the end results. Meanwhile, I'm off marketing my other scripts for sale.

          (Keep in mind that I write specs only; all you fine folks can take on the next Marvel/DC movies and novel adaptations! )

          A healthy union matters; I understand and support that. But I have suggested that unions (and corporations, too) in every biz need to, and will, consider new revenue streams and avenues for doing business in the 21st century.

          Maybe this AMBA debate will help to move the writers' unions in that direction!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

            Originally posted by ExtHollywoodDay View Post
            PS: there's a lot of confusion so I'll repeat:

            It's not 'packaging' that's forbidden under the WGA proposal. IE- the practice of agencies putting a director they rep, actors they rep and writers they rep onto a show together and collecting the 10% on all those jobs.


            It's 'packaging fees' which is the agency negotiating money for themselves off the top of the show budget that is not a percentage of any of the talent's work.
            i think it cuts a little deeper than taking 10% on all client fees. that's not where big dollars come into play, or the conflict of interest. because having writers, directors and talent, on their roster and getting them together is in both their client's best interest and the agency's best interest; the more their clients make, the more the agency makes. they should get 10% from each of their clients. that's the short game. that's the fair game.

            the conflict of interest becomes a problem when the agency becomes a producer and/or levies packaging fees. why? because the less their clients make the more the agency, as producers, make.

            and it's a substantial amount of ****ing money. every dollar of the writer's quote that the agency drives down is another dollar in the in pot of the much bigger money.

            think 10% of the writer's fee (small potatoes that they give up in lieu of producing and packaging fees) compared to 25% of the entire budget (windfall). that's the long game.

            example:
            screenwriter gets $500,000 @ 10%, agency gets $50,000.
            budget is $50,000,000 agency gets $12,500,000 @ 25%

            this is why they don't care about giving up 10% on all three clients should they package it with talent, writer and director.


            that's the conflict of interest because they are negotiating against their client's take, driving their quote DOWN, so they can make a ****-ton more for themselves.

            apparently, they've been able to tie in the overall decline in middle writers and lower level writer's compensation because of this very action.

            the agency is negotiating a deal for the agency to make more profit which undermine's the writer. it's in the agency's interest to drive down client's quote (their writer) in order to make more as a producer.

            it's about greed.

            that's my understanding. maybe we're saying the same thing? hopefully i got it right?
            Last edited by finalact4; 04-02-2019, 09:54 AM.
            "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


            • #7
              Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

              Yeah, we're saying the same thing. Someone posted Craig Mazin's video in another thread, so I'll just add this which also says it well.

              https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...olumn-1199182?
              - - - - - - -
              Script consulting still going strong.

              Details and updates here, as always: http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...ead.php?t=9901

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                Gordon Gekko: "Greed is good. It cuts through and clarifies..."

                Do I believe that? Not necessarily. However, it does state a fact of human nature, which we really cannot change.

                The economic behavior of the big agencies is similar to that of businesses in every area of the economy. Intelligent business people will create amazing financial contrivances to make money for themselves. That's why we have antitrust laws, which were a reaction to the abuses of the Gilded Age, an age the Gordon G longed for.

                Our laws generally attempt to protect the weaker party in these inevitable situations. In the case at hand, that's the writers--that's us. Is it bull****? For us, YES. For them, obviously not. The WGA's position essentially supplants the law which operates in other areas of the economy. I applaud them.

                Having completed my theoretical analysis , I want to say that FinalAct4's analysis of the issue was not only highly intelligent but showed a deep, intricate understanding of the business Thank you FinalAct4. (I'm still not sure I understand what you said

                The question I have is: Does this create any opportunities for unrepresented writers to get representation?

                Will
                "Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December; And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor--"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                  Originally posted by WillLevin View Post
                  Gordon Gekko: "Greed is good. It cuts through and clarifies..."

                  Do I believe that? Not necessarily. However, it does state a fact of human nature, which we really cannot change.

                  The economic behavior of the big agencies is similar to that of businesses in every area of the economy. Intelligent business people will create amazing financial contrivances to make money for themselves. That's why we have antitrust laws, which were a reaction to the abuses of the Gilded Age, an age the Gordon G longed for.

                  Our laws generally attempt to protect the weaker party in these inevitable situations. In the case at hand, that's the writers--that's us. Is it bull****? For us, YES. For them, obviously not. The WGA's position essentially supplants the law which operates in other areas of the economy. I applaud them.

                  Having completed my theoretical analysis , I want to say that FinalAct4's analysis of the issue was not only highly intelligent but showed a deep, intricate understanding of the business Thank you FinalAct4. (I'm still not sure I understand what you said

                  The question I have is: Does this create any opportunities for unrepresented writers to get representation?

                  Will
                  No. It will not create opportunities for unrepresented writers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                    And away... we... go!

                    https://deadline.com/2019/04/wga-and...me-1202595055/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                      so a couple things might happen, right?

                      but first, it seems it will be worse for those of us who don't have an agent, because we are going to have a deluge of writers with no agents. so the agents that did sign the CoC will be in high demand, at least in the near future.

                      as lower level agents at the big four, and possibly bigger agents as well, might soon realize that they weren't benefiting from the packaging fees/producer fees and might feel the pressure of not being able to sell any work and losing their entire client list.

                      so what are these agents to do? well, they could start their own agency. you could have management companies adding agents to their roster so that part of their business is an agency allowed to negotiate contracts and the other half is a team of managers.

                      if you think about it, it's no different than a management company that also has an arm that is a production house, right? so maybe well see a bunch of new agencies being formed.

                      i suspect that's going to take time. the great thing for writers is we have what agencies need. we can still sell scripts and make deals. it might take longer, a lot longer, who knows, but we have what they don't. IP material.

                      so right now, the agencies still have directors and talent, so they are still powerful. also, if i'm not mistaken, management companies and production companies are NOT restricted from working with the agencies to continue to package-- they just don't have the writers. it's one third, and they're probably thinking that they can still work in their same fashion with a few adjustments.

                      so, as i work my way through this on the spot, i think, unfortunately, it's far from over. i'm sure there's stuff i'm missing..
                      "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


                      • #12
                        Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                        so the ATA offered writers 1% of their packaging fees. they expect that writers will be okay with 1% when their take of a writer's fee is 10%? and they think writers are being greedy?

                        let's run the numbers...

                        movie budget: $50 million
                        writer fee: $500,000
                        agent @10% writer's fee is: $50,000

                        let's say talent and director demand the same, so the entire pot is $150,000 far cry from what they can get for packaging fees.

                        Agency @25% of budget: $12.5 million
                        writer's fee @1% ATA offer: $125,000

                        imagine if writers demanded the same fee that agents do? 10% of their take... the picture shifts...

                        writer's take @10% of Agency's take: $1,250,000 to the writer as producer on top of their quote.

                        and that's the minimum. is it equitable? maybe, since nothing happens without a writer's script. if Agents can negotiate as high as 25% of the budget in packaging fees writers are severely underpaid for the IP they provide.

                        not only that, but if writers were able to do this, talent and directors would be next in line to demand percentages, right? i mean, that is what the ATA fears. so let's say the talent and director demands an additional 10% total each.

                        10% for writer/talent/director = $3.75 million (total)

                        which leaves the Agency's take at $8.75 million which is still a ****-ton of money. they would rather have NOTHING than share the wealth.

                        the ATA is not going to give up $12.5 million for $150k. no way. so the goal has to be to get them to agree to share.

                        and they won't do it. know why? because they're greedy ****ing bastards. it's wrong. it's been going on for too long. and, this was and is our chance to fix it.

                        as writers we need to understand this stuff in order to negotiate on our own behalf. sorry, i'm a numbers gal, can't help myself.

                        it's about wealth redistribution.
                        "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


                        • #13
                          Why I Left My Agent: 'Grey's Anatomy' writer Krista Vernoff

                          Interesting and timely piece re the current WGA-ATA battle. Notable that the writer likes her agent very much -- the issue isn't personal. The following excerpt from her article should have considerable resonance:

                          'Just because a Hollywood system is entrenched, that doesn't make it right. (See: Harvey Weinstein.)

                          When I came to Grey's Anatomy as a supervising producer level writer in season one - 15 years ago - I made more money per episode than the supervising producer level writers on Grey's Anatomy are making now. And I'm told that Grey's writers' quotes are actually higher than most.

                          Our income as a guild has gone radically down while Hollywood's profits have gone radically up. The ATA is claiming that it's because show orders have been reduced. But Grey's Anatomy's order has not been reduced; we produced 25 episodes this year. So why is the only thing that's increased for TV writers, in the 19 years since I became one, the guild negotiated minimums.'


                          https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...column-1201920

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                            Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                            so the ATA offered writers 1% of their packaging fees. they expect that writers will be okay with 1% when their take of a writer's fee is 10%? and they think writers are being greedy?

                            let's run the numbers...

                            movie budget: $50 million
                            writer fee: $500,000
                            agent @10% writer's fee is: $50,000

                            let's say talent and director demand the same, so the entire pot is $150,000 far cry from what they can get for packaging fees.

                            Agency @25% of budget: $12.5 million
                            writer's fee @1% ATA offer: $125,000

                            imagine if writers demanded the same fee that agents do? 10% of their take... the picture shifts...

                            writer's take @10% of Agency's take: $1,250,000 to the writer as producer on top of their quote.

                            and that's the minimum. is it equitable? maybe, since nothing happens without a writer's script. if Agents can negotiate as high as 25% of the budget in packaging fees writers are severely underpaid for the IP they provide.

                            not only that, but if writers were able to do this, talent and directors would be next in line to demand percentages, right? i mean, that is what the ATA fears. so let's say the talent and director demands an additional 10% total each.

                            10% for writer/talent/director = $3.75 million (total)

                            which leaves the Agency's take at $8.75 million which is still a ****-ton of money. they would rather have NOTHING than share the wealth.

                            the ATA is not going to give up $12.5 million for $150k. no way. so the goal has to be to get them to agree to share.

                            and they won't do it. know why? because they're greedy ****ing bastards. it's wrong. it's been going on for too long. and, this was and is our chance to fix it.

                            as writers we need to understand this stuff in order to negotiate on our own behalf. sorry, i'm a numbers gal, can't help myself.

                            it's about wealth redistribution.
                            Asking them to share the wealth is like asking a CEO to take a pay cut so the minimum wage workers keeping the company functioning can see a pay increase. It's just not going to happen, not easily anyway - that's clear in the ATA head's latest inflammatory statements. They're digging in their heels and they're doing it hard, because they see sharing any significant fees as something that will cost them their way of life under their current budgets. They've been getting away with fraudulent, borderline illegal behavior for quite awhile now, why would they stop if they don't absolutely have to?

                            Before they're going to be FORCED to share any REAL percentage of these fees (via lawsuits, legal prosecution, etc), I foresee them going through all sorts of other scenarios and taking all sorts of other further actions against writers (either directly or indirectly). This really feels like the start of a war.

                            In any effect, 10% seems fair enough to me also, since it's the same percentage they take on our work. Still seems insane that the creator of the material makes far less than the ones helping to simply shop it. But still. It also gives writers more incentive to support/allow their agents to do these packaging scenarios, whereas previously these deals often meant forcing the inclusion of talent that may not have been right for the project, which then harms its ability to succeed. I've heard horror stories about agents forcing writers to go with their packaging choices, the writer hates it but has no choice, the show or film flops, and the writer takes the hit/loss on future monies from the project AND opportunities due to a reputation of failures, whereas the agency never even looks back because they got their big pay day. Rinse and repeat.

                            When you think about it, the agencies really have little incentive for a project to succeed. They get paid (a sh*t ton) up front, so they just move on to the next package from the next writer. And so on and so forth.
                            Last edited by Lahlowen; 04-16-2019, 07:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: WGA votes to restrict agency packaging

                              any scheme of packaging fee sharing is just a kickback by another name, regardless of the ultimate percentages. but it's not really about the amounts of the fees themselves (although they are obscene and not particularly earned). it's the fact that a fiduciary cutting side deals with their clients' adversaries to line the fiduciary's own pockets is an inherently conflicted transaction -- unavoidably conflicted, imho. and one that has depressed the writers' own earnings above WGA minimums for a decade or more now. packaging in which agents can earn more commissions by fighting for a bigger paycheck for all of the talent comprising the package would be totally acceptable to the WGA, one imagines. but that will never fly with the agencies because the only thing they can offer to the studios/networks in creating a package is discounting their clients' quotes to make the "numbers work" for a buyer.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X