The Idea Blog

This from a TV writer, published in today’s Times.

“I am angry because I am accused of being greedy by studios that are being greedy. I am angry because my greed is fair and reasonable: if money is made off of my product through the Internet, then I am entitled to a small piece. The studios’ greed, on the other hand, is hidden behind cynical, disingenuous claims that they make nothing on the Web - that the streaming and downloading of our shows is purely ‘promotional.’ Seriously?

“Most of all I’m angry that I’m not working. Not working means not getting paid. My weekly salary is considerably more than the small percentage of Internet gains we are hoping to make in this negotiation and if I’m on the picket line for just three months, I will never recoup those losses, no matter what deal gets made.

“But I am willing to hold firm for considerably longer than three months because this is a fight for the livelihoods of a future generation of writers, whose work will never ‘air,’ but instead be streamed, beamed or zapped onto a tiny chip.”

In my business we’re often faced with a similar dilemma explaining to clients why photographers sell their work, but still expect to hold onto it. “Usage is for print advertising only and for a period not to extend two years.” Same for talent, the models in a shoot. Same for the director of a TV spot.

“Why can’t I just buy it outright?” says the client. “I can’t anticipate all the uses of that photo [or illustration, or ...], and I want to make sure I use all the tools for all media to make it more consistent, more of a campaign.”

Or, “This is a right-to-work state, and no photographers’ ‘union’ can hold me at the point of a bayonet.”

“We can get you a price for unlimited usage,” I say, “but you won’t like it.” And, sure enough, that price is likely double the original “restricted” cost.

The writers’ strike is another example of an increasingly failing, flailing attempt to hold onto the standards of one era in a fast-changing, obsolescence-making new day and time and business environment. The photographer or model or artist expecting residuals is reluctant to put a one-time, anything goes price on her work because she fears what the client might think when he sees that price. Her work is like “art,” she might think, and its value will likely increase over time and she wants to benefit from such an increase.

What makes the value increase, however, is the continued investment the client makes, not the artist.

If her work is truly approaching art, then my advice to her is to charge for it at the beginning, not later. “But no client would pay that,” she says. Precisely.

Heck, increasingly we’re finding clients aren’t interested in paying for it now or later.

“The client will just find someone willing to do it for less, and the work will suffer for it,” a creative person might say, defending the practice of pay me now and pay me later.

“You mean like a less expensive luxury car from Japan vs. a Jaguar from England or a Mercedes from Germany?”

My advice to the Writers’ Guild and the photographer or model or any other creative person facing this changing environment is simply to raise your front-end price if you want, need or believe you deserve to be paid more money. If you are fired - or not hired - because your client refuses to pay your price, then they’ll presumably hire someone with less talent, the show will suffer, it will be canceled, and this cycle will repeat often enough that the better writers will be brought back … at their higher prices.

Kind of a personal strike, I guess. A personal protest.

The alternative? Well, maybe you aren’t that good after all. And isn’t that one of the problems we face with any union? Teachers, steel workers, writers…? A union often secures benefits too near the same for the better and the lesser performers.

No, I wouldn’t want to be held hostage by my union in a fight for money. Working conditions? Yes, definitely. Money? No, I’ll take my chances on my own.