Why We Fight

[John Sprung]

Yeah, but they've set a cutoff date many times in the past. What makes you think they'll actually adhere to it this time?

I don't know for sure that they will. But the possibility is enough to figure in how both sides think about the negotiations. The non-broadcast markets become much more important, which is what they're stuck on. Certainly a whole lot of stress has built up on the tectonic plates of television.

 

Sometimes unpredictable things shake out of massive shifts like this. Back in the days of B&W TV, a season was always exactly 39 episodes, no more, no less. That drifted down during the color transition to the 22 or 23 episodes we think of as a full season today. And color was backward compatible with the existing installed base of TV sets. This is going to be a much bumpier ride than that, because people have to toss their old TV's.

 

One theory was that the studios wanted to get out of the annual insanity and expense of doing the 2008 pilot season. Perhaps something a little bigger is happening, and we'll see the end of the whole idea of seasons. Pilots will be made and sold any time all year long. So, too, will new shows start up and go on the air most any time, and old ones will be replaced. Without seasons, everything will work like a mid-season replacement.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Another thought -- Instead of an all or nothing cutoff date, it may be that they'll enforce 2-17-09 where it makes sense to do so, and grant hardship exceptions to continue NTSC in some markets. I understand that that's how the U.K. handled the Marconi/EMI to PAL transition in the 1960's - '70's.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brad Grimmett]

One theory was that the studios wanted to get out of the annual insanity and expense of doing the 2008 pilot season. Perhaps something a little bigger is happening, and we'll see the end of the whole idea of seasons. Pilots will be made and sold any time all year long. So, too, will new shows start up and go on the air most any time, and old ones will be replaced. Without seasons, everything will work like a mid-season replacement.

 

-- J.S.

Yeah, I've heard that theory and it makes a lot of sense. I've always thought that the current system was a little weird, with pilots shooting a year or so before the show airs. I don't know that many people would mind doing it the "new" way, except maybe the production companies that consistently shoot a lot of pilots during pilot season.

[Mark Dunn]

Another thought -- Instead of an all or nothing cutoff date, it may be that they'll enforce 2-17-09 where it makes sense to do so, and grant hardship exceptions to continue NTSC in some markets. I understand that that's how the U.K. handled the Marconi/EMI to PAL transition in the 1960's - '70's.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

The difference was that 405-line mono transmissions continued until 1985. No-one had to throw away a TV set. Analogue here is being switched off very rapidly, over only 4 years. And digital looks worse, especially on black-and-white films.

[Walter Graff]

Even better and more in line with what is going on, this strike comes at a great time for the networks as their season has been a disaster with a lot of shows that were promised to be hits not hitting anything but the wall. So the way out is the strike that allows them to wipe the slate clean and to blame something other than bad choices and fragmented viewership. Now they can write off the season and move on to hopefully making a better line up next year.

[Walter Graff]

Remember this analog cut off date you mention has nothing to do with anything except each broadcast station having to switch to their digital over the air transmission only, no more analogue transmission. It does not affect anyone except the 14% of US homes that use rabbit ears. It does not affect your cable or your satellite. It?s true purpose is to free up airspace so it can be sold. It has zero to do with HD too, simply saying we are going to use a different pipe to send you the water over the air.

[John Sprung]

Now they can write off the season and move on to hopefully making a better line up next year.

Hmmm.... How do we do that without pilot season?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

Hmmm.... How do we do that without pilot season?

-- J.S.

 

1. Some shows are already in the mix, and just need a go-ahead, already have been tested.

2. Some remakes of old shows don't need pilots. They are simply approved site unseen eg Knight Rider.

3. At least 300 reality pilots have been made and will play a big part of next season now that the ones on now are showing strong results.

4. The old standby's come back.

 

There have been numerous recent articles in the trades about how the old pilot system as well as the network upfronts as we know know it might be dead or see drastic changes.

[John Sprung]

It does not affect anyone except the 14% of US homes that use rabbit ears.

Well, it cuts off the rooftop and attic mounted Yagi's and parabolics, too. The theory is that 14% of the market is terrestrial only. But there are a lot of households with second and third TV's, like in the childrens' rooms, that are OTA only, while the main set is on cable or satellite. So, the hit is some unknown number greater than 14%.

 

In most any business context, a 14% drop is significant. Let the Dow take a 2% hit, let alone 14%, and that's big news. A 14% drop in sales of asparagus or airline tickets or the products of any one company would be a real big problem for everyone involved.

 

TV is an advertising medium. Cut off well over 14% of the eyeball-hours of watching we can sell, and we have a real big shift in the tectonic plates of TV land.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

TV is an advertising medium. Cut off well over 14% of the eyeball-hours of watching we can sell, and we have a real big shift in the tectonic plates of TV land.

 

-- J.S.

 

 

Except its not that simple John. Let's use your Wall Street example. It's not a drop in 14% of teh days take, it's 14% of traders simply don't trade that day. That doesn't affect the up or down of the market only volume for the day. See the 22 million American households that rely on over-the-air television really don't plan on moving over to it anytime soon. Hey they have resisted cable and satellite for this long as it is so that second set you talk about is often just collecting dust. Most all studies show they don't care. THey are not TV watchers like others. And those folks can and many will probably simply get the box that allows them to keep using the antenna if they even watch that second and third set. Funny thing is how much that small group simply doesn't change. The total population of antenna households has remained pretty much the same since 2004 at 22.6 million, compared with 22.5 million in the first quarter of 2007. THey are happy and either don't care, or don't really understand it. But we know cable folks do as the number of cable/satellite households who own a digital television grew from 4.5 percent in the first quarter of 2005 to 23.5 percent in the first quarter of 2007. While the percentage of over-the-air households that own a digital television only grew from 1.96 percent to 7.12 percent over that same period. Bottom line is those folks simply aren't teh folks advertisers care about because they aren't inteested in Tv like those that watch it and want services to see it better. And with that rabbit ear group only 7% own a digital TV now compared to nearly 40% of cable and sat subscribers. Basically they haven't changed, don't seem to care, and with most likely either upgrade to a digital set or get a box to use teh old one. Advertisers don't have them on the radar.

[John Sprung]

Except its not that simple John. Let's use your Wall Street example. It's not a drop in 14% of teh days take, it's 14% of traders simply don't trade that day. ....

Well, that's certainly not as simple. ;-)

 

But I don't see TV viewers being analogous to traders on the stock exchange. The whole thing is much more like commercial fishing. The advertisers are the canneries. Networks are fleets of fishing boats, some owned, most contracted. TV stations are boats. Viewers are fish. We're in the bait business.

 

Along comes the government, and mandates a 14% reduction in the annual catch. Definitely not good for the bait business.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

Along comes the government, and mandates a 14% reduction in the annual catch. Definitely not good for the bait business.

 

 

Except that 14% are fish no one eats so no loss. These viewers are not the core of television viewers that advertisers are interested in so advertisers aren't concerned.

 

A further example of what I was saying about the future direction of networks away form scripted and back to reality due to great ratings can be found in a number of articles out this week about how the networks were already making moves to go in a different direction before the strike because of what was turning out to be a lousy season of ratings. I've also been told this by some pretty high ups at various networks.

 

Excerpt:

 

The Hollywood Reporter

CBS is going for reality in a big way as it readies the launch of three series in the genre. New programs include "Game Show in My Head," a biweekly celebrity talent contest called "Secret Talents of the Stars" and "America's Top Dog." The trio represent the Tiffany Network's first unscripted series orders since the writers strike started. Still, even though CBS reality chief Ghen Maynard and his counterparts at rival nets had already been aggressively developing reality shows before the strike, they had not until recently rushed to order new ones.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...96a2a460a8be10a

[John Sprung]

Except that 14% are fish no one eats so no loss. These viewers are not the core of television viewers that advertisers are interested in so advertisers aren't concerned.

I can agree with you about reality shows. But the advertisers know that everybody buys toothpaste and toilet paper, even the terrestrial 14%. If Nielsen counts them, we care about them.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

1-11-08 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co President and Chief Executive Robert Iger received a 7 percent increase in total compensation in fiscal 2007, to $27.7 million, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

Disney paid Iger a $2 million base salary, plus a $13.7 million bonus. The company expensed $7.9 million in stock awards and $2.2 million in option awards for Iger during the fiscal year ended September 30, the company's proxy showed.

 

AND......

From unitedhollywood.com POSTED BY LAETA KALOGRIDIS (wga member-BIG credits on imdb-she's the real thing)

"By way of context -- if the WGA got everything it was asking for, it would cost Disney $6.25 million a year. Mr. Iger could write a personal check to end the strike for his whole corporation -- and still have a little over $21 million left over."

 

Keeping it honest: the $6.25 million is just for the WGA contract....it does not include potential residual payouts to DGA, SAG or payments into IATSE pension and health plans which will all increase with an increase in WGA residuals, it's called pattern bargaining (what the industry is hoping will happen if and when the DGA settles). So Bob might not get to keep the entire $21,000,000. But keep in mind - that compensation is for one employee of just one studio.

[Brad Grimmett]

1-11-08 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co President and Chief Executive Robert Iger received a 7 percent increase in total compensation in fiscal 2007, to $27.7 million, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

I feel bad for him. I mean, there must be at least 100 CEO's that make more money than him! Poor sap. Disney should really cut back on their production budgets so they can afford to get Iger in the top ten. Only $27.7 million? Outrageous! This is why these poor poor corporations need to cut back on their spending...so they can pay people like Robert Iger what they're worth! Do you know what it costs to fill up a Gulfstream these days?

[Walter Graff]

Only $27.7 million? Outrageous! This is why these poor poor corporations need to cut back on their spending...so they can pay people like Robert Iger what they're worth!

 

 

Actually it's a very small percentage of what Disney did and Iger helped them to do. And it's enough to make sure he doesn't go anywhere else. This is the business of big public companies and not too many shareholders will complain during the shareholders meeting about his compensation package. Hey helped them make 15 billion in 07 up a billion from 06 so actually his pay is miniscule.

 

 

PS I don't know Iger but know his wife Willow well and she's a great person who I'm sure enjoys the extra cash.

[Brad Grimmett]

Hey helped them make 15 billion in 07 up a billion from 06 so actually his pay is miniscule.

That's the point. They make 15 billion in a year and then have layoffs or paycuts on a regular basis because they're not making enough. It's not just Disney, that's typical behavior for these types of companies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[Walter Graff]

Yea, that's how the world works. :(

[Walter Graff]

Say goodbye to another large union:

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/12/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[robert duke]

I started last month looking to replace my aging Dodge Diesel PU. I started looking at the options of moving into a smaller truck or wagon. I was appalled that the mileage for Dodge, Gm, and Ford vehicles was dispicable. even Toyota and Nissan have slacked off on their mileage over the years. Maybe GM would make up for their losses if they started offer a more competitive product.

 

Hopefully the Gm employees will see that they will take a huge loss if they take the buyout options. I think the UAW needs to open its eyes to what it will do by replacing employees in a buyout.