September 29, 2008 by Editor.

It took a couple of hours, but, as we predicted, the AMPTP’s response to the let’s talk letter from the Allens has been leaked first, then sent. At least they didn’t reduce the offer on the table.

–

September 29, 2008

Dear Alan and Doug:

This is in response to your letter dated September 29, 2008 to Peter Chernin, Robert Iger and me. Your letter indicates that the Screen Actors Guild is not prepared to change its position on any of the threshold issues in our negotiations. The Guild’s position remains unchanged since we last met on July 16, 2008. Further, in addition to new media, there are a number of significant issues which, in and of themselves, prevent the parties from reaching agreement.

Our Final Offer to the Screen Actors Guild is comparable to our agreements with the Directors Guild of America, the Writers Guild of America and AFTRA. Our Final Offer memorializes a set of compromises, including in the area of new media, worked out with other Guilds and Unions and particularly addresses actor specific issues raised during the Screen Actors Guild negotiations.

We do not believe that it would be productive to resume negotiations at this time given SAG’s continued insistence on terms which the Companies have repeatedly rejected.

In light of the unprecedented economic difficulties facing our industry and the nation, the Companies continue to hope that the Guild’s leadership will recognize the five major labor agreements that have already been concluded this year and will accept our Final Offer while it remains on the table.

We want to reemphasize that we value greatly our industry’s talent - the directors, writers, actors, and below-the-line people who create entertainment products for audiences around the world - and hope that our Final Offer can serve as the basis of an agreement.

Sincerely,
J. Nicholas Counter III

—

Reaction:  Variety notes a “softening” of SAG’s position. The Hollywood Reporter points out that the letter comes after the Allens claimed to be having back channel negotiations. Jonathan Handel finds interesting the sentence in the Allens’ letter, “”If your intransigence continues, however, our choices become harder and fewer,” but says, “Whether SAG actually has any leverage to back up those words is unclear.”

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 18 Comments »

September 29, 2008 by WW.

The following letter went out today to the AMPTP and two CEOs, as the Allens try to get the producers to go back to the table on TV-Theatrical, even though they’ve clearly said the offer on the table is last best and final.

Our analysis: the letter, posted as it was being sent, is an admission that a strike authorization vote isn’t going to happen, presumably because the Allens know it will fail. This is not news to the AMPTP, and unless they’re feeling uncharactaristically generous, the letter will be greated with hilarity and nothing else.

Expect a quick “sign the deal or rot” from the AMPTP. We’re checking their site now to see if it’s posted already….nope, not yet.

—

September 29, 2008

J. Nicholas Counter III
President
Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers
15301 Ventura Blvd.
Bldg. E
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5885

Peter Chernin
President
Fox Group
10201 W. Pico Blvd
Building 100 - Room 5080
Los Angeles, CA 90035

Robert Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 S Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-6369

Dear Gentlemen:

We believe it is clear that our members would fail to ratify your proposal of June 30, 2008. It would serve no productive purpose, therefore, to send our membership a proposal that SAG’s National Negotiating Committee and National Board have rejected and that our membership would not ratify.

It is our fervent hope that this news will encourage you and your colleagues to reengage in formal bargaining, with the exchange of proposals and compromise by both sides necessary to reach an agreement.

Our discussions with you and many of your colleagues since formal talks ended have educated both of our teams about our respective priorities and flexibilities. As we have said to SAG members, if we can reach agreement on three threshold issues, we believe we can finish these negotiations. One issue you brought to the table: force majeure protection for actors held by contract to a suspended production. Two issues we have identified as core principles: coverage for all new media productions (including those below $15,000/minute) and residuals for made-for new media productions re-used on new media. Other issues divide us, certainly, but we believe those other issues can be successfully addressed once we have resolved these three threshold issues. We have approached these contract negotiations reasonably and with a realistic and informed view of the state of the industry.

We are prepared to meet formally and continuously until we reach agreement. We owe it to our constituencies and the thousands of others in this industry that depend on a productive, stable and uninterrupted relationship between Screen Actors Guild and the networks and studios.

The alternative to reaching an agreement as soon as possible is unnecessary and destructive uncertainty. If your intransigence continues, however, our choices become harder and fewer. We would prefer the more complicated and productive choices that compromise will make necessary. But we can’t make those choices that lead to agreement working alone.

What do you say; when can our committees meet face-to-face?

Sincerely,

Alan Rosenberg
National President

Doug Allen
National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 12 Comments »

September 29, 2008 by Editor.

Wall Street’s meltdown is very public, with a half dozen bailouts on the way. Our morning reading has us worried about a similar meltdown in the financial side of the entertainment industry.Stories, in very different media, all say the trend towards content distribution via the net is unstoppable and increasing in velocity. This has major implications for the way we get paid - or even if we get paid.BluRay, touted as the hot wave of the future, is given a five year lifespan and described as the last-ever physical media. The reason? Sites like Surfthechannel.com, which link to overseas pirate sites from which thousands of theatricals and television shows stream on demand (though you may have to put up with some Chinese watermarks).The music industry is described as caving in to streaming, hoping (insanely, we think) that technology won’t rapidly allow theft of all the content it will release for free via MySpace. What, like they haven’t heard of streamrippers?So - here’s our disconcerting question. If everything is either stolen or given away free, where does the money come from to pay for content creation?We found these stories via our favorite technology blog, Digital Meteor. 

Posted in Media Business | Print | 11 Comments »