Tag Archives: Deal Points

“You Were Right And I Was Wrong”

Some time ago, a client called me to apologize for not taking my advice on a deal that ultimately went bad for her.

“Alright” she said. “Let’s get this over with. Tell me you told me so.”

“No,” I said. “We discussed the risks, you considered my advice very carefully and then you made your own decision.”

A rep’s judgment should never in itself become a substitute for your own judgment. As between the rep and you, you alone will likely have to live with the consequences.

Most big decisions in this business (and in life) are a crap shoot; there’s rarely a bright line to follow. However, there are a few things you can do to increase the odds in your favor.

1.     Surround yourself with smart people of good will (that’s by far the hardest part). Look up the word “supportive.” It doesn’t mean working with reps who are yes men and it doesn’t mean silencing their dissent. However, it does mean ensuring that your reps are acting in your – not in their or someone else’s – best interests. See e.g., Iago in “Othello” or more apropos, Sammy in “What Makes Sammy Run?”

2.     Actively seek out your reps’ counsel. Don’t assume their silence means that they approve. They might just be inattentive, lazy or misunderstand their role in the decision making process.  If so, go back to step #1. Consider the risks, benefits and alternatives that they provide (as well as your own take).

3.     Then and only then make up your own mind.

And if you screw up against your reps’ best advice, that’s OK. Everyone screws up at some point.  But your reps better still be there for you to help clean up the mess.  That, and their good counsel is what you pay them for.

Of course, if anyone doubts that, just tell them I told you so.

Money For Nuthin’ or Nick’s For Free


AFTRA accused Nickelodeon of improperly negotiating talent revenue participation for the cable outlet outside of Nick’s shows. A copy of AFTRA’s purported letter to Nick (I couldn’t verify its authenticity) is here.

More specifically, AFTRA’s letter asserts that Nick requires “that the performer grant to the employer a right to a ‘profit participation’ interest in the talent’s third-party income as a condition of employment” in violation of AFTRA’s collective bargaining agreement and possibly California law.

I don’t think that AFTRA has a leg to stand on or they would have cited the applicable provisions of their agreement and the law chapter and verse. I suspect that Nick’s lawyers came to the same conclusion.

What is clear is that the major studios, networks and cable outlets are looking for the next Martha Stewart or, in Nick’s case, their answer to the Disney Channel’s “Hannah Montana”; building brands on the backs of the talent they break with the goal of cashing in on their success essentially forever.

While it’s difficult to empathize with the big entertainment companies, production costs are rising and viewership is more fragmented. As a result, they’re on a desperate search for new revenue streams.

I posted about this emerging deal point several months ago when the Food Network started asking for similar language in their talent agreements. With Nick now taking up the cause, a trend has developed and it won’t be long before the rest follow suit.

What was once an unreasonable “ask,” will become – if it isn’t already – business affairs policy unless talent reps develop the leverage to collectively reject it. However, with the potential millions to be made by breaking the next Miley Cyrus and a surplus of talented kids (and their parents) hoping to make it big, I doubt that’s possible.

Potential Breakthrough In Writers Guild Strike


The Los Angeles Times and other news outlets reported over the weekend that the broad strokes of a deal between the AMPTP and the WGA could be in the offing as early as next Friday. The parties reportedly closed the gap over how much the studios should pay writers for free streaming of movies and television programs over the Internet. The parties still need to find a mutually agreeable distinction between content exploitation in which residuals would be payable and content promotion which would be residual-free.

The Directors Guild closed their deal over these issues last month but many striking writers (and SAG members) criticized that deal for not going far enough on streaming.

The breakthrough came when Bob Iger and Peter Chernin, the designated studio heads negotiating the deal, included more favorable streaming residuals than those in the DGA deal and separated rights for shows created for the Internet so writers receive extra compensation and credit for television shows based on online programming.

However, Guild leaders issued the following cautionary statement on Sunday morning:

To Our Fellow Members,

While fully mindful of the continuing media blackout, we write you to address the rumors and reports that undoubtedly you have been hearing.

The facts: we are still in talks and do not yet have a contract. When and if a tentative agreement is reached, the first thing we will do is alert our membership with an e-mail message. Until then, please disregard rumors about either the existence of an agreement or its terms.

Until we have reached an agreement with the AMPTP, it is essential that we continue to show our resolve, solidarity, and strength.

Picketing will resume on Monday. Our leverage at the bargaining table is directly affected by your commitment to our cause. Please continue to show your support on the line. We are all in this together.


Patric M. Verrone
President, WGAW

Michael Winship
President, WGAE

As I posted earlier, the break in the impasse here was the result of the principals fronting these discussions and negotiators likely ghost writing arguments for and against critical deal points. Sometimes, this approach is the only way to make meaningful progress in deal negotiations. Once Iger, Chernin, Verrone and Winship work out these broad strokes, the Guild’s rank and file still have to approve the deal. That would pave the way to resolving the strike and getting writers back to work in time to save pilot season and part of the fall television schedule (not to mention feature work) even if it takes months for labor negotiators to work out the details.

Cracks In The Veneer


The three month old writers strike dramatically reduced the number of produced programs for the 2007-08 television season and pilot season is now in jeopardy. Movie deals are on hold; term deals have been terminated for force majeure and thousands are either out of work or about to be let go (including several agents I know who are hard pressed to find any other form of meaningful work – go figure!).

Studios and guild reps are under a news blackout while they engage in back channel and informal discussions regarding the strike impasse with the goal of more formal talks in the next few days; the first since negotiations broke down on December 7th.

Guild leaders recently withdrew their animation and reality TV proposals. They also agreed not to picket the Grammys. The Guild’s actions could be viewed as good faith concessions to help restart negotiations. On the other hand, they could simply be signs of strike fatigue and capitulation. Whatever the motivation, the AMPTP’s perception (and that of the WGA membership) stand to profoundly affect the psychology of pending negotiations and ultimately, the outcome of any deal.

While the Guild’s alternatives are limited, their current tactics may weaken the leverage that only a complete shut-down could support. The Guild continues to enter into piecemeal agreements with independent production and distribution companies – most recently, Lions Gate, RKO, Marvel and The Weinstein Company – based on the WGA’s initial proposals in an attempt to gain additional leverage. The WGA is betting that these deals will put pressure on the studios and networks to settle. However, the AMPTP dismissed these pacts as meaningless “one-off” agreements since the terms will be superseded by any deal ultimately negotiated by the parties. The Guild also runs the risk that these deals will split the rank in file between those working and getting paid on waiver-projects and those that remain unpaid and on picket lines. The Guild is already contending with an erosion of support in some quarters.

Certain Guild members are already grumbling about the prospect of “going financial core.” Rumor has it that a number of writers continue to develop projects during the strike “without paper” (i.e., without a written agreement in place) to pay the bills. It’s obvious to anyone watching “The Daily Show” or “The Cobert Report” that staff writers continue to work for these shows despite strike rule prohibitions. Hey, but I could be wrong.

With those reservations, there are several good things going for this latest round of talks for all concerned.

The principals are now talking instead of their reps. To be sure, representatives for both sides are still involved with these discussions but direct communication by the principals can diffuse the current hostility between the parties and allow them to refocus their energies on material deal points instead of petulance and platitudes.

The Directors Guild pact can be used as precedent. Since the AMPTP closed their deal with the DGA, the parties can now use the material terms of that agreement as a template for their own negotiations and adjust their respective expectations to those deal points in which there is a real prospect for consensus.

Weakening resolve on both sides. The studios and networks are quickly running out of content; writers need to work. Both sides realize that given the strike’s enormous financial toll on individuals, the local economy and corporate profits, it is in everyone’s best interests to work a deal as soon as possible; ideally before the Oscar telecast on February 24th.

Lastly, both parties should offer the other an ego nickel; a deal point or two of minimal value to the giving party that validates the receiving party’s demands enough for them to save face with their constituencies. Sooner or later, the parties will be working together again and a few ego-nickels might expedite closure of a deal both parties can live with if not embrace.