Tag Archives: sag

Patching Up Negotiations Redux

[Ed. Note: This is a reprint of my 10/31/09 post.] Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Update: Whether it was the recession or bad business practices, Pumpkin Patch Guy was replaced by Pumpkin Patch Guy 2.0.
This year's pumpkin purchase went without a hitch.
They even threw in the carving kit!]

Patching Up Negotiations

Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

SAG’s Thaw

"Fire & Ice"  courtesy of Nathan Harper

Variety‘s Dave McNary reported that the Screen Actors Guild’s national board just approved a tentative two year deal on its film-TV contract, triggering a ratification vote by the guild’s members on June 1st.

As McNary writes in today’s Variety:

Should the deal be approved by members, it will extinguish what’s been a nagging uncertainty for the business for the past year. Production on film and TV was thrown off-kilter by the writers work stoppage, then by studios’ and nets’ fears that a SAG strike might emerge. During the period of uncertainty in the fall, control of SAG’s national board shifted to a moderate coalition, while the economic crisis helped create a big slowdown in local feature production. (First-quarter off-lot activity in Hollywood was at an all-time low.)

The terms of the new deal are generally the same as those the networks and studios agreed to with the WGA, DGA and AFTRA. That means that all of the guild’s protracted stang und drum sturm und drang was a waste of time and may have even hurt SAG’s chances to assert jurisdiction over all television programming.

SAG and AFTRA have joint jurisdiction over dramatic television and most television actors are members of both unions. The networks saw an opening and took it by entering into TV agreements with AFTRA instead of SAG. For the first time in 30 years, AFTRA split from SAG and negotiated its primetime contract without SAG. By doing so, the networks scored a twofer by fostering discord between and within each union and averting any threat to TV production during a strike.

Effective negotiating requires unity between and amongst the rep and the represented. This is all the more so when the represented are a large number of people (in this case, 120,000), each with different goals, motives and fears.

Group dynamics assumes that there’s always going to be dissent amongst a large number of people seeking a common goal. The WGA had similar difficulties during their negotiations with the AMPTP. However, a large group still requires a broad coalition of support before it embarks on any negotiation. In this case, SAG’s current board came to power in the middle of these negotiations and only holds a slim majority.

Given that, infighting between guild factions doomed these negotiations from the start; drawing off much needed focus and consensus away from the negotiations and towards addressing dissenters objections to the point of distraction. The AMPTP likely concluded that the best tactic for them was to stay largely mum lest they provide guild factions with any common ground on which to unify.

And now that SAG’s national board has approved the deal terms, it’s still far from over.

In the weeks to follow, SAG president Alan Rosenberg and his MembershipFirst faction have vowed to continue their opposition to the current proposal in an effort to get as many no votes from SAG members as they can. Although the consensus is that passage of the current proposal is all but assured, Rosenberg and company are reportedly setting the stage for next fall’s election of SAG’s leadership. This tactic has already proven to be self-destructive and will accomplish nothing other than to further weaken the union and any chance it may have at unification.

As it is, SAG should have postponed negotiations until it developed consensus within its membership and its leadership. Common ground is the cure here. This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking; it’s common sense.

Expiration of SAG’s new agreement concurrent with the WGA, AFTRA and the DGA’s agreements was one of the most important concessions the guild was able to obtain from the studios. With all the creative unions’ deals expiring at the same time, they’ll be strength in numbers and an opportunity for a unified front based on a set of common goals. Although many SAG members believe they may have lost this battle, with that kind of formidable alliance, SAG may ultimately be in a position to win the war.

Lennon Reloaded

The “One Laptop per Child” Foundation released a television commercial on Christmas Day of John Lennon – almost 30 years after his assassination – pitching viewers to buy laptops for poor children.

The Foundation produced the spot using digital technology; creating an ersatz version of Lennon saying “I tried to do it through my music, but now you can do it in a very different way. You can give a child a laptop and more than imagine, you can change the world.”

Variations on the technology have been around for years. Michael Crichton predicted the advent of the technology in “Looker” in 1981. In 1995, I cited Crichton’s work when I wrote about the use of digital technology to reanimate deceased celebrities in new works – and the possible legal complications – here.

Although the ethical and business dilemmas of using digital automatons instead of real actors are still in flux, the legal issues remain the same. The commercial exploitation of dead celebrities requires the consent of the celebrity’s estate. In this case, Yoko Ono, Lennon’s widow approved the spot.

When I wrote my article in 1995, the infinite possibility of the internet was largely unknown to the public. Our understanding of its potential now combined with advances in digital reanimation technology will only bring these issues to the forefront.

You can find out more about One Laptop Per Child’s donation program here.