Here’s what I don’t get, Rick... Producers “sell or license” the product to the Streamers - shouldn’t writers and actors get a % of that “sell or license” fee versus residuals for streaming minutes? In exactly none of the conversations is anyone discussing the PGA. I’m assuming that highly regarded packages warrant higher purchase fees and thus more $$ to participating actors, writers, etc. Maybe the solution here is more transparency on what Streamers pay for acquired (and in house produced) content and how the PGA can share profits with fellow unions?
Currently, actors and writers get a small percentage of the licensing fee (it depends, but it's in the 2-4% range). But that doesn't add up to much, especially on the acting side, where that fee is split across a cast.
The SAG-AFTRA proposal wants to add another 2% of the streamer's revenues to this money, to be split among the cast.
It's almost impossible to figure out how much someone *should* be making, because we don't know the licensing fees for any of the projects or how the studio divvies up the money. And they can subtract certain costs out of the amount paid out. Which makes it even more complicated.
Yes, complicated, indeed - which is why it hasn’t be solved quickly!
Not sure I agree that actor’s should share in revenue. That’s like the UAW demanding that autoworkers get a % of Detroit, etc. revenue. Only partners who share risk should share revenue, perhaps?
The other tough thing is that only 5% of SAG-AFTRA members make more than $5,000 per year (roughly 8,000 people). Must be only a slim % of total who make more than $26,000 and qualify for S-A health plan. This is somewhat of a background/L-1 or L-2 union fighting for a middle class career in NYC and LA, where you can’t afford to live and work doing just $260/day BG.
Here’s what I don’t get, Rick... Producers “sell or license” the product to the Streamers - shouldn’t writers and actors get a % of that “sell or license” fee versus residuals for streaming minutes? In exactly none of the conversations is anyone discussing the PGA. I’m assuming that highly regarded packages warrant higher purchase fees and thus more $$ to participating actors, writers, etc. Maybe the solution here is more transparency on what Streamers pay for acquired (and in house produced) content and how the PGA can share profits with fellow unions?
Ah...another complicated issue.
Currently, actors and writers get a small percentage of the licensing fee (it depends, but it's in the 2-4% range). But that doesn't add up to much, especially on the acting side, where that fee is split across a cast.
The SAG-AFTRA proposal wants to add another 2% of the streamer's revenues to this money, to be split among the cast.
It's almost impossible to figure out how much someone *should* be making, because we don't know the licensing fees for any of the projects or how the studio divvies up the money. And they can subtract certain costs out of the amount paid out. Which makes it even more complicated.
Yes, complicated, indeed - which is why it hasn’t be solved quickly!
Not sure I agree that actor’s should share in revenue. That’s like the UAW demanding that autoworkers get a % of Detroit, etc. revenue. Only partners who share risk should share revenue, perhaps?
The other tough thing is that only 5% of SAG-AFTRA members make more than $5,000 per year (roughly 8,000 people). Must be only a slim % of total who make more than $26,000 and qualify for S-A health plan. This is somewhat of a background/L-1 or L-2 union fighting for a middle class career in NYC and LA, where you can’t afford to live and work doing just $260/day BG.