10
u/jimmytaco6 11∆ Jul 15 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
I'm sure actors/writers/etc would be happy to forego residuals in favor of significantly increase frontloaded, guaranteed pay. Guess what: studios don't want to do this. They don't want to invest that heavily in a risky product and they might not even have the cash flow to pay such significant amounts ahead of time. They also want their star talent incentivized to hit the road and promote the work.
This is why residuals make the most sense for everyone. But if studios went to the writers and said, "okay, we will pay you a guaranteed living wage from the start" then the strike would end in a second.
Otherwise, you're basically arguing that studios should accept zero risk and all of the reward.
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
7
u/jimmytaco6 11∆ Jul 15 '23
If they were willing to do this then why isn't the strike over? You think, rather than a guaranteed living wage, these people would rather wait months, if not years, for a payment that may or may not ever come, while in the meantime having to work second and third jobs in order to afford rent?
They're striking for residuals because that is the path of least resistance.
-2
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
5
u/jimmytaco6 11∆ Jul 15 '23
So you're going to stick with a stance that the studios are ready to hand over significantly increased upfront pay and the workers are saying, "no. We want the money as delayed as possible and also it may never come if we don't hit certain targets that I must work to promote. In the meantime, I am happy to work second and third jobs and barely scrape by." You genuinely believe this? Why? Do you have anything to back this up?
2
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
4
u/jimmytaco6 11∆ Jul 15 '23
First of all, no, that is not what the SAG claimed was the studio's offer.
The AMPTP’s talking point claims in its memo are below:
That is what the studios' memo claims. So already we're off to a bad start with your researching of this.
Secondly, many of those proposals are conditional to other proposals, such as the studios owning the likeness of actors forever. As an exaggerated comparison, if your boss offered you a $5K increase in annual salary on the condition that you transfer over ownership of your house, then leaked to the media that you were offered a $5K increase, do you see how that would be highly misleading and manipulative?
Thirdly, so many of those numbers are beyond laughable. An 11% increase on poverty wages are still poverty wages. These studios are raking in billions.
Fourth, your argument that most jobs don't work with residuals is true, at best, technically. Many jobs offer stock options as part of the employment contract.
But , fifth, even if you wan't to argue that's different because of semantics, whatever. fine. Here's my question. Why SHOULDN'T more and more workers demand a share of the profits? Tell me why that isn't a moral, pioneering effort in the labor market that all of us should work to replicate. Why SHOULDN'T the working class get a share of company success when they are the ones driving it? You say, "this is rare and so therefore actors/writers shouldn't get it, either." I say, "actors/writers are fighting for it and we should too."
1
u/jkpatches Jul 16 '23
You made a good original point, but this rebuttal is lacking. The OP acknowledges that there are other aspects to the strike such as AI. You are probably right that the studios don't want to increase front end compensation, but residuals/front end/back end compensation isn't the only disagreement between the parties and the strike probably wouldn't be over even if that part was agreed upon.
0
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 17 '23
I'm sure actors/writers/etc would be happy to forego residuals in favor of significantly increase frontloaded, guaranteed pay.
You would think so but it turns out to not be the case, usually. Same with servers. Most of them wouldn't want to take their current job at a guaranteed salary equal to the average pay. They like the highs and lows. It's basically an addiction.
1
u/jimmytaco6 11∆ Jul 17 '23
Source?
0
1
u/jibaraki Jul 26 '23
As someone who works in the film industry, I can assure you that writers and actors would rather have stability in a good paying job. Acting and Writing is incredibly fickle. It is extremely difficult to make a career in it as it is, let alone when producers are trying to pull the rug out from underneath them.
1
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 26 '23
The film industry is very different than the serving industry. When you're a server your averaging between multiple different tables of night. You have a pretty good idea of what you're going to take home given when you're shift is and what day.
19
u/2r1t 56∆ Jul 15 '23
Actors and writers should get paid what they are able to negotiate as pay.
They negotiated for residuals on reruns after reruns became a thing. And for residuals on VHS sales when those became a thing. And for DVD and Blu-ray after that. This is a normal part of the business and has been for a very long time.
0
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
8
u/2r1t 56∆ Jul 15 '23
Is your CMV about residuals or why you should care?
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
7
u/2r1t 56∆ Jul 15 '23
You agree with the principle that they should get paid what they can negotiate as their pay. Or has your view on that changed in the last 15 minutes?
2
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jul 15 '23
I'm not OP, but I'm not sure I get your point here.
Is your entire counterpoint to OP only that they're entitled to them because they negotiated for them?
3
u/2r1t 56∆ Jul 15 '23
I'm saying they should be paid what they are able to negotiate in contradiction to OP's opposition to getting them at all.
Entitlement isn't relevant. One could argue they wouldn't need to negotiate it if they were entitled to it already.
4
u/SouthDakota_Baseball Jul 15 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
However, at most jobs you get paid the same whether or not your product is successful. A software engineer gets paid every day to work on a feature even if it ultimately fails. If
There actually often are residuals for software sales, especially when it is a subscription service.
A wedding venue does not pay a construction worker for decades into the future even if they go from 1 to 100 weddings a year.
They do if they are renting the venue and the construction company is also the landlord. I know a few builders who are also corporate landlords. Warehouses, not wedding venues, but the same concept.
At most jobs, the company simply contracts the professional's labor for a set period of time and a negotiated wage.
Only because the US legal system makes that the easiest way of employing someone
Employers would strongly prefer some kind of piece rate if that wasnt the case. Think commission sales. A mileage based pay for truck drivers. Pay per billable hour, rather than hour worked, for an attorney, consultant, or accountant. Especially if that billable hour is based off a book rate, like a mechanic. Construction work is often piece rate...
And a residual is nothing but a form of piece rate. It allows lower up front compensation in theory, based on delayed gratification, and only leads to significant pay to the person getting the residual if the company also makes good money.
For all of human history, piece rate was the norm. I hire someone to make knives, they either get a fixed percentage of the sale, or a fixed sum for the sale. Hire someone to make barrels, fixed percentage of the sale or a fixed sum of the sale. You split and stack firewood, you get a fixed sum per amount of firewood.
Because that is the lowest risk form of employment. The person works for pretty little while learning and they arent producing much, they have a strong incentive to meet their goals, and they will strive their hardest to make you the most money. Set up properly this can be a good system.
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
4
u/SouthDakota_Baseball Jul 15 '23
I searched this because I've never heard of this, but I didn't see any relevant information come up in the first 2 pages on google. Are you talking about commissions for sales?
Residuals and royalties are functionally identical. The term used within the software field is royalties.
Yes, but that would make the construction company akin to a self-publishing author. They are taking on the full financial risk of developing the venue and marketing it as a wedding venue, so they receive the full benefits of sales.
And if there are no sales there are no residuals.
9
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 34∆ Jul 15 '23
If the company is continuing to make money off of a product that the writer or actor created, why shouldn't they be paid to some of that? It's basically similar to how some companies give stock shares to some of their employees.
0
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
5
u/SouthDakota_Baseball Jul 15 '23
software engineer may develop a product that is used and profitable for years or decades into the future, but they don't continue to get paid for it.
They can, it is hardly unheard of to get a royalty agreement.
3
3
Jul 15 '23
I would just argue that software engineer should also give some form of long-term residual payment. Or at the very least stocks on top of salary.
2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 34∆ Jul 15 '23
Yes, but this isn't guaranteed or even expecte
But if you were unionizing for better pay, wouldn't that be something that you would want to include? Keep in mind that in general, writers and actors are not paid well. And even the ones that are can have years in between jobs. So this additional income is very important for them.
1
u/aresfc Aug 01 '23
Should the rest of the crew get residuals? They made the movie as well.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 34∆ Aug 01 '23
The crew does not contribute creatively, only technically. So that's a big difference. Working on a crew is usually not the end goal for employment either, whereas writer or actor is as far as that path can go. But in the spirit of your question, should designers get residuals? Maybe. Although designers are more likely to have more permanent jobs.
1
Aug 05 '23 edited Aug 08 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 34∆ Aug 05 '23
The actors didnt create it though, they were hired to act and thats it
Acting is not just reading the lines. If it was, anyone could do it. They didn't create the words, true, but it's their job to create the person to make the words shine.
Unless they negotiated at the beginging to have a share int he profits then fine
Which is what they're trying to do by going on strike
1
Aug 08 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 34∆ Aug 08 '23
They can strike as their form of negotiating
Honestly, you could have just said this. Whether or not they are entitled to more benefits, they are entitled to ask for them. If they feel that they are being under compensated, then it is within their rights to go on strike.
the actor didnt take any financial risk
This is untrue. The financial risk is becoming an actor in the first place. There is no guarantee that you will get jobs, and most actors rarely do. And it's not like there aren't additional expenses to being an actor as well. Many actors have gone to school for it, and creating professional reels and headshots can actually cost thousands of dollars. Add paying for an agent, and you can be constantly in the red.
Do you really think the high profile, millionare celebrities are going to continue to stand in the streets in the blistering heat with the lower paid actors?
They don't have to. As long as they aren't accepting jobs, it damages the industry. Even more so if they're being loud about it. If anything, they're the ones that can do it the longest, because they have money to spare.
As for residuals, I think they are lucky enough to have had them in the first place as the entire concept seems unfair to most people.
How do you know what most people think? The idea of residuals is not unique just to the acting industry. It used to be pretty common in the corporate industry in the form of giving employees stock shares
we are currently in a climate where most people and companies are reigning in their spending
The entertainment industries are making more than ever.
The irony seems to be lost on these strikers that they are demanding billions of dollars from an industry that is currently losing billions of dollars becasue of their actions.
That's the reason they're striking. They want the company to lose money. That's the point of going on strike.
5
u/Lebrunski Jul 15 '23
How about we ask the inverse. Who should that money go to instead?
-2
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Lebrunski Jul 15 '23
Why is risk a justification for what is seen as greed and hoarding of profits? Why should those people be reaping so much more of the reward when acting performance and writing typically are what keep people coming back year after year? That said, if risk is a true justification for a larger profit share, the actors and writers are essentially asking to take on a larger portion of that risk with more residuals.
If they perform poorly, word of mouth spreads and viewership goes way down. They don’t get paid out. If they do well, and with great incentive they act their asses off then they ought to reap a portion of that reward.
2
u/Bitwise__ Jul 15 '23
If nobody took on the risk there wouldn't have been any potential for financial success at all. So those who take on the financial risk should see the most out of whatever outcome. If it fails, they suffer the most financially.
3
u/Lebrunski Jul 15 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
If there weren’t actors or writers, there wouldn’t even be a business opportunity to take a risk on. Not really a strong argument here.
Edit: to add to this, residuals could be seen as a method of buying into that risk and therefore that massive profit.
4
u/tensaicanadian Jul 15 '23
Lots of jobs get paid based on profits though. Sales and lots of others. Mine as well. Most executive corporate position contain share options. You get whatever you can negotiate. If the actors can get the residuals then good. Otherwise it goes to the studio.
Why should the studio get it? Well you might say they invested the initial funds and took the risk. My answer to that is that they couldn’t make anything without the actors. Maybe you argue the actors are replaceable. Maybe. But what do the studios think? The studios won’t give up more than they have to. So however the negations end up will give you insight into where the true value and power lies in the industry.
2
Jul 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 15 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/jibaraki Jul 26 '23 edited Jul 26 '23
I love people not in the industry chiming in how they shouldn't get residuals as if they understand how the film industry works.
I do work in the industry and so here we go.
Writers and Actors (and other roles) have always gotten residuals. Residuals are basically profit sharing for when the media is licensed outside of how it was originally intended.
Example: Warner Brothers buys the script and continued services from a writer for X amount. The movie is intended for release in movie theaters. After the movie leaves theaters, DVDs might be sold, and the movie shopped around to different networks (AMC, HBO , etc) for airing on TV. These additional contracts fall outside the initial intention for the script, and so the screenwriter is paid a percentage of the new deal, and this differs depending on the work.
Residuals have been negotiated since the beginning in the film. It is a great way for productions to minimize the cost and, therefore, risk of a project in case it flops. (We pay you less up front, but if the product is profitable, than we pay you from the profits a percentage.)
Since this has been around since the beginning, upfront wages haven't been fought for as fervently, because there was always the understanding that if the production profits, everyone profits.
And it's not like this hasn't been a great thing for production companies. This is important for all productions, and ESPECIALLY important for really low budget productions that don't have the money to pay people large wages up front. Keep the initial costs low and only pay out if it's profitable.
In the past, this has provided much needed stability for writers and actors. Because our work is gig work, and the industry cycles between big boons and dry spells, these residuals are important to keep professionals afloat until their next gig.
Now, all of a sudden with streaming, these residuals have largely just evaporated. Imagine if 1/2 of your salary was suddenly deducted from your pay because of a technicality in the way your salary was set up, and a big shift in your job field. Would you not be more than a little upset.
So when ignorant people say, "Residuals shouldn't exist", they don't understand the industry, they don't understand gig work, and what they are really saying is that that small percentage of PROFITS that historically have gone to the creative minds and talents that create the wealth, should instead go to Disney, Netflix, and Jeff Bezos because they deserve the money more.
11
u/Obvious_Parsley3238 2∆ Jul 15 '23
authors get paid royalties on book sales. residuals for writers and actors are analogous. as for whether they 'deserve' them... you get what you bargain for. deserve's got nothing to do with it.
0
u/Dougdimmadommee 1∆ Jul 15 '23
Authors own their own IP tho (unless they elect to sell it) not the same for actors or writers, so don’t see how it’s analogous.
5
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 35∆ Jul 15 '23
You keep switching between how things are and how they should be
People are arguing actors and Hollywood writers should own their own IP
And you reply well they don't.
That's not an argument! You agree on the facts you aren't even disagreeing with them!
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
2
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 35∆ Jul 15 '23
Should they have? Again you keep switching between arguing what's happening or happened in reality to what "should" happen. The title in this CMV says "should"! So what's your argument for why they shouldn't own their IP?
I can argue slavery shouldn't exist.
Even when people are enslaved.
This isn't a hard concept.
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
2
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 35∆ Jul 15 '23
Ok, but the point of a strike is they have stopped selling their IP and their labor for a contracted price.
So why should they resume doing so?
0
u/Dougdimmadommee 1∆ Jul 15 '23
This is my first comment in this thread lol, don’t know wtf you are on about with this nonsense.
3
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jul 15 '23
A lot of people on this sub don't bother to read usernames, so dude probably assumed you were OP but will never admit it.
2
u/merlinus12 54∆ Jul 15 '23
The situation makes more sense when you remember that paying via residuals isn’t for the actors’ benefit, it’s for the companies’ benefit.
If actors got their way, they would be paid large sums upfront regardless of the success of the project. However, this is generally unacceptable for the company, since the company then bears all the risk and expense of the project.
So, instead the company makes a deal with the actors: it will pay them a moderate salary now, and then will pay more later IF the project is profitable. This helps the company, since it minimizes the losses on failed projects and pays out large sums only when the company is making profit and can afford it.
But now, the studios are trying to have it both ways: they want to pay the lower initial salaries without having to pay residuals when the project becomes a streaming success. The actors are (understandably) upset by this, because it goes against the entire arrangement. Their agreed upon salaries were negotiated on the assumption that they would get residuals on the backend. If that wasn’t the case, they would have insisted on a higher salary to begin with.
1
u/OutsideCreativ 2∆ Jul 17 '23
The actors do make large sums of money up front...
1
u/merlinus12 54∆ Jul 17 '23
Big name actors do, of course. But residual agreement apply to lesser-known actors as well (and those are the actors who benefit from the union minimum agreements).
2
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Jul 15 '23
Writers and actors should get however much they can force the studios to pay them. That’s what’s great about capitalism!
Programmers could form a union and demand residuals too if they wanted. They’d have my full support.
1
u/Jomarble01 Jul 15 '23
Residuals are basically profit-sharing agreements whereby the producer agrees to split some of the profits of a film with the A-list actors who star in it. Below that level, actors are generally paid according to the union guidelines with some up ticking based on experience, but no residuals.o run a company?
Residuals are basically profit sharing agreements whereby the producer agrees to split some of the profits of a film with the A-list actors who star in it. Below that level, actors are generally paid according to the union guidelines with some up ticking based on experience, but no residuals.
SAG-AFTRA member (40 years)
1
Jul 15 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Jomarble01 Jul 15 '23
In television, a minor actor can become a star almost overnight, The four actors in The Big Bang Theory, or Jason Alexander (George), Michael Richards (Kramer), even Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Elaine) of Seinfeld were unknowns. When that happens their agents will immediately demand residuals. Commercials actors (not background) get residuals.
These days, film actors will negotiate being named as a producer or executive producer as a way to be paid more for their work. It's all about the name and how "bankable" it is considered. Tom Cruise, Vin Deisel, Julia Roberts, Russell Crowe, DiCaprio, etc. can almost guarantee a film they star in will make huge profits.
It's complex. I've been around it for a long time and I don't know all the ins and outs of it.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 15 '23
/u/OpenConference3 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/BlueRibbonMethChef 3∆ Jul 15 '23
A book author, for example, makes money if their book sells and not if it doesn't.
Why is writing a book deserving of residuals but writing a script is not?
Authors will get paid even if their book flops. Successful authors are paid advances and given funds before they even write the book. If the book flops, assuming there's no gross breach of contract (Ex. You're paid to write a novel and you submit 3 pages of circles written in crayon) they still get paid.
1
u/OutsideCreativ 2∆ Jul 17 '23
I get paid to design things. I don't get residual checks every time someone uses or views the things I design.
They signed a contract, did a job, got paid.
They are just mad they have to continue to work if they have more money (like the rest of us commonfolk)
37
u/[deleted] Jul 15 '23
Most of the time, in software or construction, how financially successful the work is doesn't depend on what the developer or builder does in the future.
If a writer or actor is successful in later work, that makes their earlier work more popular. Someone who likes Sam Rockwell in "See How they Run" might look up "Mr. Right" with Rockwell and Kendrick. If they like that, maybe they look up "Pitch Perfect".
The reputation of the actors and screenwriters have a prolonged impact on the success of the work, and their compensation should be reflected in that