See what I did there? Got a day's free content? Hey, this broadcasting thing is easy!
Caroline writes:
I think the producers are pushing back because they're getting squeezed harder than ever before by the broadcasters, who won't put up full budget and most are looking to recoup their investment in first profit position in order to greenlight a show. And because the broadcast landscape has centralized so much here, producers are forced to make bad deals and cut corners. I think your point about companies who got fat on service work is valid, but maybe 40% of companies did foreign service work so it isn't fair to tar and feather them all as fat cats.
I sympathize with ACTRA but have also found first-hand that their negotiators are less than, well, flexible, and if you want to be treated like a partner you'd better treat others that way, too. I've always found that the compromise position with everyone feeling they gave a little is the best course, but they won't give. I also figured that a small piece of any pie is bigger than none and again, that argument didn't fly with ACTRA.
I've worked on treaty co-pros where we made up our points on everything but actors and never hired an ACTRA performer in the production.
For a long time, I think all the unions have been at cross purposes. If they spent more time working together to lobby, they would be more effective as a whole, not just with the CFTPA/AFTPQ, but also in raising their concerns to higher planes like the CRTC.
And for the record, I've been following the press release chain on the negotiations this round and all sides have conducted themselves shamefully.
I can't really quibble with any of those points. So I won't. No quibbler, I.
7 comments:
Thanks to Caro for pointing out the squeeze the broadcasters have been putting on the producers of late. And I'm still not sure how it happened exactly. That last 15% to 20% of the budget has always been a bitch to finance in Canada, and it still remains that amount even though tax credit incentives/rebates have increased over the past several years in a lot of provinces. Why? Because, as C states, the broadcasters have been reducing/capping/limiting their license fees and demanding first tier recoupment and/or full ownership in projects so producers are unable to interim finance against future or foreign territory sales...and thus reduced to working for fees or worse, deferred fees. Not all producers mind you, but the majority. Anybody have insight of how this was allowed to happen?
And it doesn't mean the actors (or writers/directors/crew for that matter) should get hosed, but it all needs to be factored into negotiations. Unfortunately, the broadcasters aren't at the table.
So much of it seems to be summed up with Denis' quip:
"Hey, this broadcasting thing is easy!"
You made me laugh out loud with that one...very nice.
Wow, I'm not sure if this dubious honour relates more to my brilliant commentary or DMc's post-holiday sloth, but thanks all the same.
I can hardly argue with myself, can I?
I will only add that the UK has been years ahead of us in the broadcasters raping producers and have implemented some really good measures in the last couple of years. Since we are re-negotiating the terms of treaty co-pros with the UK now, it would be a great time for people to pay attention to what they've done there and how the shift has benefitted the industry and put more control back in the hands of the content makers, not the content airers.
holy gods, I dream of post holiday (or even holiday) sloth.
1 rewrite
1 outline
both due before New Year's Day is out.
Denis:
Enough with the tears...you're only fueling my upcoming post on 'gig envy'. Stay tuned.
You and your human nature, Denis.
It's our human nature to bitch that you've got gigs while we're still clawing ourselves up the ladder to get steady gigs. =D
What's been the sitch with private equity investment?
Bill, you mean in productions? Not much here, really. There were some attractive tax shelter incentives for that before but not so much anymore and let's be honest, it's a mug's game. I've come across a few companies that have had private investors but they are almost always family or somehow tied to the producer. Most of those situations haven't ended happily, either. Most common form of investment is really by the producer and it usually falls into the category of deferred fees.
BTW, I apologize to Denis. I didn't mean to imply you were slothlike in general, just in posting. I know you've been workin' your tailfeathers off.
Post a Comment