SAG Thinks, Blinks

The Screen Actors Guild bowed to the inevitable yesterday and set a concrete date -- April 15 -- for commencement of talks with the studios. Had SAG not done so, it faced the prospect of a rival actors' union, AFTRA, setting a date for talks first, and thereby setting a template for SAG's negotiations.

That prospect -- which seems unlikely now -- would have undermined SAG's leverage, a situation unacceptable to SAG. That's because SAG represent movies and almost all primetime television shows, whereas AFTRA represents no movies and only three primetime shows. The contract being negotiated concerns movies and primetime shows (as well as some other areas).

The problem for SAG is that AFTRA may not be looking for the same deal points SAG is. The situation's unclear, because the committees of both unions reportedly agreed on the same package of demands. Yet, the recently-agreed AFTRA daytime pact (an agreement that is soley negotiated by AFTRA) doesn't track with SAG's publicly-stated demands, suggesting that AFTRA may be more willing to compromise than SAG. That's been SAG's concern with AFTRA in general; each union has a rationale for the approach -- hard line or conciliatory -- that it takes.

In any case, the key publicly-discernible differences are as follows (for detailed explanation of these issues, see my previous blog article):

First, SAG wants improvements over the WGA deal in new media, apparently in at least two areas: elimination of the 17-24 day window during which no residuals are payable for ad-supported streaming of new television shows; and elimination or reduction of the budget floors below which certain shows produced for new media are not covered by the union agreement.

Second, SAG wants compensation for forced endorsements (product placement on steroids). AFTRA's daytime agreement gained some improvement in a related matter, which is announcer endorsements of products, so perhaps the unions are close on this issue.

Third, SAG wants improvement over the writers deal is DVD residuals. These rates (percentages) have been low since 1984, when the directors accepted what the writers and actors view as a bad deal, one which has persisted to this day. AFTRA, in contrast, did not obtain (nor, presumably, seek) such improvements when it negotiated its daytime deal.

Another point worth considering: if SAG does strike -- which seems less likely now -- will the strike rules prohibit SAG actors from working not only on SAG projects but also on AFTRA contracts? (Although this by definition exceeds the jurisdiction of the SAG agreement, recall that the WGA strike rules prohibited writing for animation, even though this is beyond the WGA's jurisdiction.) If so, the 44,000 dual cardholders -- i.e., members of both unions -- would be put in an untenable position if working on AFTRA-covered shows: violate the rules and be subject to SAG discipline, or obey the rules and face discharge by their employers for breaching their employment agreements. Quite a dilemma.

SAG and the WGA

Eventually the studios and the WGA will make a deal. Will SAG accept the WGA deal as a template (assuming it doesn't accept the DGA deal as a template)? The conventional wisdom is yes, but the question's still worth asking.

Also, there's at least one issue that's important to SAG, but not to the WGA or DGA: forced endorsements. These are products placements taken to the next level: instead of just seeing a can of Coke in the scene, we see the actor comment on it ("what a great Coke that was") and/or handle it (i.e., drink it).

These practices are considered forced endorsements because the actor is required by the script to in effect endorse the product. That means he or she can't realistically do a commercial for a competitor, such as Pepsi. Nor is Coke as likely to hire him to do a commercial why bother, since he just did one for free, as part of the program (which means that the audience is much less likely to skip it than an actual commercial).

So, SAG wants additional payments for forced endorsements. By contrast, the WGA's only looking for consultation between the producer and writer when a forced endorsement in written into a script; it dropped earlier demands for additional compensation.

SAG and the WGA are probably collaborating pretty closely behind the scenes on their evaluation of the DGA deal. I can't imagine forced endorsements would be a dealbreaker.

Marley Ring Tones Strike a Sour Note

Bob Marley's family is threatening to sue over a ring tone deal between Verizon and Universal Music, which owns the rights to the late singer's music, reports the New York Times. The family objects that the deal amounts to using Marley's trademarked persona to endorse Verizon.

Verizon disagrees, and says it has the right to advertise that it provides the ring tones. Case could turn on relatively minute details of the advertising.

No Place for Undisclosed Product Placement, Says WGA

The WGA told the FCC that product placements in TV shows should be flagged by a crawl on the bottom of the screen alerting viewers to the placement, reports Variety.

The WGA wants the crawl to identify the product and the sponsor, and include a disclaimer that the writers and actors don't endorse the product. (No word about the directors.) In my opinion, the idea of a crawl doesn't have legs.

The writers are also seeking consultation rights on placements. That's a possibility, though not likely. The whole issue has no economic impact on writers, and is posturing more than anything else.

Actors have a bigger problem with product placements - they call them "forced endorsements," because the actor (through his or her character) is forced to seemingly endorse the product, and receives no extra compensation for it. I predict the new contract being negotiated next year will give them a (small) piece of the action.