Streaming is my profession. I delve into the nuances of Streaming TV and movies, deciphering their significance, impact, and future prospects. I also enjoy discussing the intricate details of the industry. My career relies entirely on the existence of streaming as a medium. It is not just a job to me; it is a passion. Despite the threat it poses to theatrical exhibition, which I hold dear, I still have faith in its promises of accessibility and its potential as a platform for diverse and original storytelling.

Moreover, I strongly believe that writers and actors deserve fair compensation for their artistry and the time they invest in creating the content we adore. Whether it’s shows like “WandaVision,” “Loki,” “Andor,” “Succession,” or “The Boys,” or films like “CODA,” “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” “One Night in Miami,” or “The Sound of Metal,” all these works of art are the result of the talented individuals who are currently advocating for fair wages and reasonable treatment. Unfortunately, they are not receiving what they deserve.

When streaming first emerged, these unions were asked to make concessions, with the hope that this new media would flourish. However, it is now 2023, and while executives are reaping millions, many writers and actors are being paid meager residuals and also face the imminent threat of AI. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has been on strike for 73 days, and as of yesterday, the Screen Actors Guild — American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) has joined the fight. Guild President Fran Drescher passionately expressed her frustration at being ignored and emphasized the need for contract changes that align with the current business model of streaming.

As someone who relies on streaming for my livelihood, I acknowledge that it is not currently living up to its promises. I yearn for a transformation in the industry, not just for the benefit of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA, but for the entire entertainment landscape, including the audience. I echo the sentiments of Tony Gilroy, the showrunner for “Andor,” who eloquently stated that the creative community should endeavor to preserve the greatness of the American cultural industry.

Transparency is of utmost importance in this struggle. Did you know that we lack an objective view of streaming viewership numbers? While Netflix has gained infamy for manipulating its own data, it is reasonable to question the accuracy of data presented by other major players. This lack of transparency is a central issue driving the strikes, as both guilds insist on third-party assessments of viewership data to negotiate fair residuals. From an entertainment editor’s perspective, transparent data is essential for us to fulfill our roles effectively and enable audiences to make informed choices amidst the myriad of streaming options available. We already have transparency in network television and film, but streaming remains an outlier. Streaming services find themselves in a conundrum — they want investors to believe their numbers are impressive to maintain financial support, yet they resist a universally acknowledged metric for fear of having to share their revenue with the creators of the content that sustains them.

Gilroy touched upon this issue in his interview, highlighting the obscurity surrounding viewership numbers and how it hampers the industry. He asserted that this lack of data distorts and warps the industry, jeopardizing its brilliance.

Another pressing concern is fair compensation for creators. When the season finale of “Abbott Elementary,” a show that received eight Emmy nominations, aired, writer Brittani Nichols expressed her disappointment on Twitter regarding the current streaming residuals model. She revealed that the next-day streaming model renders re-airings financially insignificant for writers, as the focus is on directing viewers to streaming platforms. The fee for replaying an episode on television amounts to around $13,000, while writers receive a flat fee of 5.5% of that amount for unlimited streaming plays. Nichols disclosed that the largest new media (streaming) residual check she has received was approximately $700, which is far from sufficient to cover living expenses in Los Angeles. Her experience is not an anomaly; it reflects the reality faced by all television and film writers due to existing contracts with streaming platforms.

Charles Slocum, the assistant associate director of WGAW, emphasized that streaming companies have not agreed to pay residuals at the same level as traditional broadcast models, nor have they accounted for programs’ success. Writers for streaming platforms receive only two residual payments—one for domestic streaming and one for foreign streaming—and these payments are fixed amounts. In contrast, the traditional broadcast model rewards success with increased residuals. This reduction in residuals demonstrates a lack of commitment to acknowledging a program’s success when it is made for streaming.

It is common to view Hollywood as a domain filled with wealthy individuals. However, this perception does not accurately represent the majority of working actors and writers who strive to make ends meet. The hardship faced by talented professionals in the industry discourages many from pursuing their creative endeavors, which ultimately impacts the quality of the movies and shows audiences consume.

Engaging in bad faith arguments and shifting goalposts is counterproductive. There needs to be a level of accountability and fairness in the industry.

 

Reference

Denial of responsibility! TechCodex is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.