God bless this woman for writing about the CTF and sharing her insight and opinion. I wish she wrote on media every day.
"Last, but far from least, since when does the protection of commercial interests so baldly trump the public interest? How much longer before all CRTC licensing hearings are held in private too? Don't they also deal with "commercial realities?" - Feb 27, 2007 - Toronto Star
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Finally...we can start looking at the forest
ACTRA has ended its strike (pending ratification by its members, of course...I'll eat my keyboard if they don't), having won major concessions and stood firm for Canadian labour in the face of strong external pressure. Kudos to the ACTRA negotiating team and to the CFTPA for finding common language that allows us all to move on...for now.
The new agreement made significant gains in many areas for ACTRA members, and identified financial realities that producers face in this new age of content creation.
New Media
Despite reaching a tentative agreement on Feb. 16th, Hollywood flexed some muscle and kept the two sides from reaching a deal until the following week because the studios did not want to set a precedent on new media before heading into negotiations with SAG and the WGA later this year. The Americans have an agreement separate from the Canadian producers which allows them to negotiate on a "production-by-production" basis until the issue is "re-opened" in 2009.
It's ain't over 'til it's over
Let me re-iterate my thanks and support to both ACTRA & the CFTPA for meeting the challenges head on and for working so hard. That is (I feel), the real precedent which has set the stage for the next few years of what I believe will be constant negotiation between all parties in the broadcasting industry.
My concerns?
No, the financing of Canadian TV sucks.
Now that we've managed a few of the trees, we're finally able to start looking at the forest. It's not good. The ACTRA strike was a (necessary) symptom of a larger disease. The CRTC has announced the creation of a "task force" which will re-evaluate the Canadian Television Fund. Who is on this task force? The very broadcasters who want it to end. And, to be clear, the very broadcasters who started the fund.
I could turn this into a very long blog post, but will end here and prepare for the next several posts. In the meantime, I'd like to refer back to the very first post I put up on this blog and remind you of "net neutrality".
How does "net neutrality" figure into the debate? Control of the internet is being decided in real time. What was the major sticking point for the ACTRA strike? The internet. Where do producers want to put their content? The internet. Where do the major Hollywood studios want to distribute their product? The internet. Where is video content going? You get the point.
If it's important for the boys at "the top"; why shouldn't it be important for us?
The new agreement made significant gains in many areas for ACTRA members, and identified financial realities that producers face in this new age of content creation.
New Media
Despite reaching a tentative agreement on Feb. 16th, Hollywood flexed some muscle and kept the two sides from reaching a deal until the following week because the studios did not want to set a precedent on new media before heading into negotiations with SAG and the WGA later this year. The Americans have an agreement separate from the Canadian producers which allows them to negotiate on a "production-by-production" basis until the issue is "re-opened" in 2009.
It's ain't over 'til it's over
Let me re-iterate my thanks and support to both ACTRA & the CFTPA for meeting the challenges head on and for working so hard. That is (I feel), the real precedent which has set the stage for the next few years of what I believe will be constant negotiation between all parties in the broadcasting industry.
My concerns?
- Will the American studios approach the "production-by-production" basis of negotiation in the same fashion that they approached the IPA negotiations? Meaning: will they try to wear ACTRA down with prolonged disputes over single percentages on a "production-by-production"basis?
- Will the production industry (service industry specifically) continue to blame actors for the lack of production? Put another way: when SAG goes to the table with the AMPTP, will the actors be portrayed as "hurdles" on the way to a whole new world of advertising revenue?
- Will Canadian television programming even exist for Canadian producers to create and Canadian actors to work on?
No, the financing of Canadian TV sucks.
Now that we've managed a few of the trees, we're finally able to start looking at the forest. It's not good. The ACTRA strike was a (necessary) symptom of a larger disease. The CRTC has announced the creation of a "task force" which will re-evaluate the Canadian Television Fund. Who is on this task force? The very broadcasters who want it to end. And, to be clear, the very broadcasters who started the fund.
I could turn this into a very long blog post, but will end here and prepare for the next several posts. In the meantime, I'd like to refer back to the very first post I put up on this blog and remind you of "net neutrality".
How does "net neutrality" figure into the debate? Control of the internet is being decided in real time. What was the major sticking point for the ACTRA strike? The internet. Where do producers want to put their content? The internet. Where do the major Hollywood studios want to distribute their product? The internet. Where is video content going? You get the point.
If it's important for the boys at "the top"; why shouldn't it be important for us?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Viacom, Joost strike content licensing deal
Viacom pulls its content off of YouTube and gives it to Joost. Why? Because YouTube and Google are dragging their heels in paying producers of content their share of advertising revenue.
"It's unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience, which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows. We have received a DMCA takedown request from Viacom, and we will comply with their request," said YouTube's statement.
James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research said, "On YouTube, if you watch a clip from The Colbert Report, you know he's going to say something funny tomorrow and you might then go watch it tomorrow on Comedy Central. You don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip. And I think Viacom knows that. They just want to be compensated for it. I don't think they are against it; they just want to make sure they have a cut".
"It's unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience, which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows. We have received a DMCA takedown request from Viacom, and we will comply with their request," said YouTube's statement.
James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research said, "On YouTube, if you watch a clip from The Colbert Report, you know he's going to say something funny tomorrow and you might then go watch it tomorrow on Comedy Central. You don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip. And I think Viacom knows that. They just want to be compensated for it. I don't think they are against it; they just want to make sure they have a cut".
An Army of "Think Tanks"
First of all; let's ask ourselves how an analyst can weigh in on programming matters like this. There are "think-tanks" out there dealing with new media issues. The notion that the landscape of new media is "yet to be discovered", is a red herring. There are a ton of very intelligent people working on new business models for the new world of broadband broadcasting. Bill Gates has said that the impact will be made palpable in the next five years. Bill Gates is very smart and often gets it right. Let's agree on this point for context.
Viacom has a catalogue of material that it can exploit in a new medium where there is great demand for content. For an analyst to say "you don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip" makes me question his analytic skills. The internet is *all* about satisfying your "two-minute urges". The internet is the internet. Television is television. The internet is not a proxy for the TV. It is the internet. Advertising space is space that is sold independently and its distribution is vast and far-reaching on the internet without being highly regulated.
You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave
First of all; let's ask ourselves how an analyst can weigh in on programming matters like this. There are "think-tanks" out there dealing with new media issues. The notion that the landscape of new media is "yet to be discovered", is a red herring. There are a ton of very intelligent people working on new business models for the new world of broadband broadcasting. Bill Gates has said that the impact will be made palpable in the next five years. Bill Gates is very smart and often gets it right. Let's agree on this point for context.
Viacom has a catalogue of material that it can exploit in a new medium where there is great demand for content. For an analyst to say "you don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip" makes me question his analytic skills. The internet is *all* about satisfying your "two-minute urges". The internet is the internet. Television is television. The internet is not a proxy for the TV. It is the internet. Advertising space is space that is sold independently and its distribution is vast and far-reaching on the internet without being highly regulated.
You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave
The Devil in the Detail
So Shaw says that he'll resume payments as if this was all part of the master plan.
"We have had no attention from anyone on this issue. We say this is a terrible waste of a Canadian asset and that's why we took the action that we did." He also urged producers to create more television programming that appeals to Canadian viewers. "It's a challenge to the industry to be successful," Shaw said. "You can't be successful if you don't produce anything that Canadians want to watch." - Feb 2oth., Heritage Commons Committee appearance
And what, pray tell, is it that Canadians want to watch? I guess we'll have to wait for Shaw's Task Force to tell us.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
What's missing from the conversation...
If we're lucky, there may come a time when we stop getting distracted from the real issue.
Everyone wants to tell their story.
Peladeau will pay into the fund. Government wins the day, right? Does that stop the constant mergers and aquisitions? Does it keep Rupert Murdoch more than two degrees separated from shaping Canadian culture?
Who's idea was the Canadian Television Fund in the first place?! The Broadcasters.
Who among us would be willing to pitch: "The Keith Mahar Story"? Not likely...eh?
Forget telling stories that are important to producers and actors; start thinking about stories that are important to the broadcasters.
No wonder we're all fleeing to the web.
Everyone wants to tell their story.
Peladeau will pay into the fund. Government wins the day, right? Does that stop the constant mergers and aquisitions? Does it keep Rupert Murdoch more than two degrees separated from shaping Canadian culture?
Who's idea was the Canadian Television Fund in the first place?! The Broadcasters.
Who among us would be willing to pitch: "The Keith Mahar Story"? Not likely...eh?
Forget telling stories that are important to producers and actors; start thinking about stories that are important to the broadcasters.
No wonder we're all fleeing to the web.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Quebecor Fund
The "new Canadian Television Fund"
Now this is Canadian drama...eh? Government subsidies in jeopardy! Corporate broadcaster announces a "new programming fund". No sex scandals in our country, just vigorous policy debate. Doesn't it make the nipples tingle?
Who will win? Heritage Canada or Quebecor? Ooooh, the antic
ipation...it's like the final episode of Canadian Idol with Bev Oda and Pierre Karl Peladeau making it to the final two. Will the at-home viewing audience vote for the heritage minister or the broadcast tycoon? Who will win the hearts and minds of those glued to the tv with phone in hand just waiting for the phone-lines to open....
Of course, it's not that exciting, but when you consider that Pierre Karl Peladeau has announced a new $109-million fund for Canadian programming in light of his departure from the Canadian Television Fund, it does capture a bit of attention.
Bev Oda finally got enough fire in her to write a letter asking that Shaw and Videotron continue their monthly payments to the CTF, and didn't comment on the announcement by Videotron of the new $109-million fund.
However, it doesn't appear that Peladeau is reconsidering his plan.
Now this is Canadian drama...eh? Government subsidies in jeopardy! Corporate broadcaster announces a "new programming fund". No sex scandals in our country, just vigorous policy debate. Doesn't it make the nipples tingle?
Who will win? Heritage Canada or Quebecor? Ooooh, the antic
ipation...it's like the final episode of Canadian Idol with Bev Oda and Pierre Karl Peladeau making it to the final two. Will the at-home viewing audience vote for the heritage minister or the broadcast tycoon? Who will win the hearts and minds of those glued to the tv with phone in hand just waiting for the phone-lines to open....Of course, it's not that exciting, but when you consider that Pierre Karl Peladeau has announced a new $109-million fund for Canadian programming in light of his departure from the Canadian Television Fund, it does capture a bit of attention.
Bev Oda finally got enough fire in her to write a letter asking that Shaw and Videotron continue their monthly payments to the CTF, and didn't comment on the announcement by Videotron of the new $109-million fund.
However, it doesn't appear that Peladeau is reconsidering his plan.
"The Canadian Television Fund had been unable to figure out what the technology revolution is all about and it's making the situation very tough down the road to make sure that we will get some good Canadian content," Péladeau said, adding that Vidéotron wants to produce more Canadian content, not less. - CBC.ca Feb. 13/07Would that be the Entertainment Tonight Canada type of Canadian content, or the Canadian Idol kind?
Working Class Actors?
We Shall Overcome
Actra Maritimes announced today that they will be joining the strike. And, as actors through and through (our "camera-whore" tendencies notwithstanding...meant with due affection), we sought out the very cameras that did not seek us out. That's right...the press didn't really show up for their part of the "press conference". Where were they? Covering Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean's address to the Provincial Legislature. Granted, it was an historic event for the province, but which is more relevant; a pseudo-royal figurehead addressing a roomful of capitalists or a unionized labour-force striking for the first time in its history in response to an industry wracked with turmoil? Hmm...arguments could be made for both sides, but let's stick with the tagline.
Are actors really "working class"?
Yes. It's hard to believe that an actor can be working class, what with the catered lunches and the pretty headshots printed by the hundreds, but actors are about as working class as you can get. Until they actually start working as actors, that is.
It's completely understandable that a producer (who only sees an actor "on the job"), could become embittered by seeing a "day-player" chowing down on a "substantial" snack after a luxurious twelve-hour turnaround, only to spend the day fraternizing with the cast and crew (that should be working) between naps in the trailer. I can see how a producer may get in the frame of mind to cut some costs. Reduce overhead...that kind of thing. But that's "on the day".
What about the rest of the year?
As an independent producer, I budget for the time that I spend developing projects and factor that number into my overall costs. I try to make a reasonable return on the investment of my time, knowing full-well that my producing "fee" will be the very first budget item to be "taken out of the equation" by a funding agency or a broadcaster (for development, that is...no-one works for free in production). I'm poorly paid, I'll admit it. More people have made money from my projects than I have (I've made nothing, yet I've paid thousands). Sad reality...boo hoo...I'll go stand in line with the other independent producers.
Fact is: in order to retain the rights to my "brainchild" of a project, I need to pay everyone what they expect to be paid as professionals. I don't quibble with my sound editor. He quotes his price, if I can't do it and he can't do it; we don't do it. I don't call him names or berate him publicly or chide him for not giving me my way because it would be unprofessional to do so.
So, how are actors working class?
As an actor, I've become a far better bartender than I had ever hoped to be. I've served dignitaries, I've served celebrities and I've served grease-monkeys. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they are all the same when it comes to an open-bar or whether they're the ones picking up the tab. They work hard and feel "entitled" to your service. That's not a glorious life in art; that's working-class.
I know actors who are more practiced at customer service than they are with their "art"; actors who make more money through carpentry and drywalling than from the commercials that supposedly "pay the bills" between "real" auditions. I've seen actors spend more money on acting classes than they have made that year as "talent". I've watched colleagues spend years paying "dues" not only in theory, but actual financial dues just to "belong" to the industry. These people work multiple jobs in other industries (industries that are actually in a position to give them paying jobs), only to fund the habit of auditioning with the money that they make. For the average Canadian actor (not the ones you see on TV regularly), landing a gig or two does not exactly become a "cash windfall", rather, it may just cover the costs incurred due to the lifestyle of just "being an actor".
Are artists "working class"? You bet we are.
Actra Maritimes announced today that they will be joining the strike. And, as actors through and through (our "camera-whore" tendencies notwithstanding...meant with due affection), we sought out the very cameras that did not seek us out. That's right...the press didn't really show up for their part of the "press conference". Where were they? Covering Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean's address to the Provincial Legislature. Granted, it was an historic event for the province, but which is more relevant; a pseudo-royal figurehead addressing a roomful of capitalists or a unionized labour-force striking for the first time in its history in response to an industry wracked with turmoil? Hmm...arguments could be made for both sides, but let's stick with the tagline.
Are actors really "working class"?
Yes. It's hard to believe that an actor can be working class, what with the catered lunches and the pretty headshots printed by the hundreds, but actors are about as working class as you can get. Until they actually start working as actors, that is.
It's completely understandable that a producer (who only sees an actor "on the job"), could become embittered by seeing a "day-player" chowing down on a "substantial" snack after a luxurious twelve-hour turnaround, only to spend the day fraternizing with the cast and crew (that should be working) between naps in the trailer. I can see how a producer may get in the frame of mind to cut some costs. Reduce overhead...that kind of thing. But that's "on the day".
What about the rest of the year?
As an independent producer, I budget for the time that I spend developing projects and factor that number into my overall costs. I try to make a reasonable return on the investment of my time, knowing full-well that my producing "fee" will be the very first budget item to be "taken out of the equation" by a funding agency or a broadcaster (for development, that is...no-one works for free in production). I'm poorly paid, I'll admit it. More people have made money from my projects than I have (I've made nothing, yet I've paid thousands). Sad reality...boo hoo...I'll go stand in line with the other independent producers.
Fact is: in order to retain the rights to my "brainchild" of a project, I need to pay everyone what they expect to be paid as professionals. I don't quibble with my sound editor. He quotes his price, if I can't do it and he can't do it; we don't do it. I don't call him names or berate him publicly or chide him for not giving me my way because it would be unprofessional to do so.
So, how are actors working class?
As an actor, I've become a far better bartender than I had ever hoped to be. I've served dignitaries, I've served celebrities and I've served grease-monkeys. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they are all the same when it comes to an open-bar or whether they're the ones picking up the tab. They work hard and feel "entitled" to your service. That's not a glorious life in art; that's working-class.
I know actors who are more practiced at customer service than they are with their "art"; actors who make more money through carpentry and drywalling than from the commercials that supposedly "pay the bills" between "real" auditions. I've seen actors spend more money on acting classes than they have made that year as "talent". I've watched colleagues spend years paying "dues" not only in theory, but actual financial dues just to "belong" to the industry. These people work multiple jobs in other industries (industries that are actually in a position to give them paying jobs), only to fund the habit of auditioning with the money that they make. For the average Canadian actor (not the ones you see on TV regularly), landing a gig or two does not exactly become a "cash windfall", rather, it may just cover the costs incurred due to the lifestyle of just "being an actor".
Are artists "working class"? You bet we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
