Is Squid Game coming for our jobs?
This week we're talking about how streamers are global and what that means for us.
Andy Bobrow: Hi everyone. In our last blogcast (thank you Sarah Conradt for the portmanteau), we talked about residuals, and the problems caused by this transformation in our business - the rise of the streamers. I mean, that’s what we’d call it if it were a horror movie, which it might be. So this week, as usual, we have a group of writers at various levels working in various genres and formats, and we’re going to talk about another huge disruption wrought by the streamers: foreign content. To lay the issue bare, on Friday this article dropped:
Ted Miller, head of global television at CAA, casually mentions in a conference called the “Mercato Internazionale Audiovisivo” that the very probable WGA strike this May will create opportunities for international producers. He’s sitting in a room of international content creators - and this event is sponsored by the Italian Ministry of Film, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade - basically telling them, “get ready to make some bank when the streamers have to stop working with American writers.” I mean, we can hate him and hate CAA, but he’s just plain right. A WGA strike is an opportunity for foreign writers in a way that it hasn’t been in the past. I mean, I had no illusions about the Big Four (three) talent agencies doing business overseas and repping non-WGA writers, but he really just spelled it out, didn’t he?
Eric Tipton: So yeah, that piece landed on Deadline this morning (as of my typing this anyway) and sparked a bunch of comments. It’s being passed around on Twitter and causing some reactions there. Now, this edition was always going to be about the rise of foreign content, foreign English-language content, and how they impact WGA members, but I think that quote you posted above cuts directly to the heart of so many of the other things we are now having to deal with. Some of them are the results of an organically evolving business and the models that go along with that, and some are the direct result, or I should say, “unintended consequences” of things the Guild has done. And I’m also not interested in re-litigating the ATA action because in the end, that was then. We’re living now and we’re living with a lot of seismic changes. I do think, though, that when I say “unintended consequences” that doesn’t mean “unpredictable” because as the old cliche says, this isn’t show art or show friends, it’s show business.
AB: You just can’t stop a market from routing around you. You gotta always be thinking about who wants what and how many ways can they get it (also good writing advice).
ET: So yes, let’s get into the rise and continuing appeal of foreign content, and foreign English-language content in particular, and talk about what it means for us – and by “us” I’m now specifically talking about WGA member writers of English-language content. We’ve seen, now, for the last several years, a clear increase in the creation and acquisition of international content – both movies and TV – and it’s now very obvious that this isn’t going anywhere. Especially not when you get global hits like SQUID GAME - which isn’t even English Language and still did incredibly well in the US. I guess one of the big things we need to think about as working professionals in a changing industry, is this idea that, once upon a time, if you wanted high-quality English language content, WGA members were the only game in town. That is not even close to true anymore. Sure, the US still has the most mature entertainment industry in the world, but in many ways, the world has caught up. It’s hard to tell, from a storytelling and production value standpoint, the difference between an American/WGA written and produced show and one made elsewhere. How do we cope with that? How do we keep our hat in the ring when even our agents are looking overseas? And what got us here?
Angela Workman: I think anyone with experience in this business that extends beyond the last five or ten years knows how often overseas writers write for US-backed studios. My fear is that successes like Squid Game, Fleabag, The Crown, Borgen, and many others, will only encourage employers to move away from us if we cannot legally or actively work. This is a logical step, an economic necessity. This business is a business, people! This is the reality of the global streaming age.
AB: Before it gets too gloomy, I should say, the phenomenon is not overwhelming right now, it’s just winding up. I mean, America is still an enormous market and WGA writers are still by far the main sellers here. BUT, only 45% of Netflix’s revenue comes from North America. That’s a bit scary. And we can clearly see it growing, and the agencies can too. It’s a super easy prediction to say this is gonna get bigger. So, how do we respond?
Carter Blanchard: I’m not sure if writers in other countries aspire to get into the WGA one day, but that happens, right? Maybe a terrible or utterly implausible idea but I wonder if the guild could set a standard that international writers who provide content for the studios and networks we’re striking against become ineligible for future guild membership.
AW: I think non-local writers do not want to join the WGA, because they don’t have to. They can work, and companies aren’t obliged to pay fringe benefits, so it’s cheaper for the companies, and writers can still earn a living (albeit without benefits, but if they have kids to feed I’m not sure they care). There’s a WGA arm in the UK (Writers Guild Great Britain) but they’re only really a sister union and there’s no real crossover.
CB: This is what a lot of other professions have gone through over the past what, 30-40 years. Not sure ours is so different. The “American POV” was always what sold movies back in the day. We had a corner on the market of big movies, high concepts, movie stars and famous directors. As that changes, so it will for writers. It does feel unstoppable. Maybe the way to get a global minimum pay scale would be through the streamers themselves. Distribution is where everything dovetails and maybe that’s the only way.
ET: I’m also not sure that the cost is the issue. Even if WGA written content and non-US written content cost the same, the non-US stuff is the bulwark the streamers in particular will always have moving forward (I assume) to protect themselves when the WGA chooses to strike. Which isn’t an argument for or against striking because our profession is experiencing an existential crossroads moment and we have to do something. It’s really more a statement of fact. These are now global companies and, as Carter said above, once upon a time that meant selling American content to the globe. Now the floodgates are open in both directions. These companies are businesses with a right to exist and make money (without turning this into a screed on Capitalism), and they will do whatever they need to, to make that happen. If US writers are unavailable, they will turn elsewhere – which, particularly in the event of a strike – will at least short-term reduce opportunities for US writers after a strike ends, and I don’t really think there is anything we can do about it. And it all kind of goes back to the idea of leverage. Our ability to cause pain and financial pressure and damage to the streamers – and even to cable networks with international partnerships like AMC, etc - is massively reduced in this new era and our union needs to be smart about how it proceeds because my fear is it will damage us far more than it will hurt the companies we’re striking against.
AB: So it seems like we’re tackling a couple issues in this discussion, so I want to try to label them. One is globalization decreases our leverage in a negotiation. Two is, even taking leverage and the upcoming MBA out of the discussion, we are, from now on, in a competitive marketplace with writers who are less expensive than us.
But going back to leverage, I have to believe there are still ways we can apply pressure to them. And that may not involve a work stoppage per se, but in hockey terms, I’d say we’re short-handed. Maybe we’ve got two guys in the penalty box. But are there ways we can still score? Not all the streamers are as international as Netflix (yet), and the domestic market is still important.
Chap Taylor: Oh for sure. Traditional broadcast networks are still vulnerable to a work stoppage because they still program series on an annual basis. Also, their viewership is now so small that a single lost season might be the end of network television in general. But almost everyone else can wait an indefinite period of time for new series, or simply hire writers outside the jurisdiction of the WGA. The UK, in particular, has a large supply of talented writers who cost far less, write in English, and do not receive the same level of benefits as writers represented by the WGA. In other words, we are now vulnerable to being replaced by foreign labor, no different than the members of the United Auto Workers.
What’s the solution? Unfortunately, I don’t know. As I said, my opinion is network television is still vulnerable to a work stoppage. And competition between streamers may give us some limited leverage as there is an incentive to put new material on streamers to reduce churn of subscriptions and attract new ones. Are film studios vulnerable? Maybe. Even the largest studios now release half as many movies as they released during the DVD boom (12-15, on average). The enormous lead time of feature film production (1-3 years on average) means the loss of six months development will probably not adversely affect their distribution pipeline. A six month strike on the other hand would be catastrophic to many writers, who are already experiencing one of the most challenging marketplaces in recent memory.
If there is any light at the end of the tunnel, it’s this; all of these outlets still need new material. They exist to program entertainment. Any writer who comes up with the next Yellowstone, or Stranger Things, or Batman will be lavishly rewarded. And because of the fracturing of the marketplace into multiple niches of personal taste, it will also be possible to earn enormous rewards by creating the next Euphoria, or Jagged Little Things, or Portlandia. But there are simply far too many writers for far too few jobs, many of which can now be done by writers in other countries who will work for less. And the corporations who control the entertainment industry no longer have any ties to the traditions or culture of Hollywood. They regard us as employees, no different than someone who writes code or creates advertising for their products. The outlook for the average writer who just wants to go to work in the writer’s room of a television series and support a family is grim.
AB: I’m gonna do that obnoxious thing where I talk about my days in the advertising world, but only because you’ve made me see a connection I hadn’t thought about. There’s this classic question that frames the way ad agencies think, and the question is some version of: Why does Coke still advertise? They already own the market, they’re already ubiquitous, and if they never spent another dime on ads, everyone in the world would still see their logo 20 times a day. And the answer is they are no longer buying customers with their ads, and they’re no longer even buying awareness. What they’re buying now is cultural relevance, and the reason they need that is they’re in a relationship with you. And I wonder if the same is about to become true for streamers, like when the dust settles and the major players have been determined, and subscriptions have plateaued to the point where they can’t buy market share any more. Clearly their initial strategy over the past 10 years has been to place large bets on prestige shows to try to buy market share. But seeing as how they’ve spent themselves into a ditch, this might, might, be good news for writers. Because maybe the streamers decide they can’t just have expensive blockbusters surrounded by a bunch of smaller titles that keep changing every three years. Maybe they look for longer-term relationships. Longer runs, more like broadcast. I know that’s such wishful thinking.
AW: This is a fascinating discussion, and makes me wonder if the streamers’ discovery that they need ad-tier buyers and content (and thus beholden to advertisers-Oldsmobile-dealers-and the like, and, possibly as an extension of that, release schedules) might actually be the salvation of writers. Call me a cockeyed optimist.
AB: That’s a much smarter version of the point I was going for up above. Ad-supported shows seem like they will want to have longer runs, more episodes, weekly release dates. And currently the writers who have proven to be capable of that are in the WGA.
AW: Ah, well, this brings us back full circle, in a way, to a very basic and essential question: who and where are the best writers? Are they US-based WGA writers? Are overseas writers equally skilled, or better, or worse? I mean, I watched the hell out of Call My Agent (French) and Borgen (Danish). I’m certain they didn’t get the number of views as, say, Succession (which I’m currently rewatching and fixating on, again). But still, I think there are people (particularly on social media) who believe that we’re the only writers who can turn out skillful, super watchable series and movies. And that’s simply not the case. Jesse Armstrong, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Peter Morgan are British writers. Phoebe wasn’t even in the Guild when Fleabag was picked up by Amazon. I might be contradicting myself here, but I guess my question is, will the demand for content produce less successful content for buyers, or equally successful, given the level of talent globally? Because the whole world is watching streamers now, not just the good old USA.
ET: To that point, Angela, the question that scares me is – “Will it matter?” Yes, they need cultural relevance and big hits, but even with best efforts, most shows are not and will not become that. Which means a lot of it is noise. As I think Holly mentioned either above or in the last edition, the streamers aren’t building libraries the way studios did (or still do) or at least not for the same reasons.
AW: Yeah. <sigh> But I do wonder if a shift to ad-based tiers (that is, to the old network model) might force streamers to search out better-level, revenue-driven content. Or whether it will remain this giant pool of short-run shows that keep getting swapped out in a sea of content.
CB: So true about nothing-to-watch in a sea of content. My wife and I sometimes spend an hour going through all the streamer menus only to give up and go to bed to read instead (which we should do more of anyway). The other night we were wondering what happened to the days of big movie events, which were seasonal, like the summer blockbusters or holiday comedies. Those don’t really exist anymore. Maybe that’s because of covid, but is it all covid and will it return to normal even in a hybrid model with streaming release on the same date or a month or so later? Or are they gone for good because things really have changed that much and release dates no longer matter? The other part is the Marvel movie effect… where every studio movie seems to be a mega-budget beast. So they’re obviously still making big movies but they don’t feel like “events” anymore and while they have A-list actors they don’t feel “star driven”. But I miss that feeling of a big movie coming out that you’re excited to see and getting to the theater on opening day.
I’m digressing… my point was with so much content and “nothing to watch” I feel like the pendulum has to swing eventually, as it always does, with (hopefully) more of those kinds of movies coming out again that aren’t just super-hero or Star Wars. ie: big new original ideas spawned by screenwriters. I’ve made my entire career out of selling original specs and had to change my approach because of how things have changed.
AB: I want to shift it here. I think we all agree the reality is you just keep going and adjust to new conditions. It’s something we all know how to do. When your reps tell you “everyone is buying fantasy right now” or “everything is shifting to IP,” you do adjust. So my open ended question is, what does your business look like over the next 5 years? Leaving the strike out of it, just like, where do you see your money coming from and will you be making any adjustments to your own approach?
I’ll go first. I’ve only ever done network half-hours, and there are things happening in my career that are specific to me and would be happening with or without the streamers - mainly I’m talking about how from now forward, staff jobs aren’t going to be my bread and butter. Most staffs (I know it’s staves) will only accommodate one person at my level, if any. So I can’t count on it like I used to. It’s too bad because I feel like I finally got good at this thing. Now, this shift was going to happen to me anyway, but it’s being accelerated by the rise of streaming and short orders. So my game over the next 5 years is a handful of things: 1, development (as always); 2, whatever mini-rooms I can get into; 3, trying to sell features to streamers (I mean, I’d love to get into theatrical but it’s a road I haven’t been on; and 4, showrunner-for-hire jobs. Ideally, and I mean really ideally, there will be a decent number of meetings between me and someone who just sold something and needs a more experienced partner to help them run it. And maybe some of those meetings are with non-US writers.Now all of those items, 1-4, are paying less than they used to. The good news is there’s still plenty of game to be played, it’s just different. The gigs won’t be 3 years long and the pay will be less but still worth going after. And I think it’ll be every bit as fun, so there’s that.
CT: I’m glad we’ve pivoted to solutions. The reality is that the business is dramatically changing, as it always does. The one permanent is that people need to be entertained and companies need to produce entertainment. So how does a writer move forward in this changing environment?
First, I think Andy is right that making a career out of staffing is a thing of the past. It may be possible for a small group of people to continue staffing the remaining network series, or small order streamer series, but I think you have to treat that as an occasional opportunity to work for a season while still pursuing multiple other revenue streams. And that’s really where I am and where I think most writers are going to have to be… You have to do everything. I pitch television to streamers, cable and even networks (if I have a network-appropriate idea). I’m writing a small indie feature for producers. After that I will be writing a genre spec feature. And after that I am writing a high-concept thriller novel.
Speaking for myself, I think the only path forward is generating original content in every category of entertainment writing. If I want a job at this point, I am going to have to make one for myself. I still have strong representatives who put me up for the few remaining feature OWA’s and staff jobs but as I said, I have to treat those as an occasional, potential payday. And I am leaning hard into controlling my own IP. My current TV pitch, which has a high profile production company and producers attached, is based on a comic book I created. I am writing a novel because I think that could be a viable business over the long term, but also to control underlying material which can then be adapted into a feature or television series. Five years from now, I intend to be a one-man content factory, regularly producing novels, comics or even short video content, which can be sold into other media.
The one thing that model does not offer is a regular income. The possibilities for potential upside exist and can be quite lucrative under the right circumstances, but going down that path means accepting a high degree of unpredictability and keeping my overhead very, very low. But that is where most writers have always been. And I think continuing to go hat-in-hand to multinational corporations, asking for work, is a fool’s errand. Better to create something they might potentially want and (hopefully) negotiate from a position of (relative) strength.
I will add one final note. For a writer with Andy’s level of experience, I think there is a niche running series other writers create. There are an enormous number of scripted series and a permanent shortage of experienced showrunners. If you have solid showrunning credits and a good reputation, I think showrunner-for-hire is a viable business.
CB: I’m in that position right now re: co-show running. A feature spec of mine is being acquired as a limited series. I’ve been a feature writer my whole career with a little TV sprinkled in. Never ran a show before. The deal is being crafted around bringing in an experienced show-runner to co-show run with me as creator. I think it’s terrific. I wouldn’t want to do it myself the first time out and I welcome an experienced hand.
Regarding adjustments to approaching career. About four years ago things really shifted. OWAs got more scarce and while I certainly never sold every spec I wrote, there were a couple I wrote that didn’t sell, which felt like ones that would have probably sold even just a few years earlier. I actually moved to Boston last year to start teaching part-time, which allows me to keep writing on spec while generating some reliable income. I’m also looking to create content… which ideas would be better as short stories vs specs. I keep threatening to write a novel and have tried twice. It’s hard, but I feel like eventually I’ll crack the code on that. Still writing feature specs but now it’s either contained genre or a really big swing with a huge idea. If the show goes, that will change everything, but until then, my plan is to just keep writing original ideas and keep adjusting to changes in the business as they come.
ET: So I’ll join the pile and at this point it seems like maybe consensus? Like Carter, my career had been largely generating and selling specs – with a fair share that never sold. I then moved that same model into TV about ten years ago, having a weirdly successful run selling spec pilots to an assortment of studios and outlets – which led to more TV work: pitching, guaranteed development, etc. Nothing made let alone nothing on the air, but I got close. I started thinking about commercial fiction like Chap, but haven’t had the time yet to write anything (I did a 90 page outline for a spy thriller during Covid, but my book agent was very frank, “Publishing is struggling. There is no paper to print the books (no joke). Your outline is ‘fine’, but with your resume, even in this climate, you have better odds of selling another movie or TV series.” But I will definitely return to – if not THAT book – at least the idea of writing novels in general. I’m also doing an audio drama with John Carpenter that could turn into a piece of IP we co-control with the podcasting company. So yes, long-winded way of saying we have to generate our own stuff – which is an easier transition, perhaps, if you are already a writer who is used to pumping out specs, you’re just doing the same thing in a different but related medium. And to Chap’s point that you would, ideally, then sell or license these new things to mega-corporations from a position of strength – that could actually lead to a new era for writers and content creators. Give everyone a new ‘brass ring’ to reach for.
CB: Which isn’t really SO different than what it’s been for us all along, Eric. My career’s been on life support a few times over the years and it’s always been a big spec that brought it back. I think the bullseye we have to hit has gotten a lot smaller than it once was, but it’s still pretty much all about hitting it in order to keep the lights on. Then you get a few years where it’s a million times easier to land OWAs and try to get as much work as possible until things cool off again and wash/rinse/repeat.
ET: Absolutely agree, Carter. I just meant it in the context of people who are already in the habit of generating originals versus a writer who has had a consistent life on staff – at whatever level – who may now have to go back for the first time in years and look at those ideas in the drawer that were never pursued, or find new ones, etc. It might be a bigger gear-shift for some than others, I guess, is a somewhat clearer way of saying it - as we move into a world where being a writer no longer means just being a staff writer, or a screenwriter, but an IP creator across the board.
CB: Definitely. Anyone who’s built a career staffing on shows has a bigger adjustment to make.
AB: All right, wow. This was a long one and I don’t think it can be summarized, but what a good discussion. Thank you all for joining. Up next, we have a few topics we could cover - We need to get into some feature issues like free work or mini-series, something like that. We don’t know where this substack is going but we are figuring it out. Thanks everyone for joining the conversation.