They call it "The Fog of War" for a reason.
As the strike talk heats up, we look back and try to learn from the last one.
ANGELA WORKMAN: Welcome to 2023! We are officially in an MBA negotiation year. And we’ve all noticed the word “strike” making its appearance everywhere. The chatter has gotten so loud on social media and in the trades that the Guild released a statement addressing it.
At the same time, in online discourse, there’s a lot of confusion about what the 2007/8 strike did and did not accomplish, and a lot of discussion about what we might achieve in our upcoming negotiation. Everyone contributing to this Substack was on the picket lines in 2007. We thought it might be useful to review our experiences.
CHAP TAYLOR: Every member of the Guild wants the same thing; to achieve meaningful gains in the upcoming MBA and to protect the benefits we’ve already won. The last time the WGA went on strike was 2007-8. A substantial percentage of our current membership wasn’t in the Guild and has never experienced a work stoppage. I think an honest discussion of what happened in 2007 could be a useful contribution toward preparing for the upcoming negotiations.
We have to start this discussion by underlining that our industry business model is broken. The handful of multinational corporations who control entertainment pay their CEO’s tens of millions of dollars while pleading poverty to the creatives who actually make their product. Television residuals are an endangered species and in danger of disappearing completely. The feature screenplay business has been on life support for years and is only getting worse, with very few OWA jobs and endless demands for free work. Screenwriters and their reps are now expected to do producers’ jobs as well, packing each script with “meaningful” attachments before there is even the slim possibility of being paid.
Having said all that, justifiable anger is not a negotiating strategy. And the fact is, many of the worst trends in the entertainment business are not things that can be addressed by the MBA. Expecting the Guild to change corporate business models, or making maximalist demands without a realistic plan for achieving them, only guarantees that we add an extended work stoppage to the challenges already facing our members. And there is a real danger - addressed by the Guild in the Deadline article linked above - that our membership builds up pressure in a social media echo chamber and loses sight of what we can actually achieve in negotiations.
HOLLY SORENSEN: The Negotiating Committee already has an impossible task in front of them. The issues are so complex, and the industry is in such a strange place. Our anger over all of the issues is justified, but we all need to stay reality based as much as possible. If fog is not our friend, reality is.
ERIC TIPTON: I absolutely agree, and remembering what happened in 2007 is an important context for today. It seems to me that there is a sanitized mythology about the last strike spreading on social media. Luckily, the internet is forever and it wasn’t hard to find some articles from Deadline. And remember, that strike is the event that MADE Deadline. Like, literally.
Deadline article from the night negotiations broke down
I’m also more than a little concerned about the attitude – and it was prevalent back then as well – hell, I think I even bought into it at the time – that the very act of a strike is a victory in itself. That it’s a chance to get a new T-shirt and put in your steps while maybe chatting your way to your next job. In reality, a strike is a failure. It represents hardship and the loss of income for working writers that will never be replaced and thousands of other people who are not writers or executives but who rely on what we do for their livelihoods. The threat of a strike should always be a last resort.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has become our Guild’s only tactic. That doesn’t mean that sometimes a strike isn’t necessary, because it is. It is important, though, to have a sober understanding of what it means for working writers to go on strike.
FLINT WAINESS: I was new to the Guild during the last strike, and I happily picketed. I met writers I had looked up to my whole life. I saw friends meet, fall in love and get married on the line. I walked with Laura Linney. I heard presidential candidate John Edwards (who later turned out to have his mistress and love child stashed away at the Beverly Hills Hotel, from his cancer-stricken wife) tell us we were striking “to make sure everyone in America gets a fair chance.” It was exciting. And you could see why the Guild has such a hold on its membership. They’re striking a blow for us! Against big corporations!
Sure, fifty percent of the Guild has no earnings in a given year and are happy to either burn it all down or enjoy some fun solidarity with free pizza and celeb guests and good networking opportunities. And for the rest of us a group psychology kicks in. Are you pro labor or anti labor? Are you with us or are you against us? (See the ATA action for an example of this, an action that, if we’re being honest, did not lead to super-charged agents that are aligned with us or more money for writers or any of the things its biggest backers predicted.)
ET: The history of 2007-08 is being spun as if it was a great victory for the Guild. As someone who was there, I can tell you it is more accurate to consider it a bitter but necessary sacrifice. Whatever the current narrative, we struck for 100 days primarily over DVD residuals and reuse of our material on the internet – which, to be really clear – is NOT the same thing as the “streaming” we know of today. The WGA has never gotten over the terrible deal we made for home entertainment when the VHS was introduced way back when, and we were determined that disaster not be repeated. But we ultimately abandoned the DVD demand late in the negotiations and it turns out the point was moot. How many DVDs do you think are sold today? Not many. On the other hand, hundreds of television writers in the prime of their careers lost their overall deals at the studios. Historically, we don’t seem to be so good at getting ahead of the curve, instead we always seem to be running after the garbage truck picking up scraps. I would love to see that change. On the feature side, the 2007/8 strike was the official death of recognized quotes. From that point forward, the studios dramatically reduced their development budgets and eliminated the system of recognizing previous pay rates for feature jobs.
You may have heard of the “Golden Age of Specs.” I was there and I can tell you it died on November 5, 2007. Whatever gains we made during that strike, they have never equaled the millions of dollars in potential earnings that were vaporized.
CT: I remember that well. They call it “force majeure”, which roughly means “Act of God.” They provoked us with rollbacks, we responded with a strike, and they axed tens of millions of dollars in writers’ deals they wanted to eliminate. Hardly a divine action. But we need to ask ourselves why we charged into their trap.
We have to address the misleading belief - now being pushed online - that the 2007 strike was primarily about streaming. Going in, it wasn’t. Improving our formula on DVD residuals was at least as important. Our leadership knew the Internet would be important. Back then, we called it “New Media.” They did not know which would ultimately prove the dominant form of distribution. No one did, including the studios. So we fought for a piece of downloads (which are now irrelevant) and won the right to inspect their usage data, but only for shows resold to streamers, not for shows made by streamers. No one thought to negotiate a piece of subscription income because no one knew subscription-based streaming services would become the primary form of distribution.
MARC GUGGENHEIM: The truth is the outcome of the ‘07/8 strike as regards Internet/Streaming/New Media is really murky at best. It’s not because of anyone’s ill intentions, it’s because of the constantly-shifting nature of technology. While one could argue that “New Media” gave rise to streaming (and, therefore, jurisdiction over one confers jurisdiction over the other), reasonable minds can and have disagreed on that point.
Accordingly, I reached out to a friend who was heavily involved with the Guild in ‘07/08 and asked what we were striking for. (The fact I felt the need to do this is prima facie problematic.) This is what they said on condition of anonymity (because, sadly, there is blowback towards anyone who goes against accepted Guild dogma – see above re prima facie and problematic):
“We were striking for a larger share of DVD sales, to organize reality [writers], and to have a foothold in ‘new media’ which was then purchased through iTunes. Streaming was a non-issue and not foreseen by us or anyone else.”
If you take this writer at their word, I think it’s fair to say that what the ‘07/8 strike won us (among other things) is a broken clock that, in the case of streaming, turned out to be right twice a day. But the narrative that “but for the ‘07/8 strike, all streaming shows would be non-WGA shows like most animation” simplifies things as much as it overstates them. And it’s an extremely dangerous narrative because those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We’re seeing that dire prediction begin to play out in the current MBA/strike-related discourse online.
HS: Exactly. Looking at facts? The bigger issue is probably why we didn’t negotiate meaningful residuals for streaming, not in ‘07, but in the contracts of ‘11, ‘14, ‘17 and ‘20. I was working at a network in ‘14 that was already streaming when we negotiated that contract, and shows were already trending on Twitter as PLL and GG fans watched on their phones.
Did we have to strike in ‘07 just so we could fail to meaningfully negotiate residuals until now? I honestly don’t care. Now we’re here, we have to do it, and hopefully don’t need a strike to do so. But we are going to have to use everything we’ve got in our arsenal to avoid it; we have to think outside the box, and not revert to all the old mythology and tropes to do so. For starters, it seems nuts not to be coordinating with other guilds for maximum impact, and for all I know, we already are. I hope so. But to keep repeating “we can never work with the DGA” in a year when we need a coordinated attack isn’t helpful.
CT: It was the DGA who first won jurisdiction over New Media, announcing a deal in January 2008, roughly a month before our strike ended. The WGA largely adopted the terms they negotiated.
HS: Those are the facts. The rest is fog. Some say they wouldn’t have gotten that deal if we were not on strike, some say we could have gotten that deal with better strategy and no strike, some say we would have gotten that deal in the following contract negotiations without a strike. At this point the only fact is, the DGA got jurisdiction over New Media then, and we took that deal.
FW: Here is what then-WGAW President Patric Verrone said at the time: “The legacy of this strike will be the ability of writers and creators to make content without the companies.” I think it’s pretty clear from that quote what the Guild thought it was fighting for, and how different that is from the present reality. That’s not to say there weren’t gains made in 2008. There were.
But the narrative being pushed that big budget shows made for present day streamers wouldn’t be covered by the Guild today without it is just ridiculous. Whatever we gained in that strike has to be weighed next to what we lost, and we lost A LOT. Writers lost jobs, and deals, and opportunities, and time, and of course it was also the strike that super-charged reality TV, just like a strike now would super-charge foreign and other types of “content.” Hopefully there won’t be a strike this time, but if there is absolutely no other way to improve our residual formula I would support it. One thing I know a strike won’t accomplish, though, is “the ability of writers and creators to make content without the companies.”
CT: Exactly. The single biggest lesson I took away from the 2007 strike is the law of unintended consequences. I’m afraid the combination of Twitter-fanned outrage and widespread hardship among writers is leading us down the same path.
AW: Yes, right. So, my big question in regards to all this is, what’s our strike point? What does “worth it” mean to our membership today?
I was lucky in 2007. I was in a three-step-feature deal before the strike, I was paid before we put our pencils down, and I went back to work the minute the strike was over. But I knew many writers who weren’t so lucky. They couldn’t feed their families while they walked the picket lines. Crew members were badly affected. So were restaurant workers who depended on us for their income – a lot of people went broke, not just writers. It seems like no one wants to think about the broader consequences when they’re bruising for a strike. This time, we’ve just come out of a pandemic lockdown, on top of an ATA action in which many writers lost agents, jobs, and health care. Inflation is out of control. The price of groceries is insane. A lot of people are struggling, and I’m not just talking about writers.
It’s absolutely clear that tech-led streamers do not give a rat’s ass about our MBA. We’re losing profits and residuals. But do we have a strategy for recovering those losses or replacing them with new revenue streams? Will the economic suffering inflicted by a strike – on *everybody* – be worth it? When do we hit the wall this time, and how will the most vulnerable among us survive after everything we’ve been through?
I say this from the heart: we need a public, honest and open discussion about this, without personal attacks from our leaders or fellow writers. Because when well-meaning members questioned our strategy during the ATA action, they faced a level of vitriol that should shame us all. It was public, juvenile and ugly. But we have to be able to ask these questions. It isn’t just our right, it’s our responsibility as members of the Guild. It’s our responsibility as citizens of an intertwined economy like Los Angeles, NY, Chicago.
MG: I couldn’t agree more. We need more clarity, not less. We need our leadership to reinforce the truism that open questions and honest debate aren’t a threat to solidarity. If our solidarity is weakened by simply pushing against long-held assumptions, stress-testing ideas, or even slaughtering sacred cows, then I submit to you that we don’t have any true solidarity at all and that our problems are much greater than anything the AMPTP could devise. However, what I’m talking about can only come from the top. It’s up to our leadership and our board to cultivate an environment where things can be discussed in the light of day.
AW: Yes, exactly. “Solidarity” doesn’t mean remaining willfully mute. We’re all incredibly proud to be members of the WGA. We’re still in solidarity even when we ask questions about the Guild’s intentions; especially so, because then we take action collectively. We act, not on behalf of the wealthiest among us, but on behalf of our most vulnerable members. A lot of people are hurting pretty badly at this moment in time.
ET: Right. People lose homes and health insurance, even entire careers. There might be some who’ve done well enough they can ride out a strike but for the vast majority of members, that isn’t the case. It’s okay to be angry. We are all furious and horrified at the state of our industry. A business model that had been profitable and successful for DECADES has been dramatically transformed by multinational corporations at our expense, prioritizing stock price over actual profits in really just a few short years. That said, we cannot allow our wholly justified anger to compromise our ability to execute an achievable strategy.
CT: Exactly right. I don’t want to relitigate the ATA action, except to make a few factual observations: The Guild spent millions of dollars on legal fees, spent a million dollars on a portal that has not generated a single job for a writer of which I am aware, and cost a substantial percentage of working writers their agents. And now, according to the Guild’s own numbers, there are fewer jobs for less writers for less money. Those lucky few who made eight-figure deals before the action are fine. But traditionally underrepresented writers who were just getting their first opportunities and struggling middle-class writers were devastated.
All of this because we allowed ourselves to be whipped into a frenzy and shouted down anyone who asked if there was a better strategy.
HS: And that was another contract year where we could have put all our focus into the residual issue and mini-room problems. But we couldn't, because we were in another fight.
ET: Good point, which leads to another question. The 2007 strike was ultimately settled with the assistance of very senior agents and high-powered entertainment lawyers, among others, operating through back channels – in addition to the more public-facing official negotiations. This time, because of the ATA action, the agents may be working against us to replace us with foreign-based clients. If ‘07-’08 was ultimately settled with the help of back-channeling allies, who are our allies today? The economics of the business have changed dramatically for everyone. Agents have their own problems, and with international content becoming what it has over the last few years, I don’t see that there is much incentive for those folks to help us this time.
No, international writers aren’t going to replace WGA members on broadcast shows in the event we strike, but those international shows will certainly keep the streamers afloat while we’re out. I’m sure there are a lot of people reading this saying, “Who needs agents? They’re a cartel.” The truth is, the agenting business has always gone hand in hand with the talent business. They flourish together. I think we could still use their help. I also think we, as a union, need to bury the hatchet with the DGA. We are all facing an existential crisis. The more help we can get, the better. I don’t happen to believe that we alone can fix this.
CT: I think what we’re all trying to say is this… Every single member of the Guild has the same goal; the best possible deal for writers. Those of us who lived through the 2007 strike understand just how destructive a strike can be for everyone. We have a sense of humility about our ability to predict technological or commercial developments. We believe that the best way to form an effective strategy is to open the process to the membership, rather than trying to enforce blind adherence to directives handed down from Guild leadership. And we are convinced that forming a unified front with the other guilds and our own representatives gives us the best chance for success.
The studios and streamers are trying to redefine the entertainment business model to their exclusive benefit. They want to eliminate the gains generations of writers have struggled to achieve. They want to reduce the people who create their product to the status of gig workers and deny us our rightful participation in the wealth we create. This may very well be the most significant MBA negotiation in our lifetimes. It’s worth asking if our experiences in the last strike offer lessons to help us meet that challenge.
ET: And taking the Guild’s statement in Deadline to heart, I don’t think anyone can possibly truly know this far out what’s going to happen. I mean, we don’t even have a Pattern of Demands yet. I think everyone should always hope for the best and prepare for the worst in all things so we need to have our eyes open, but I’ve been through enough negotiation cycles to feel like I can say that, just about every single time, the town starts “predicting” a strike right about now – and it’s coming from writers and agents and execs and it’s all driven by emotion – whether it’s anger or anxiety or a combination – and the reality is, we haven’t walked since 2007. For whatever that’s worth.
HS: Well, one reason people are predicting a strike is that things are now so upside down, so much has to change, and studios traditionally move glacially. At least to do anything helpful to writers. But it makes rational and clear eyed analysis crucial. Heat is important, but it can’t replace light. If you have the attitude that you or your fellow writers ‘have nothing to lose’ by striking, then you are probably in the fog. We should all be thinking about what exactly we can reasonably gain, and with every gain, what it will cost.
AW: Thank you, Holly, and my gratitude to everyone here. This is a big topic, and I’m certain we’ll be talking about these issues more in the coming weeks. And thanks to everyone for reading! If you’d like to join one of these discussions, or if you have a topic you’d like to cover, just reply to this email or write us at writerscollectivesubstack@gmail.com