Poor bastards, they must not play chess, or at least not very well... or else they'd have realized long ago that even the most aggressive, well-conceived, multidimensional offensive can easily be pushed too far, at which point it crumbles under the weight of its own vanity and exposes the player's flank, allowing the defender to pluck the heart right out of the overzealous neophyte's chest and show it to him. ALL SWORDS ARE DOUBLE-EDGED; today's thrilling lunge all too quickly develops into tomorrow's killing riposte, only this time, it's you on the floor, leaking precious fluids into the woodgrain.  

...[A]s for selfishness, the AMPTP is equally responsible for the strike. Add the fact that the writers actually deserve what they're asking for and it should be clear that the writers are not the selfish party.  

If I learned one thing in law school, it's that it takes two parties to disagree. If I learned another, it's that a failure to act can cause results that are just as harmful as an act.  

Nico...you believe the writers are responsible for the strike because they called the strike. That's true, obviously, but I'm sure the AMPTP was told there would be a strike if they refused to pay for streaming content. It's not like they were blindsided.  

They refused to budge, knowing the refusal would cause a strike. So what we have is a battle of wills because the writers want to get paid for their work and the AMPTP doesn't want to pay. Who's really the selfish party here?  

The same analysis applies to losses to innocent bystanders and the economy as a whole.  

As for leadership acting in it's own interests instead of the little guys', I read in [T]he New York Times that many of the writers are getting paid around $50,000 a year. These guys can make more than that temping. 

On the other hand, your post about permanent losses to the networks, Nico, shows that the AMPTP is willing to screw their own as well as the writers, the grips and all the rest. I absolutely love the line "the future could be very, very bleak indeed for the broadcast networks, whose...very survival may now be in question." I don't want the networks to die, but, if your statement is true, then either Zucker is lying (imagine that) and the permanent losses will not be as deep as you fear, or it's the AMPTP that is selfish, foolhardy, selfish, irresponsible, selfish, shortsighted and selfish.  

The AMPTP says there's no money in internet streaming.  

The WGA isn't refusing to negotiate. They filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board on Dec. 13 to force the AMPTP back to the negotiating table. 

Talks ended December 7 after the AMPTP delivered an ultimatum... 

I don't work for the WGA, and I usually have zero sympathy for unions. (Including benefits, UAW workers make $71 and hour, or $142,000 based on a 40 hour work week. And Roger Moore blames the mean corporations for moving jobs to Mexico.)  

...I know that the workplace can be anything but fair, with jerks whose dads who went to boarding school with the VP of XYC, Inc. getting the best jobs without even trying. But in this case, it's obvious to everyone that the writers "deserve" what they're asking for. ...[Instead] of doing what's right, the AMPTP is willing to risk the survival of their own, the television networks.  

Nice post, treyb, good arguments. ...Welcome to the forum 

...[It's] possible -- just possible -- that the WGA strike [may herald] the end of an entire industry's business model. ...If the networks and netlets abandon the upfront as their annual one-stop shopping center for plotting advertiser revenues and thereby determining their annual budgets...how will they determine potential revenues in future? Could commercials as we know them give way en masse to whole-program sponsorships by a single corporate entity? Might...product placement...defray program production expenses? Are we to return to the halcyon days of...The Texaco Star Theater? Or, is it possible that future television advertising revenue will be determined, literally, from moment to moment, with networks abandoning fixed, seasonal pricing and moving to a more dynamic paradigm?

This isn't mere theoretical gobbledygook. Such things matter...in business as in all things, what's new isn't always what's best. ...If Zucker's correct -- if his de facto pronouncement of the impending death of network television's standard business model turns out to be prescient...then the future could be very, very bleak indeed for the broadcast networks... [Their] very survival may now be in question. ...[It] COULD lead to a...fundamental, wholesale renovation in how content comes to air -- who owns it, funds it, exploits it and, ultimately, profits from it (or hopes to). 

February 19, 2008, 5:29 pm
Getting Ready for ‘The Endless Season’
By Brian Stelter and Stuart Elliott

After months of speculation, NBC confirmed on Tuesday that it would sidestep the annual star-studded “upfront” presentation for advertisers and hold a series of client meetings with media buyers instead.

Perhaps more important for television viewers, the network said it would embrace a year-round prime-time programming schedule, jettisoning the frequently criticized practice of saving most shows for the traditional September- to-May television season.

For several years, the broadcast networks have gradually replaced repeats during the summer and winter months with some new shows, mostly of the unscripted form. NBC’s announcement appears to be a more dramatic step in that direction. The network is already preparing several shows for the summer months, including a second season of American Gladiators and a broadcast version of the singing competition Nashville Star.

Get ready for “the endless season, ” said Gene DeWitt, chairman and chief executive at DeWitt Media in New York, when the broadcasters “launch programs when they’re ready and promote them when they’re ready. ”

“There are many more opportunities to introduce programs to viewers over the course of a year than over the course of a few weeks in September,” Mr. DeWitt said approvingly of the NBC plans.

The fourth quarter is often the most important of the year for many marketers like retailers and auto makers, Mr. DeWitt noted, but under the current system many of the broadcast shows they are offered from October through December are new and untried.

If more shows are brought out earlier in the calendar year, he said, “you’d have a track record of their performance.”

“We’d have more reliable rating information,” he added, “so we won’t be going into the fourth quarter blind.”

A 52-week broadcast schedule may make it more difficult to track the hits and flops, Mr. DeWitt said, but “it’s the way of the world today; things move faster and we all have to keep up.”

On Tuesday afternoon, NBC said it would present a 52-week programming schedule to advertisers in New York in early April. The private meetings will be followed by a “spotlight event” on May 12 to showcase, as the network put it in a press release, “the broad spectrum of advertising opportunities available within NBC Universal.” In other words, the company wants to emphasize its promotional platforms beyond prime time.

The event will partly supplant the lavish upfront presentations sponsored by broadcast networks to promote their fall television lineups. Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, had previously said he believed the glitzy presentations were extravagant and inefficient ways of selling advertising time. NBC’s event was held each year at Radio City Music Hall. Still, NBC will hold the “spotlight event” as well as a party during the upfront week.

Senior executives at media agencies greeted the NBC decision with mild to enthusiastic praise.

“I applaud it,” said Charlie Rutman, chief executive for North American operations at MPG in New York, a media agency owned by Havas, because “the idea of a constant stream of new programming is good.”
“Programming should be like a good wine,” Mr. Rutman said. “Put it on the air when it’s ready.” A year-round schedule will provide “more opportunity for trial” of new shows by viewers, he said, adding: “Some will stick. Some won’t.”

Either way, “it improves the chances they will be sampled,” Mr. Rutman said, compared with the traditional method of “introducing everything in the fall.”

Shari Anne Brill, senior vice president and director for programming at another New York media agency, Carat, described the NBC plan as “a smart idea,” likening it to steps that Fox Broadcasting has tried in the past of announcing several schedules for a season, with new shows coming on the air in September, November, January and spring.
Stuart Elliott contributed reporting.