The Daily reminds us that the entertainment industry is one of the topics that New York Times never covers well

There are, of course, certain types of stories that the NYT does as well and possibly better than anyone else. Big investigations that require lots of resources and extensive contacts, but then there are areas where the paper has a terrible track record: the entertainment industry (remember, they were among the last ones in the room to realize that initially Netflix didn't actually own any of the shows in the great content library it was supposed to be building); UFOs and the paranormal (perhaps the only time you'll find more fact checking and healthy skepticism in the New York Post -- and, no, I'm not kidding); political analysis (for at least the last ten years); and pretty much any regional story south of Virginia or west of the Mississippi.

This Daily episode on the end of the WGA strike does nothing to break the pattern. It leaves out essential context, misses the subtleties, misrepresents the dynamics, and credulously passes on the studios' self-serving narrative. Here are a few notes.

1

The reporter, John Koblin, focuses exclusively on shows like Bridgerton, but, as we pointed out before, one of the dirty little secrets of the streaming industry is the fact that, despite billions of dollars in marketing PR and credulous news reports to convince you otherwise, mostly people use the services to watch old shows. While there are a handful of originals that score decent numbers, the vast majority of produced-for-the-platform shows do not bring in enough viewers to justify their budgets, even with the most optimistic of assumptions about incremental subscriptions and reducing churn.

Though the streaming services try to be as opaque as possible, these numbers are available, but fortunately for Netflix and company, most journalists would rather parrot the narrative handed them by the platforms and studios rather than actually check things out.

2

It is with licensed shows such as Golden Girls or NCIS where the writers have been the most completely screwed over. When streaming first hit, the studios/producers took advantage of the hype and confusion to get the writers a rate of less than $1 for every million minutes viewed. Keep in mind, this was happening while Netflix was spending money like a drunken sailor, paying the studios as much as $100 million a year to license these same shows, and that these shows were long since in the black so we're talking pure profit. Though were don't have access to all the numbers, it's safe to say that the total spent on the writers of some of these hit shows was less than a basis point (0.01%) of what the studios got for them. (see below.)

Of course, streaming of licensed content is an extreme case (albeit an extreme case that covers the majority of what people actually watch). It was the part of the business where the producers and the studios managed to take everything. Writers do make up a a larger share of the overall budgets, but their share is trivial compared to the hole the studios have dug themselves with mismanagement, the content bubble and general dick measuring. The subscription-based streamers have lost billions and with the exception of the moderately profitable (though debt ridden) Netflix, they continue to. Keep this in mind when you listen to Sabrina Tavernise and Koblin wrap up by talking about how the streamers will have to pass these costs along to the subscribers. If all of the writers had promised to work for free and sweep up the place in their spare time,  the studios would still have to cut production and raise prices.

Peacock loses $651 million in the 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙧 vs. $467 million a year ago. https://t.co/akdLvUD6Mj pic.twitter.com/HCuIzWvo13

— TV Grim Reaper (@TVGrimReaper) July 27, 2023

From Reuters:

 Adjusted losses from the platform widened to $651 million from $467 million a year ago as Comcast continues to invest heavily in content. The company has said that it expects Peacock losses to peak at around $3 billion in 2023, but expects it to steadily improve after that.

3

 Put bluntly, having weakened the WGA, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) set out to break the union. They proposed reducing the process to piece work, removing staffing rules, and pretty much doing everything they could think of to make sure that writers would have no real power going forward. On top on that they tried bullying and intimidation, leaking statements that the writers would end up losing their homes if they didn't cave, and they tried similar tactics with the actors.

Perhaps 2023 was a bad year for union busting, or maybe they just overplayed their hand. Either way, the AMPTP ended up being the ones to fold, almost certainly ending up with a worse contract than they would have gotten if they had negotiated in good faith from the beginning.

For a much better take on the economics and maneuvering than the Daily, take a look at this interview with Adam (Adam Ruins Everything) Conover. 

 

Also recommended.

Adam Conover Explains the SAG-AFTRA & WGA Strikes, Writing Residuals & Why He's not Scared of AI