Business as Usual (?!): The Strike, AI, and the Secret Recipe of a Good Story

What timing to start a blog about entertainment! Uncertainty? Stalled negotiations? Threat of AI takeover? Start a blog!

Well, here we are. I started a blog. And as this is the first real, non-introductory post, I’m going to try some things out. Well, all of this is “trying something out”, but bear with me.

1. I will be writing as if to an audience who is new (or new-ish) to the industry. I will try to define terms when appropriate and give context when necessary.

2. I will be giving opinions and advice. This is not because I think I am in a position to necessarily give advice, but I do think that’s what some might find helpful. If you do not find it helpful, please ignore it.

3. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Email me or comment (I think you can comment on these things?) and let’s chat!

OK, let’s get into it. There doesn’t seem to be a better place to start than the current, and currently crazy, state of our industry. I’m going to dig into the WGA strike, the threat of AI, and how to move forward as a creative in a world of uncertainty.

It feels as if we are at a crossroads; a definitive moment in the arc of entertainment history. It took me a while to understand that. It’s easy to fake “business-as-usual” when your job is freelance writing and directing, like me. Oh, a strike? No one reads my scripts anyways! But it’s not business as usual. And the more we can learn about what’s at stake, who’s fighting for what, and why it’s so pressing, the more prepared we can be moving forward.

First, some definitions. If you feel good about your jargon-ese, feel free to skip the italicized sections:

1. The WGA stands for the Writer’s Guild of America and it’s a major labor union that represents and protects the interest of its members who are writers in film, television, radio, and recently, online media. It’s also technically two unions that work together: the WGAW and the WGAE (West and East).

2. The AMPTP stands for the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. They are a collective association and represent, in the context of this strike, the high-powered studios and streamers: Netflix, Apple, Amazon, WarnerBros Discovery, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Sony, and Disney. (They represent technically over 350 companies, but the major players in the strike are the ones listed above).

3. Signatories are the companies that sign a collective bargaining agreement with the WGA. Companies that intend to hire a guild writer must become signatories. The same is true vice-versa: if a signatory intends to hire a writer, that writer must be part of the guild. Companies try to get around this in various ways, but most of the time, if a non-guild writer sells a script or is hired by a signatory, they become eligible to join the guild through the hiring process.

4. The MBA stands for the Minimum Basic Agreement, which the WGA and the AMPTP agree upon and re-negotiate every three years. All guild members and signatories must abide by the rules, guidelines, schedules, and pay rates outlined by the MBA. Here’s a link to the 2020 MBA for your perusing: https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/contracts/mba20.pdf

OK. Now, you may or may not have heard that the Writer’s Guild is on strike. If you’re on Twitter, deadline, or variety, you most likely have. For those who haven’t, here’s the rub: the WGA called for its members to strike at midnight Tuesday, May 1st, as their negotiations with the AMPTP collapsed over the renewal of their MBA.

Strike authorization and members’ willingness to follow through is the singular most powerful tool the WGA (or any union, for that matter) has in their kit. This strike is important. Not just for writers’ wellbeing, but for our industry as a whole.

Based on documents released by the WGA (you can find the link to those here), it seems the WGA and AMPTP are far away on key issues. The AMPTP also released a statement responding to and outlining their views on the key points in the negotiation (Deadline article here). From everything I’ve seen and read, these seem to be the major sticking points:

-- Mini + Development Rooms

-- Streaming Residuals

-- Use of Artificial Intelligence

Mini + Development Rooms:

There has been a worrying trend over the past, let’s call it, 10-ish years as streaming has emerged, shows carry fewer and fewer episodes per season, mini-series have exploded, and television has come down with the same “auteur-driven” bug that has pervaded film for years.

There are many symptoms of these trends, but the one the Guild is fighting hardest against is the contraction of the “writer’s room”. They are fighting for writer’s rooms to carry a “minimum size” based on the number of episodes in a season. On the surface, this is a noble pursuit. Being hired to write on a TV staff was, for years, the most direct path to a sustainable career as a writer. It provided constant income (for a fixed period of time), invaluable training and mentorship (something our industry is critically lacking), and true upward mobility.

**Note: I’m not saying “direct” as in “easy” — it was, is, and always will be incredibly difficult to get staffed on a show. And getting staffed does not guarantee future employment. But I’m talking about “paths” in the relative sense and, for my money, being staffed in a room is the most direct path to a sustainable career as a scriptwriter.

Now, here’s the problem: as writer’s rooms constrict for all the reasons outlined above, fewer writers are getting hired on a per-show basis. And when the writer’s rooms are smaller, the entire pool of possible TV writing jobs is smaller. And smaller writer's rooms want to fill the room with experience. So, there are even fewer lower-level TV writing jobs available. Which means less training overall for our young writers, which means less upward mobility, fewer future showrunners — less, fewer, less, fewer…that’s the trend.

And that trend reveals an even deeper need for the Guild to fight for these minimums. Ingrid Escajeda, a writer and producer, tweeted this wonderful (but terrifying) thread:

The fight for minimum staffing requirements seems to be the fight for our union. More so, even, our profession as we know it. Woof.

Streaming Residuals

Another sticking point is the definition and transparency of streaming residuals. Residuals are the holy grail of income in our industry. You can (less and less frequently) make a living off of up-front payments as a creative, but you can make generational wealth with residuals (and other profit participation). That must be some sort of Hollywood aphorism, right?

But it’s true. And in the past — both in theatrical film and television — it was a lot clearer when, if, and how creatives were due residuals.

OK, break. I realize there are some definitions that might be helpful for this next section.

Above-the-line is a term used for writers, directors, and actors. It comes from studio accounting and/or call sheets (different sources say different things). There is a whole other conversation to be had about the terminology and the constant suppression of “below-the-line” crew, but that’s for another day.

Residuals are the money due to different creators (almost exclusively “above-the-line” creatives) for the reuse of work created. These residual rates are protected by all the guilds (SAG-AFTRA for actors, DGA for directors, and WGA). The important distinction here is that “residuals” refer to reuse, not the original showing of material.

Back-End, also called Profit Participation, is a share of the profit of the original showing of a creative work. So, for example, a writer might get a share of the back-end for the profit a movie makes in the theatrical box office (a rarity nowadays), and might get residuals for that movie getting put on TV, streaming, airlines, etc.

The unions negotiate residual rates. Back-end or profit participation has a minimum negotiated by the WGA but is often used as a key negotiating piece. I’ll probably do a whole other info drop on residuals, profit participation, etc. because there are a lot of finer points, but for now, I think those bare bones will serve for the following.

Back in the day of Seinfeld re-runs and Friends marathons, residual checks were life-changing. Now, in the age of streaming, that has all but gone away. In the previous MBA, streaming residuals were calculated at a flat rate based on a few inputs: the length of the program, the number of domestic subscribers on the streaming platform, and years of reuse. You can see more about that agreement here.

Now, the guild is fighting for new definitions. Back in the age of Seinfeld and Friends, the amount an episode played on TV would directly and significantly impact residual checks. And the number of reruns was directly proportional to a show’s popularity (free market economics, baby!). And I think we can all agree (or most of us), that residual payments should reflect how popular a program is. Because if you write a show that makes someone a lot of money, you deserve to see a lot of money too! Now, though, when programs live 24/7 on streaming services, there is no residual calculation in place to account for viewership or popularity.

Unless, of course, the streamers release their viewership data. And herein lies the problem. Streamers like Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV+, HBOMax (I guess just “Max”, now), and the like take their data propriety very seriously. They get to release per-program numbers whenever and however they like, to manipulate and persuade in whatever way they choose.

I don’t see these companies making that data available to the guild (much less the general public). I also don’t see a way that writers will ever get meaningful streaming residuals without that data being made available to the guild. It’s possible the AMPTP comes back with a massive increase in flat-rate residuals that makes the conversation go away for a few more years, but at some point, something drastic is going to have to happen.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

I’m actually really impressed that the Guild included this in their negotiations. Obviously, it’s very topical. But just because something’s topical doesn’t mean institutions pay attention right away. But that’s the thing with AI: you have to pay attention early or else it’s going to run away from you. Even though this is a relatively small ask (in terms of the “dollar” amount that the AMPTP would have to part with to agree on), it has massive future implications. I won’t get into the nitty gritty because I think (again) that requires a whole other post, but here’s my view on it:

It’s really good we’re trying to tackle it before it’s a problem, but right now, large language models like ChatGPT can get nowhere near a compelling narrative. I’ve tried it. I’ve tried to outline a movie with it. It does more harm than good to ideas, in my opinion (if you’ve also tried it and found something different, please let me know).

But, when it is good enough to mash together some past movies and pass an outline as something “fresh”, you better believe studios and producers will want to use that no-cost alternative and hire a writer to work off of an AI outline for a lower rate. I’ve heard rumblings some places are already doing this (or using AI as a screening method for scripts), but I haven’t experienced that first hand so I won’t speak on that.

My worry is: history is not fond of those who fight against innovation. Innovation seems to be the winner in most battles. But I do hope that because the guild tried to get out in front of this, we’ll have some guidelines and “bumpers” on its use moving forward.

THE STRIKE: CONCLUSION

The guild is fighting for both noble and necessary changes to our MBA and the AMPTP is not moving on key issues. There’s consequently a lot of talk of this strike lasting a while. I read a great article about the strike by Matthew Belloni at Puck (you need a subscription for Puck, but if you have the dough I think it's worth it — wonderful insight and breaking news for entertainment, media, tech, and politics). The truth is: no one’s really incentivized to go back to the negotiating table right now. The studios have plenty in production to cover them for a while. And the writers, rightfully in my opinion, aren’t willing to bend on the most important issues. The upcoming DGA and SAG-AFTRA negotiations will change things, depending on how they go. But until the studios feel the effect of the strike, we’re going to be in a logjam. (Some shows have already shut down production due to decisions made by high-powered creatives. The more that can happen, the faster this thing’ll go).

For young writers, the strike might feel like a slight to you. That you’d work for any amount of money! I felt that way too. But this is far bigger than any one person. So, go find somewhere to picket, meet some writer friends, keep your head up, and understand the reasons we’re fighting.

MOVING FORWARD (pt. 1, the STRIKE)

The question for young writers, in this moment of the strike and AI doomsday, but also in most moments is: what do I do now?

Well, in terms of the strike, the rule of thumb for pre-WGA writers (writers who aren’t in the union but one day would like to be) is: follow the guild rules for union writers. The goal is to cut off the content pipeline. When in doubt, don’t send it out. The union cannot enforce rules on non-members, but they will bar you from future membership if they find out you’ve scabbed (a term used to describe someone "crossing the picket line" or "breaking the strike"). It might seem a bit draconian, but it’s necessary for such a big fight.

A lot of folks tell writers to write their specs (original scripts) during a strike. And I think that’s great advice. I always think that’s great advice. Those are the ones that’ll get you noticed, that’ll provide a calling card, and that’ll hone your craft. But, as a slight caveat, just remember that all professional writers are likely doing the same right about now. Depending on how long the strike lasts, there will be a FLOOD of specs in the marketplace when it’s over. I want to reiterate: still write your spec, but keep perspective on just what it’ll do for you when the strike is over.

I think there are other things one can do during a strike that might have a higher leverage quotient (fewer people are doing them). Make a short film, learn a new skill (like editing, after effects, etc), read a lot of scripts, and reach out to and meet fellow creatives that may have been busy beforehand. These aren’t necessarily different than what I recommend for young writers in non-strike times and I’ll do a whole other post about that, but the key is to remember: what are the high-impact action items? If done right, what could set you apart?

MOVING FORWARD (pt. 2, AI)

I touched on the state of AI earlier and I want to elaborate slightly. There are a lot of people online (techbros, especially) that are claiming “AI is coming for Hollywood.” In my opinion, we’re far down the list of potential AI targets. I saw this tweet in a newsletter called Links from Ned and Mike (this is more for startups/business/tech, but it’s a great newsletter):

For AI to eventually create a compelling narrative, it needs to know the desired output. You’re probably saying: ok, the desired output is a compelling narrative. Done. Easy.

But that needs to be defined for an AI to actually get there. And in my (albeit somewhat naive) opinion, that’s why creatives are the “safest” from the AI revolution. Because we don’t know our end goal. You’re probably pushing against that. And that’s fair. But really, next time you sit down to write a script or a novel or a story, ask yourself what your goal is. When I’ve done that, these are some of my answers:

To make people feel something.

To make something entertaining.

To give people an escape.

Those are good goals. But they’re not measurable. We don’t know what sort of magic potion happens in a story that creates or conducts those things. Some people might say they do: "It’s empathy! or “It’s character change!” or “It’s spectacle!” or “It’s a Save the Cat moment!” or some combination of things they read in a screenwriting book (I’m not knocking screenwriting books, I’ve read too many to count and I’ve learned a lot). My point is: we don’t know. It is precisely the random concoction of craft, luck, nerve, gall, novelty…1000 other things…and humanity that makes a story compelling. And no person, animal, or algorithm has figured out the winning combination yet. Trust me, they’ve tried. And if they had a secret recipe, they’d be using it.

Maybe one day AI will figure that secret recipe out. But until it can experience feelings - hope and love and desire and whatnot - it cannot know the end goal. And if that time ever comes, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than where our movies are coming from.

All to say: the world needs your stories. Keep writing. Keep dreaming. Learn the tools, learn the trade, and be prepared, but have hope. Because what you can do as a writer is so singular, so special, I don’t see a world in which it could be replicated. And what’s more: we got a lot of incredible people in the WGA fighting for our future.

Thanks for reading. I’ll be back next week. As always, email me, dm me, and let me know what you thought and what you’d want to hear about next!

— Eli