A Daring Game of Chicken?

It has been known for a while now that SAG and the AMPTP are engaged in a game of chicken, but Daily Variety has a good story today about the major studios going ahead with a full production slate for 2010, even as SAG inches a wee bit closer toward a strike.

"While SAG believes the uptick in production will make the majors more vulnerable, the majors believe that actors won’t back SAG leadership on a strike," Cynthia Littleton writes.

SAG national executive director Doug Allen told Littleton: "It would be unwise if management were to dare our members to go on strike. I don’t think there’s a lot of division between membership and the leadership on the deal [the studios] put on the table June 30. I think the membership understands the need to arm the leadership with all the tools available."

Allen and those pushing for strike authorization may very well get the needed 75 percent of voting members. But remember: Membership First, the SAG faction that has fashioned a hard-line response toward the AMPTP, doesn't hold the majority on the board any longer, and there's no guarantee the strike authorization referendum will go out to members, or that the board would call for a work stoppage if given the authority.

Anne-Marie Johnson, the guild's newly elected 1st national vp and Membership First spokeswoman, told Strike Watch Tuesday she was confident the authorization would be sent to members and that members would vote in favor of it. Board members in New York, long at odds with MF, believe the opposite.

I write in this week's print edition of Back Stage--available today on newsstands in Hollywood, available Thursday online and on newsstands in New York--that the Hollywood moderates in the Unite for Strength party hold the key. Ned Vaughn, a Hollywood board member, national board alternate, and UFS spokesman, has been silent so far on this issue, and probably won't tip his hand until the national board meeting Oct. 18, when the strike-authorization issue is scheduled to be decided.

***

SAGwatch.net has a preliminary report on the Booz-Allen study on commercials. The first SAG-AFTRA informational meeting about the study was held at the Westin Hotel in New York. I don't understand all of what was written, but from what I gather, the study is floating the idea of a new compensation model that would be "revenue neutral."

An excerpt from the post:

"Booz-Allen constructed an elaborate model that replicates the commercial 'base case' for the measurement period on an aggregate basis.  This model exists as a massive set of Excel spreadsheets.  Booz-Allen then used this platform to test alternate compensation methods that were designed to tie talent residual payments more closely to the audience sizes in the various 'channels' used.  (As far as I can see, session fees for principal performers were left alone.)  Residual money was taken out of channels where audiences have gotten smaller, and moved into channels where audiences are larger.  The aggregate model was then run based on these new assumed payments to see what the total outlay would be.  Adjustments were made until the total outlay under the new payment schemes was the same as under the current contract.  This is the 'revenue neutral' objective.

"Now, it is 'revenue neutral' in the aggregate, but not at all in individual cases.  Some performers (and some advertisers) will stay about the same in the new compensation scenarios, but others will differ significantly, moving higher or lower.  The underlying assumption of this approach, however, is that if it is 'revenue neutral' then it is fair on an overall basis to the talent:  The same overall money is being paid; it’s just being moved around."

--Andrew Salomon

P.S.: If you haven't already, please vote in our poll, about whether you would accept the AMPTP's offer as it currently stands.