Here's the link.

With the premiere of Michael Eisner's second web series The All-For-Nots, here's a quick review of the new media world according to Eisner. 

His company's first series was Prom Queen.  According the Eisner, it cost $3,000 per 90 second episode, was seen by 20 million people and made, "a couple thousand dollars."

Though it had more shots of girls in bikinis than the original, Prom Queen's sequel, PQ: Summer Heat, was seen by fewer people and "lost money."

Despite this (and his view that the writers strike was insane because "it [was] over a business and a marketplace that is not evolved enough to even know if there is a business or a marketplace there"), Eisner is determined to make Vuguru "the leader in high-quality, story driven content produced for new media platforms."

He premiered The All-For-Nots with sponsorships from Chrysler and Expedia, distribution on Bebo and Verizon's V-CAST (not sure who paid who for what) and a simple strategy: produce cheap content that makes people laugh and cry. 

With little deference to Eisner's experience producing content that is professional, tear-jerking, and cheap, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington paid Eisner what must be high praise in Silicon Valley when he wrote that Prom Queen was, "as good as much of the user generated content out there."

And though Arrington predicted the show could be "very profitable", he doubted the need for Eisner's lavish $100k production budget for the 80-episode series: "the audience can easily create their own content and distribute it to millions on YouTube. Some of that content will be better than anything Hollywood produces. And it won’t cost even $100k to create."

No word yet on the budget, revenue, the fees paid to talent or the likely profitability of The All-For-Nots.  But if the Lonely Girl people can make millions off their Bebo show, Kate Modern, one hopes the former King of the Mouse House can figure out how to do the same.

With Hulu about to officially launch, here are some quick ways to get smart.

First, check out the site when it debuts, probably some time this week.  (If you can't wait, email me and I'll give you one of my ten "invites" to the beta.) The site has an elegant interface and high quality video.  (I watched it in my office on a 24" Mac from six feet away.  It was great.  There just might be something to this TV on the Internet thing.)  And though the programming selection seems scattershot - just 5 episodes of House, 9 episodes of The Office, the entire 39 episode first season of Alfred Hitchcock Presents but none of the second or third seasons - I can't be too critical of any site that lets me watch all of Arrested Development whenever, wherever and for free.   

Also see Fortune Magazine's fawning piece about the company, a joint venture between Fox and NBC, with a $100 million investment from a possibly crazy venture capital fund.  The article, complete with photos of geeky programmers and laughing execs, reveals Hulu has spent $15 million so far, is run by a former Amazon executive Jason Kilar who brought a start-up culture to the venture (we're told he "abandoned the palatial corner office he'd been assigned in Santa Monica for a near cubicle") and that Google has nicknamed Hulu "Clown Co."  Cocky bastards, those Googlers. 

The famously fallen (and savvy) Internet analyst Henry Blodget explains Hulu's business model here:

• Hulu is the exclusive distributor of ad-supported streaming content from Fox, NBC and any other premium content provider they can sign up.
• The content provider gets 70% of the revenue.
• Syndication partners (e.g., a Hulu channel on YouTube, if that happens) get 10%.
• Hulu keeps 20-30% (depending on if there's a syndication partner).

According to Blodget, the content suppliers have first crack at selling the ads, with unsold inventory bundled into genres and sold by Hulu.  (Ah, bundling - the first of many reasons why the WGA and DGA need to start staffing up on auditors.)

The Fortune article ends with a couple of quotes from CBS' head of digital initiatives, Quincy Smith.  First, Smith says, "The economics have to change."  In other words, Smith doesn't think paying 20-30% of ad revenue for internet distribution makes sense.  Given that Blodget's most recent critique of Hulu's business model ("Hulu: Great Product, Still Screwed") argues Hulu needs to take more than 30%, this could be bad news for the guys who chucked in the $100 mil.

Second, Smith criticizes what we might call Hulu's creative model, it's vision of how the internet and entertainment ultimately converge: "If the web is just another way to watch TV, I think I'm going to slit my wrists." 

This continues a critique Smith began back in September here.  The gist:

• Premium content owners should make sure audiences can find their content "anywhere, anytime on any screen."
• Hulu, therefore, should focus on syndication and waste neither time nor money building a destination
• Audiences (who Smith charmingly calls, "the bulk of God's children") want clever clips and interactivity, not the whole episodes Hulu focuses on delivering.

The bigger question raised by Smith's quote is a creative one: Is the most important thing about the Internet really just that it delivers the same old TV over different pipes?  Or shorter, lower-budgeted versions of traditional TV? 

Or is there something more here, something to invent that uses the unique social and interactive aspects of the Internet to tell stories in new ways?  My view is there is and that, as writers, actors and directors with some claim to authority in the realm of storytelling, it's our job to figure out what it is.  If only to keep Quincy Smith from doing himself in.

Finally, for a short history of the business and a spirited discussion in the comments section, check out the Geek in Chief's take on Hulu in TechCrunch.  Comment #11 is surprisingly vitriolic.

Click here to see her post on the UH Union Blog.

The strike is over. The WGA contract has been ratified. SAG and AFTRA are now center stage and there is still a lot of work to do before the town gets back to normal. At this moment it's useful to look back at our own history. There are lessons to be learned about how the process can move forward even against what seems like overwhelming odds.

There are many who labored behind the scenes to support the writers' strike. At United Hollywood we worked with people who put their energy on the line but wanted to stay off the media's radar. Not content to just talk a good game, these are members and supporters who knew that if they wanted to make a difference, they had to work at it.

One group in particular came of age during the early part of the strike: the writer-directors. Nicknamed the WD-40, forty writer-directors met to search for ways they could help facilitate the negotiation.

From the beginning of the strike, most journalists accepted the AMPTP's lead and described the DGA and WGA as antagonistic to one another. Nicholas Counter was frequently quoted in the trades as preferring the DGA as a negotiating partner. The writer-directors objected to that characterization and felt that the AMPTP was doing what it always did in positioning the Guilds against one another to diminish each union's power.

There were many issues discussed during a first meeting in early December, chief among them the fact that the WGA and DGA share 1,400 members. That struck everyone as a surprisingly large number. The group realized that they were uniquely qualified to speak to both Guilds, since they are the embodiment of the two unions' shared interests.

The objective of the group was to promote closer ties between the WGA and DGA. That effort took many forms. First and foremost, a letter was drafted during the meeting that announced the solidarity of the signatories in their support of the WGA's demands. It was decided that everyone in the room would call 10 writer-directors and ask them to add their names to the letter. Within 24 hours, the letter had been signed by over 375 members. The letter was hand-delivered to the DGA leadership by four of the group. The delegation then met with Patric Verrone, David Young, and John Bowman. At the same time, hundreds of phone calls were made to fellow DGA members, explaining the strike issues, arguing the importance of the internet for the future of all the Hollywood unions.

The hyphenates also walked the picket lines, their signs proclaiming themselves as "Writers-and-Directors". Hyphenates picketed in New York and Los Angeles, participating in video interviews that were posted on Voices4Action! In those interviews they spoke eloquently about the creative values shared by writers and directors. They explained that the strike issues were important to both groups. And, most importantly, movies and television shows cannot exist without the collaboration of both.

Contrary to the press' characterization of Guild antagonism, just before the holiday break, Michael Apted, the President of the DGA, issued a letter to the DGA membership, acknowledging with respect that the WGA was a "sister guild," not an adversary.

The significance of hyphenates is becoming increasing clear as Hollywood looks to exploit the opportunities of New Media. Already we can see that the internet is a place where hyphenates are the order of the day. Writer-Directors. Actor-Directors. Actor-Writers. Writer-Director-Actors. Looking to the future, the writer-directors who came together at that first meeting will become an important voice in the next contract negotiation. In three years their numbers will be even larger.

SAG, AFTRA, and the AMPTP will sit down soon and negotiate their new contract. Ultimately, a deal will be worked out, but as with the writers, the actors have to resolve their differences and find common ground with one another so they can face the companies and speak with one voice. We can only hope that there are players like the writer-directors who are working quietly, behind-the-scenes to forge a consensus and move the negotiation to a speedy resolution.

Last week, State Senator Sheila Kuehl introduced a bill in the California Senate that protects all entertainment union workers.  Below, WGAw Secretary-Treasurer Elias Davis explains the bill and asks the members of all entertainment-industry unions to support it by sending an email to its sponsors in the California State Assembly. 

Over the past few years a number of TV show creators have brought suit against major studios in cases where the studios have sold TV series to companies owned by the studios themselves. The reason for the suits is simple - because of self-dealing, these shows have been sold for far less money than they could have brought in had they been offered for sale on the open market.

WGA members who wrote for the series M*A*S*H (let's call it MASH) are all too familiar with this practice. Many years ago the program, one of the most successful in the history of television, was sold by Fox TV to FX, a cable channel owned by Fox. Since writers receive cable residuals based on the re-use sales price, the MASH writers clearly paid a steep price for Fox's self dealing when the studio sold the show to FX.

Now something might actually be done to prevent such sales in the future. California Senate Bill 1765, introduced by SAG member Senator Sheila Kuehl, would prohibit these self-dealing sales.

Please support Senate Bill 1765, the Fair Market Value Bill. And here's one way you can do that - fill out the form below to automatically send emails to the sponsors of the bill (State Senators Kuehl, Midgeen and Steinberg, State Assembly Members Ma and Swanson) thanking them for their support and for standing up for writers and other workers in the entertainment industry.

Thanks.

Elias Davis

WGAw Secretary-Treasurer

From screenwriter Brian Nelson (HARD CANDY, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT) --

The other day I had a conversation with a friend of mine who works in Craft Services. It was an unsettling talk. While this friend has been quite supportive of me all through the strike, during this talk he kept raising points that felt more like what people on the other side would say. "Well, it'll take a long time to undo all the damage ... the moment there was a DGA deal, why didn't the WGA just jump on that? ... It seemed like they were a lot more willing to talk to the DGA than to you guys, and I wonder why." I took a while and patiently responded to all these points, but it struck me that every time I'd respond, he didn't really acknowledge it but came back with another bone to pick.

What it brought home to me was that while my friend was definitely on our side because he felt that the corporate bosses were out to screw us all, he still was very wary of the WGA. Now that the WGA didn't need him so overtly on our side, he felt freer to express a lot of the frustration that BTL people must still feel.

Even though the strike is over, many of our sisters and brothers below the line aren't working yet. The relief that much of the town feels at working again can't be allowed to obscure this fact. My friend was right: it's indisputably true that a lot of work will be needed to make up for the hardships that people across all unions have endured.

When you're out of work, naturally any party that feels like it might have contributed to the problem remains suspect. But the difference between the WGA and the AMPTP is that we can and will maintain a dialogue with our BTL colleagues.

That dialogue can take the form of the benefits still being staged to strengthen the Industry Support Fund. And that dialogue can take the form of lobbying for the underpricing bill currently in the California State Senate -- which helps all unions by making sure that our work isn't traded between corporate subsidiaries at less than its fair market value.

But just as importantly, that dialogue needs to take the form of simple honest exchanges about what's happened and what's still happening in this town. The success of everyone's next negotiation will depend in large part on how we all view the last few months, and how well we maintain the lines of communication newly created between motion picture artisans used to laboring in isolation and sometimes mistrust of each other.

If we are truly championing the idea of a United Hollywood, then we need to be alive to the simmering resentments that may bubble up from other trades now that solidarity may not feel like the watchword of our every hour.

Thanks for listening --

Brian Nelson