There was a really interesting discussion on one of the Facebook groups on the effect, if any, that cheap sites to source VO “talent” – such as Fiverr and the like – have on professionals. A number of people weighed in with differing opinions and it was a great discussion that eventually expanded to the union and its support, or lack thereof, of VO. I joined in with thoughts that I’ve expressed before – so I figured I’d just re-post some of my comments here, typos and all, except in the most egregious cases (I was at Jury Duty at the time – typing away on my tiny cellphone keyboard) . Short explanatory notes are occasionally included as well.
To the discussion of falling rates, who that affects – and does it have any effect at all on professionals.
I think, right now – in this time – the main problem has been that uneducated, uninformed, desperate talent have conditioned newer creatives to believe that “standard” rates are rates that are anything more than they make in wages at their day jobs. Time and time again I ask, would ANYONE buy a franchise without learning about the business? Understanding the BUSINESS of the business?
Unfortunately part of this is the fault of those in the union who’ve ignored non-union talent, indeed, consider them amateurs and not worthy of being educated as to VALUE of one’s work. This left the door wide open for parasites to jump into the market and make up their own rate cards – calling them “standard” – and do the job the unions should have been doing, since before the merger. So these para-sites teach uneducated hopefuls that a national spot is worth $500 for a complete buyout (with a hefty fee to them). AND some of them hide in their terms, that no one reads, that all work done through their site is a full buyout to THEM.
So, what happens? Some of these newer uneducated talent become VERY good at their craft. But they still have NO understanding of the business itself. And “$500 isn’t bad for 10 minutes work”, is the reasoning. So now you have very good talent who are teaching newer producers what the “going rate” is for VO. This is creating issues not only with rates, but with things like exclusivity, which is being bandied about for everything these days – and many talent are going to shoot themselves in the foot if they don’t push back on many of the onerous terms.
Add to this that SO MANY companies have no history with the unions. They’re digital and were created alongside and outside of the union broadcast/entertainment/industrial world. They knew and know nothing about working with the union – they weren’t hiring the big advertising agencies for their marketing, which would have led them to union talent. They did exactly what digital companies do. They went online. And RIGHT THERE, was the easiest way to hire talent for cheap – no muss, no fuss, no paperwork.
So I’d say equal fault lies with the unions/union for ignoring the impact the internet was making and not taking the opportunity to educate newer talent – AND with talent who feel that they know all they need to know about the business of the business because they learned it from VDC or other such sites. I’m afraid as the industry gets younger, more and more creatives will lose what little touch they may have with union. I hate to say it but as it is, now that good non-union talent, whose only knowledge about the business has come from cheap sites, have made it easy for smaller creative agencies to pay cheap rates, the big agencies want in on that too. There are 3 different markets here I think. The cheap “fiverr”, TVR and other sites of that type, the pro non-union talent who work directly with discerning clients at good rates, quite often at rates far higher than union rates, for corporate work – and full-on union. Many pro talent move easily between union and non-union or non-covered work, because rates and terms often are in the same range especially for narration. And pro talent understand how the business works. The problem is when “fiverr” and TVR talent become good enough to go pro talent-wise, yet charge almost nothing for their work. A familiar argument as any union member can appreciate. Yes, Bob I see the irony. [This refers to a friend calling it ironic that professional non-union talent are upset that cheap non-union talent are undercutting rates. Which is exactly what got union talent upset when those professional non-union talent first came onto the scene and undercut union rates.]
I’m afraid that when it comes to VO, many in the union (some entrenched elitist members stuck in the “way it used to be”) aren’t hearing what’s going on. Understand, that the union sees EVERYTHING through a filter of on-camera. VO is a sub-set of on-camera work. It’s simply off-camera. It’s not considered an industry on its own. As such I’m not sure how one would create and enforce protections without subjecting VO to onerous restrictions that shouldn’t apply. I’ve had this conversation with a number of people – and the responses range from deafness to denial to understanding but “can’t be done”. And honestly, how DO you harness something that no longer has barriers? I don’t mean barriers to joining the union. I mean barriers to creating your own production company, your own media agency. As someone else pointed out, post-production facilities – huge ones – shut down years ago in Chicago. It happened in NYC as well. Places none of us thought would ever go out of business, but once AVID hit the scene the beginning of the end began for them, though they didn’t know it at the time. It cost about 50K to get AVID back in the 90’s and the large post houses did. It was GREAT. It revolutionized video and completely changed offline editing. It saved time, money, enabled people to become more creative, more quickly. And then Moore’s law took over and it took years but cheaper, smaller non-linear systems became ever cheaper – until everyone who ever wanted in, could do it themselves – in their own living rooms.
We’re not the only ones affected by the results of cheaper technology and innovation. Theater chains are finding many people want to watch first run movies on better equipment in their homes. Discussions there about narrowing the theatrical window are just as contentious as discussions wherever industries are being shaken up. The rules of traditional television have changed – but many of the terms haven’t. Short seasons mean a lot more work for a lot less money for writers but the same non-competes. Just one of the reasons they’re on the verge of a strike. In less than half hour if there’s no agreement – gah – I have to go to sleep. [Strike averted]
There needs to be more creative thinking going on, both at the union and outside. And I’m disappointed with the lack of support VO has from the union. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very much a union supporter – but among many, especially since merger, there’s a disdain, and dismissal, for the fully half of the union that doesn’t do film and TV – and I’m getting REALLY tired of that.
Just as AFTRA had crafted contracts for smaller markets and has historically been open to working with reduced rates in certain regions under certain conditions (to address a comment about smaller markets not being able to pay LA rates, the union does have provisions for lower rates for certain work in certain markets, often with a simple contract – something the union should be promoting more but doesn’t), I’d like to see this type of flexibility in thought among union and non-union talent and leaders. Some of us have attempted it, at different times and in different ways, with varying levels – or not – of success. Right now I see non-union taking the lead in attempting to determine fair rates for “paid placement” online – as opposed to one rate for “web”. Maybe by the time it’s time to negotiate another contract non-union will have provided a template the union could use. Or maybe the union is working on that behind closed doors, as well and we just don’t know about it. I don’t know, I guess this is just a REALLY long way to say, my point is we all have to work together. Innovation doesn’t stop and we can’t stop it. So how do we make it work for us instead of allowing it to be used against us?
The discussion then evolved to Right to Work legislation, with one person commenting that they were upset because – without being asked – the union went after – and got – residuals for them for work done on what I guessed was a union production. It occurred to me many don’t know that when non-union talent work on union productions they get the same benefits as union talent. And that many don’t understand how Right to Work actually works.
With few exceptions (a limited number of extras on a film shoot for instance) EVERYONE on a union production must receive the same benefits and protections as union members. Companies aren’t allowed to use right to work legislation to create a substandard class of talent with inferior wages and conditions while their fellow actors in the production receive more.
Right to work is misunderstood by much of the population. As with anything political, the title often doesn’t convey the meaning of what’s inside (sometimes it appears to mean the exact opposite)
Right to work legislation means a union cannot force one to join or pay initiation fees or dues as a condition of employment. It doesn’t give you the “right to work”. You have that anyway. You were likely Taft -Hartleyed into each and every union production on which you’ve worked. Anyone can be Taft Hartleyed if they’re qualified to do the job, and obviously we all know you’re more than qualified.
What right to work means is one has the right to work WITHOUT paying the fees and dues that members pay. This serves to defund unions, making it much harder for them to organize work, negotiate contracts, protect members from substandard working conditions (see 4 hour video game screaming sessions) and yes, to use the law to recover monies owed to members AND non-members working on union productions.
No one works for free, and neither does union staff or attorneys, so the push to create national right to work legislation is an effort to bankrupt unions, thereby taking away protections for workers.
Some may say, “Well, I don’t need the union, I get my own work” But think about that for a sec. This thread began with discussion of how lowballing sites are changing the industry, making it, in some cases, more difficult to sustain a viable career. Union rates and conditions are the only true standard, which has been negotiated between the industry and talent, together. It’s a baseline, something tangible that anyone (union and non) can point to and say “THIS is the standard for professional work, something all parties, employer and employees have mutually agreed upon”.
If unions are defunded, and go away, that baseline no longer exists, and that affects EVERYONE, union AND non. VDC [referring to Voices dot com – or, as a colleague prefers to call it – Voices dot con -] has set up their own rate sheet, negotiated with no one, that serves to put the bulk of the money into their pockets. They call it a “standard non-union rate sheet”. If the union no longer exists and union rates become defunct, is THAT the rate sheet you want to work by?
I wish there were a mechanism by which non-union talent working on union productions in right to work states could donate “their portion” of dues and fees to the union, to help keep the union able to continue to provide the equal protections they provide to all workers on union productions, including non-union. I think many talent would do that.
(Typed on my phone while at jury duty)
And just a bit further along in the thread.
The union should be educating everyone on things like this (they don’t even pro-actively explain a lot of this to members) and by the same token, it’s difficult for non-union talent to explain this “new” way of working, along with the changes in the industry, to the union because there’s no access. I don’t care whether talent are union, non-union or fi-core, convert work or not, do non-covered work or not, or any combination or not of any of these. I just want people to be able to make the best decisions for themselves based on facts instead of myths and misinformation.
Different ways of working work for different people in different places. Sometimes all of the ways or a combination work for some. And you’re right [in response to a comment about higher rates for non-union sometimes] about some non-union work paying more than union. Union rates are a floor, not a ceiling – and in certain areas, they lag behind the work out there today, because contracts can’t keep up with technology – but as someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, scale is sometimes used by those who hire as a definitive rate, set in stone. But the one thing we all should be doing, and one thing I think all of us here have in common at least here on this thread, is to work by professional standards, rates and conditions – union or not.
One more thing. I understand where you’re coming from as far as the freedoms to work, bit I think you’re misinformed about right to work and its application, or not, to those freedoms. A producer in ANY state is free to hire non-union talent and Taft Hartley them. Being in a right to work state does not OBLIGATE producers to hire non-union talent. It doesn’t make it easier to get work. It doesn’t put you ahead in the line. Only one’s talent does that. Right to work only means you don’t have to join the union when you get that work, leading to defunding as I mentioned earlier.
Productions don’t go to right to work states because of right to work laws, or because they think it will be easier and talent cheaper. It’s not and legally can’t be. They have to provide the same for everyone whether they pay or not. Productions go for tax breaks and no other reason. New York’s TV industry is thriving because of tax breaks. Union town. Atlanta is thriving because of GA’s tax breaks. Right to work.
For a producer to hire non-union talent they have to go through the same paperwork no matter where. Actually in right 2 work it has to be filed every time you work, so it’s more cumbersome. Regarding non-union work going to Atlanta, that has nothing to do with R2W and R2W doesn’t affect it, or not, at all.
R2W legislation holds no benefit for talent, unless one’s priority is not having to pay, and it holds every benefit for those seeking to pit talent against each other.
Back to jury duty….
There’s more – a lot more – but I think this is enough for now – this is a reaaaallllllly long post. I just hope if you see it and didn’t know any of this, it’s a help.