 |
VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD! Established November 10, 2004
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mike Harrison M&M

Joined: 03 Nov 2007 Posts: 2029 Location: Equidistant from New York City and Philadelphia, along the NJ Shore
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: Rates for Internet use of :30 TV VOs |
|
|
A producer client has said that an increasing number of his clients (end-users) are wanting to put their local cable TV spots on the internet and has asked how that will affect my pricing for the VO. This is a first-time question for me, and I don't know how to answer. Any other non-union talent been posed this question, or have internet rates already in place? The thing to consider is that once on the internet, the spots are - in effect - no longer 'local' spots. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anthonyVO 14th Avenue
Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 1470 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever your session fee is, multiply it by 3-5 and you have a one-year buyout. OR, multiply it by 7-9 and you have a full buyout and forget about it.
The issue of something not being "local" because it's on the web has been debated back and forth between producers and talent (or their guilds) so for the time being don't expect to get a "national" rate if you will for web use.
Hope that helps... some. And congrats on the gig/lead.
PEACE.
-Anthony
EDIT: One more thing - that's if the spot was made for broadcast AND they're going to use it online as well. If the spot is SPECIFICALLY made for web ONLY, then it's whatever you can get - just don't sell yourself short. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan-O The Gates of Troy

Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 1638
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
At an AFTRA seminar, recently, a paymaster was discussing the future of web related fees. His prediction was a talent would receive a session fee and a pay-per-click residual. Say you agree to a penny a view. If it's a a small website that gets very little traffic, then you make a buck for a hundred people viewing it. But, say you get sent to YouTube and it's the next internet marketing sensation with over five million views? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ccpetersen With a Side of Awesome

Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 3708 Location: In Coherent
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan-O wrote: | At an AFTRA seminar, recently, a paymaster was discussing the future of web related fees. His prediction was a talent would receive a session fee and a pay-per-click residual. Say you agree to a penny a view. If it's a a small website that gets very little traffic, then you make a buck for a hundred people viewing it. But, say you get sent to YouTube and it's the next internet marketing sensation with over five million views? |
Interesting. Currently, however, there's a whole schedule of uses that one notes on the AFTRA contract, including internet, which is a set fee based on the original use. Presumably the producer could/should buy the uses he/she needs at the time, but with the internet growing the way it is, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to buy internet rights at the same time as the session fees, etc.?
I'm facing this for a production I did a few years ago that is going on an "online TV" website. At the time we did the project, Internet use was unheard of. So, we're playing catchup with older productions. When I called AFTRA about it and what fees we should figure on paying now and in the future, we had a long chat about the whole future of internet postings, etc. My impression was that they're still catching up on this whole Internet/Web thing.
Certainly the VO should get the extra fee for the extra use; but how that will play out? Good question. _________________ Charter Member: Threadjackers Local 420 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jowillie Lucky 700
Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Posts: 714 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
We need to decide on this subject. This year, we have been asked by several small newspapers to "partner" our cable assets with them. They offered a small percentage of what they will earn. Newspapers are apparently desperately seeking alternative means of revenue.
My reply was, "Why would I want to do that when I could do my own video replay site?"
Look for many big papers to launch audio and video websites very soon. We all want some of that action. Hey, isn't that what the Writer's Guild strike is all about? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ccpetersen With a Side of Awesome

Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 3708 Location: In Coherent
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the papers/cable companies had to buy that material from content providers or produce it themselves, they'd have to pay "market rates" for it. Your content should be treated the same, which will depend on the market they're reaching, etc. I mean, you (meaning you the producer, cable company, whatever) had serious fixed costs in producing it, and those should be amortized by the rates you get paid from someone else who didn't produce it but wants to use it. It can get sticky.
Vis-a-vis the original discussion here about internet-based rates, I went back and looked at the SAG/AFTRA rates for industrial/educational and any additional usage (which is largely what I had to deal with in the past) and the Internet use option is a "five years use" option; the fee is 33 percent of the session fee within 90 days of session and 50 percent of session fee thereafter. I bet that one will get looked at pretty hard in the negotiations for the updated contracts in the next year or so (no, I'm not a SAG/AFTRA negotiator).
How content is to be handled is an interesting question. The project that is beta-testing one of my productions online is offering a percentage of click-throughs as income. I don't have the whole "click-through stream" in front of me, but it runs something like this: the amalgamator (the guy who picked up our content for his channel) gets 30 percent of click-through revenues. From that, he pays us a percentage of the click-throughs that were done while our content was playing (there are ads that show up during the presentation, superimposed over one corner of our content). It works out to a few cents per view at the top end and maybe a fraction of a cent at the bottom end.
To be honest, I don't think that there's enough information yet about viewership and click-throughs and viability to make really good guesses as to where it'll all go over the life of a typical SAG/AFTRA contract period. And, then for those who are not union, how does this translate? All good questions and a lot of talking about it left to do.
cc _________________ Charter Member: Threadjackers Local 420 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anthonyVO 14th Avenue
Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 1470 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
ccpetersen wrote: |
... a set fee based on the original use. |
Internet scale is based on a multiple of the original session fee NOT the "original use." (usually 3x). However that's for spots made for broadcast and THEN used (or moved) to the internet; for straight to internet commercials, it's an open negotiation - get what you CAN.
EDIT: Oh, and you are 150% correct - they ARE playing catch up.
PEACE.
-Anthony |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ccpetersen With a Side of Awesome

Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 3708 Location: In Coherent
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
anthonyVO wrote: | ccpetersen wrote: |
... a set fee based on the original use. |
Internet scale is based on a multiple of the original session fee NOT the "original use." (usually 3x). However that's for spots made for broadcast and THEN used (or moved) to the internet; for straight to internet commercials, it's an open negotiation - get what you CAN.
EDIT: Oh, and you are 150% correct - they ARE playing catch up.
PEACE.
-Anthony |
Yes, you are correct.
Sorry, I should have been more clear about the session fee as determined by the type of use. I.e. whether it's a commercial spot, an industrial/educational, etc. Since the nonbroadcast chart was what I had at hand (i.e. in the Industrial and educational non-broadcast digest 2005-2008), that's what I mentioned, but I could have made it more clear.
The playing "catch up" worries me; I think that they should be acting from a position of knowledge and surety, rather than could-bes or might-bes... but, then again, predicting this stuff is still pretty much crystal-ball gazing. _________________ Charter Member: Threadjackers Local 420 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|