Why do actors now get millions of dollars per film? And directors? Simple: they are the creative backbone to the product–the film–and they now realize their value to the industry. Sure, we want to hurl when we hear about a not-so-great actor getting $20 million for a film, but when you look at what money the studios make, suddenly that $20 million isn’t quite so much. In 2003, the studios had receipts over $42 billlion. And they are making money, even with high advertising costs, salaries, etc.
Way back in 1919, people like Charlie Chaplin realized that it was they, the creatives, who made the greatest contribution to the financial success of the film industry. To more fairly distribute the funds their creativity earned, they created United Artists–in other words, to keep more of the money their creativity, well, created.
Fast-forward 90 years, and creatives in Hollywood are again getting it–the financial realities of their industry. Rather than standing idly by and cursing the injustice, actors, directors, writers and others are demanding to be compensated appropriately for their contributions. As much as I don’t care for Tom Cruise, when Paramount said “Bend to our will” he said “No” and, instead, “bought” the barely extant United Artists.
I say we should look to Hollywood as examples of the strength of individual creatives. We can, each of us, stand up for our contributions to the advertising ($240 billion, 2005 according to one source, $104+ billion for the first 9 months of 2006 according to another, but it’s probably actually more, depending on how you run the numbers), editorial, and other industries–contributions which drive those numbers.
If one actor can get a percentage of a film’s total revenues for their creative fee, why is it unreasonable to expect similar numbers for equally vital creative contributions?
If we cannot unionize in the traditional sense, perhaps now is the time to consider new, alternative methods for banding together. The money is there. Creatives deserve their share.
Great post. I though about the possibility of creating with some other photographers an Ad Agency or teaming up with other creatives to build up something. It went south (for the moment) because of the fact that photographers (me included) seem to be unable to team up because they are strongly independent and want to stay independent. When teaming up with other photographers, I always felt it. To be, and stay creative, photographers seem automatically to disrupt unconsciously any teaming-up procedure.
Photographers seem to be, and seem to want to stay, lonely creatives.
Speaking about the futur of photography, it’s interesting to have a look at acclaimed British photographer Sean Ellis new movie : Cashback :
http://www.cashbackthemovie.com/
It just hit European theaters and I strongly hope it will come to the US. It’s a movie about love AND it is probably a good vision about the futur of our profession. It answers the question : what and how will photographers work in the futur. Looking at how Sean uses his skills, I was really impressed.
Cheers.
I’ve wanted ‘my share’ ever since I began working in the ad industry, surprised that there isn’t such a thing at first. After many years at agencies though, I honestly wonder how on earth they’d divvy it up. Sure, directors and actors do a lot for each ad, and sound is hugely important. But there wouldn’t be an ad if creatives didn’t write it.
ANd by extension, panners who planned it and account execs who convinced the client to do it, but since the latter usually drives a porche I’m sure they’re getting paid handsomly. 😉 (j/k)