2
   

Fox Cries Poverty, Insists Simpson Actors take 45% pay Cut

 
 
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 06:23 pm
Quote:
— The future of animated TV comedy "The Simpsons" was up in the air on Tuesday after 20th Century Fox Television said it could no longer afford to produce the show without a huge pay cut for its cast.
Fox Television, a unit of News Corp, issued a tough statement after a report that it had threatened to end the subversive series unless the voice actors take a 45 percent pay cut.
"We believe this brilliant series can and should continue, but we cannot produce future seasons under its current financial model," Fox said


http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44777290/ns/today-entertainment/#.Toue1smVrUA

OK, each half hour has 8 minutes of commercials which we will assume that FOX keeps 6, and uses the other 2 for local commercials. It earns .5 million per minute
http://adage.com/article/ad-age-graphics/american-idol-spots-priciest-prime-time/146495/

3 million X 52 weeks a year = $152 million earned in Fox rev, plus the shows get sold onto streaming, DVD and overseas rights so both Fox and the Producers (or is fox the producer?) probably earn about $300 million a year on the back of the Simpsons. Now I seriously doubt the claims that the primary actors take $32 million of that, but lets assume that they do.......this is going to make the show not profitable?

B U L L S H I T



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,211 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 06:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
Wonder where that Fox Network would be without The Simpsons?

D'oh!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 06:32 pm
@Ragman,
In corporate America the only thing that matters is the next quarters profit....
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 09:23 am
@Ragman,
Showing unending episodes of Tracey Ullman.

I've been wondering for a while when and how The Simpsons would come to an end.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 09:44 am
@Sturgis,
Fox keeps talking about how ratings are not what they once were but no tv ratings are...IDK if $500k a minute ad rev is enough to support the show but I do know that they long ago shipped the animation out of the country to someplace with cheap labor to save costs {Korea?) And I do know that the brand was strong enough to do a movie not many years ago and that ads are selling for $100k a minute more than they were last year.
Questioner
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 09:52 am
@hawkeye10,
Don't worry Hawk. Fox has been tweaking and perfecting it's next big show about family dysfunction, unbelievable and implausible realities, and irreverent comedy. I believe the working title is Fox & Friends.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 10:53 am
@hawkeye10,
Fox's Rebuttal: "FOX TV has tried to get actors to take pay cuts before, threatening to replace them with sound-alikes. The 45 percent cuts they're being asked to take would reportedly drop their salaries to slightly more than $4 million for about 22 weeks of work each season."

In case the voice-over actors haven't noticed ... there's a recession going on! (See comments above.)

The popularity of The Simpsons has made it a billion-dollar merchandizing industry. Back more than a decade ago, the Simpsons merchandise sold well and generated $2 billion in revenue during the first 14 months of sales. Currently, their merchandise revenue has not trailed off that much...even now.

So Fox shoots themselves in the foot in search of some short-term relief and more profit. They want to keep their escalating payroll in check. Admirable business decision....or is it? Alternatively what would FOX have to put in place of Simpsons that has even a remote chance of the kind of profit that show currently makes? Sound-alike actors could be an option, but they might as well just pull the plug completely.

Simpson's show used to draw 13.4 M watchers for each episode but now it's about 7.2m viewers. OK..so? And what about the viewership of other long-running series? What's happened to their audience? The effects of explosive use of the Internet (with all the other avenues) to watch TV episodes minus the commericlas. this practice has segmented the audience and reduced the profits to sponsors.

Corporate Fox is dumb, deaf and blind and worse -- dangerous to their own existence - they're missing the big picture.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 01:22 pm
@Ragman,
Fox is basing its argument on US TV revenue which is a vanishing slice of the revenue pie for all producers, and when we know that the Simpson franchise earns a lot of its money overseas, so that's a problem.

Also a problem is that we know that they took advantage of the talent in the early years, signing them up to contracts that paid very very little..I think $30K a year, have had repeated conflicts with the talent since, during past conflicts the talent has stuck together and generally faced FOX down and won, and that the Simpsons made FOX TV.

It looks to me that FOX is the one that started the PR campaign about this contract dispute, but it is not at all clear to me that they will get public support, or that the talent would care if they do as they never need to work again and are not public figures. Maybe FOX's game plan here makes sense, but I am not understanding how it might.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 02:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
The ultimate hypocricy: billionaires trying to make millionaires look bad because they just want a fair piece of the action.

The voice-over actors should demonstrate with the Wall Street protesters.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2011 03:01 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
The voice-over actors should demonstrate with the Wall Street protesters.


Agreed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2011 12:37 pm
Quote:
n the end, a compromise was reached — and the show will go on.

In a nutshell, that’s how “The Simpsons” was saved. It was a negotiation and, in the final analysis, it came out just like previous rows over the salaries for the long-running show’s voiceover stars.

Fox made the announcement late Friday in a press release that contained almost no details, except for one: “The Simpsons” had been renewed that afternoon for two more seasons — its 24th (2012-13) and 25th (2013-14). The release mentioned that the two additional seasons would bring the sitcom’s episode tally to 559. This press missive then devolved into several paragraphs of praise for the show, its historic long run, and its cultural significance.

Yeah, yeah — we know all that, but what was the deal?

According to trade press reports — here and here — the show’s six principal cast members, who voice the lion’s share of the show’s many characters, agreed to take a 30 percent pay cut.

The cut is less than the 45 percent decrease Fox had been demanding all week, according to earlier reports. Thus, under this compromise, the voicers — Harry Shearer, Dan Castellaneta, Yeardley Smith, Nancy Cartwright, Julie Kavner and Hank Azaria — will earn a little more than $300,000 per episode (22 per season), down from a reported $440,000 per episode. For Azaria, the continuation of the show is particular good news since his new NBC sitcom, “Free Agents,” was just canceled.

In addition, they were reportedly denied any percentage — however tiny — of the so-called “back-end” revenue this series generates for rerun rights, merchandise and the like. The actors have long asked for “back-end” participation, but the company has always remained firm on this issue.

One thing Friday’s press release did not specify: Would the 25th season be the series’ last? To us, it seems like a pretty logical stopping place. Ratings are not what they once were (6.19 million last Sunday) and it’s an expensive show to produce (the aforementioned pay cuts notwithstanding), as is any TV show that’s been on for a while.

What happens is: Salaries for writers, directors, producers and actors on “mature” TV shows are understandably high since the shows and the people who work on them have been around for a while. Then, when the ratings start to go south, those salaries are no longer justified, at least according to the bean counters at the parent company.

Under these circumstances, we should think of these two seasons (which, frankly, we think will be the show’s last, though you never know) as a gift to those, including ourselves, who love “The Simpsons,” have literally grown up with it (it’s been on for half our lives), and will find it difficult to watch it end.

We also have a feeling that this two-season reprieve will give this show’s legendary creative team more than ample time to craft an incredible finale that, if this truly is the end, would bring the curtain down on “The Simpsons” in May 2014.


http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2011/tv-news/saving-the-simpsons-how-the-deal-came-together/?cmpid=FCST_tvnews

I am surprised that the help took such a massive pay cut
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fox Cries Poverty, Insists Simpson Actors take 45% pay Cut
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 01:43:56