Richard, sometime ago you asked me to think on the experience of
being a member of the Disney team that did Pocahontas and what I
had learned from that situation. What follows is a kind of stream
of conscious meditation on the movie industry and my residual income
that I am breathlessly awaiting on the Video, and how the rest of
the society seems to be moving in the direction of the temporary
employment model that is a part of the job system that I have always
been a part of except for a couple of academic positions that I
found unrewarding. What follows is a comparison of the "flexible"
system of the corporations and the task oriented work of the movies.
How it works in one place but I believe can be a disaster in another.
I believe this is a good issue to explore especially since the movie
business is the greatest export that America has, and has been
for several years, as Edward Deming used to point out in the Deming
Seminars. The problem, as I see it in the economic circles, is that
the movie business is considered on a par with gambling as far as
most "serious" economists are concerned. Of course as they move more
into the "Winner Take All" model (they renamed it the "flexible work
force") their work resembles that same gamble. Their attitudes towards
small governments and low taxes also places them very close to their
versions of people on welfare who just collect the fruits of the earth
without being responsible for replenishment (they have renamed this
hunter/gatherer activity "the development of greater productivity").
=====================================================================
NOTE:
Just a note about names, "production company and studio" refers to the
movies, "corporations" refers to the other industries that usually are
based upon the fragility of non-renewable resources. Even the
"information corporations" are generally more tied to expensive
instruments that must be provided, serviced and replaced by the consumer
in order for them to participate. I am treading on thin ice with this
but I suspect that what is expensive to the information consumer is
still expensive to manufacture in replicate, as opposed to the cost
of a video or sound recording, which is pennies per product. I would
also venture the guess that if energy becomes a problem for automobiles
and computers, VCRs and Movie theaters will boom even more than they
are at present.
=====================================================================
POOR PAY
As for the "Candide" world that many believe to be the future, (but
Voltaire was so good at catching in the past,) there are some flys in
the ointment of that enthusiasm. For the corporations, the first
"fly" is the belief in the cheapness of the "flexible work force."
In the 19th century they used the military "Captains of Industry"
as their titles. Today the corporate types consider themselves
entrepreneurs, hired guns to do a top level job and then move on to
greater "artistic" (their words not mine) glory. The only problem
is that most of their flexible personnel aren't upper management
but individual highly skilled office personnel with low hourly pay.
(more about this later) On the other hand, in today's world,
people who work in the "flexible" positions, of a temporary movie
production company, are not poorly paid. Unlike the "soda-jerk"
performers of the past, these technicians are very highly skilled
and are expert at the management of very expensive time. The matching
of light and shadow in the shots must be perfect. They must be prepared
to take advantage on a moments notice with few to no mistakes and quick
responses on the part of a whole working team to light changes that
are measured in seconds. (I spent an entire two days simply
marching on and off a stage at Arlington National Cemetery because
the light didn't match. That was a very expensive two days that
gave two usable shots, they only needed one.)
Much is made of the small productions shot by talented young
directors who make a hit movie for a few hundred thousand dollars.
That low cost is only low if the movie is a flop. And if it's a
flop even that price isn't cheap. If it "hits" all of those people
who worked for nothing get a piece of it. Those young directors
are only willing to do that for a couple of project apprenticeships
because every one of them are trying to impress the producers that
adequately fund the major studio projects. None of them will spend
a life time doing tiny, cheap budget projects unless they are simply
obsessed and don't care about making a living. I suspect that
those people are avoided by the big producers simply because
their lack of financial desire makes them prone to not caring how
much money they spend and that can get you "Waterworld." My point
here is, the thorough expertise and professionalism of the short term
workers is never initially cheap. The level of expertise even in
the "extra" crowd scenes in NYCity is very high. They are daily
salary people but if they are given a single line that puts them into
a completely different situation and that makes more money then your
corporate temp would make in a couple of months in an office situation.
Flexible temporary personnel in corporations are often highly skilled, in
programs far beyond the core corporate personnel. They are experts who
are very poorly paid with no benefits. Indeed they are often other
management types who have been downsized and now play down their
considerable resumes lest they be considered "over-qualified." They
know how to play the game, often resent it and so their time is not
particularly productive. They are not going to give their life to a job
that is under $20 per hour with no benefits. They do the work that is
required but their talent and creativity is wasted and ultimately it
effects the whole office if they stay long.
MUCH WASTE
The second fly in the ointment is that movies are a renewable resource
that can be endlessly duplicated cheaply. What is expensive initially
is very cheap to reproduce and sell worldwide. The average "user of
non-renewable resources corporations" can't begin to compete on the
"productivity" level with the movie industry. Those corporations and
their "flexible" positions more resemble "sweatshops" then a movie
production company. They demand expertise but pay low wages, have very
little loyalty to or from their "flexibles" and the time and expertise
issues are moot. There is a lot of waste. The only "stick" they have
over that group of personnel is if the unemployment is high and jobs
are scarce. If I were a stock market speculator it would make perfect
sense to me, to sell my stock in an AGILE company with a flexible work
program, when unemployment is low and buy bonds. That corporation is
not going to get much out of temporary employees no matter how "teamed"
or "Learning Organizationally trained" they are. There is bound to be
a lot of waste. Ultimately the model of a "flexible" corporation makes
no sense to me at all. It can't possibly be productive.
LOW CREATIVITY:
The third fly in the ointment has to do with all of these small feeder
companies that are springing up to feed the downsized larger corporations.
Today's studios rarely make that mistake. It's backwards. The corporation
is the originator of the product and then hires the small companies to
manufacture or perform services for the larger corporation. In the movies,
the originator is often outside the studio. He drums up the funding for
the project, shepherds the project himself and then sells the project
to the studio who manufactures and distributes the product. In an earlier
less sophisticated movie audience, the studios were the production company
operating on an advertising formula that had a reasonable guarantee of
making money. Today's big formula films can't make those same guarantees
and so they are forced to deal more creatively than in the past. The
studio logo is a sign of the quality of the product as is the level of
acting talent that can be afforded initially. The superior distribution
system is a magnet for the most creative commercial work. Imagine if
General Motors could do the same. In the corporation, things begin "in
house" and then are farmed out (with problem issues of quality control,)
either in small manufacturing or in the services. Where the movies pay
big to their flexible teams, in corporations without the high skill
salaries and without the prestige of the parent company, quality has to
suffer. If you're going to be low paid and temporary, you have very
little future. Why should you care about the parent companies future?
Studios also have core personnel with regular low paid jobs but the
possibility of working in a production company of "flexible" high paying
work is always there.
THE STUDIO PROMISE:
In the movies it is a belief in the creativity and the possibility of a
very good salary if the project "works." Movies have a different
arrangement with the Screen Actor's Guild than corporations do with their
unions. Movie unions are also guarantors of the quality of their members
because the salaries are good for everyone. In the corporations, they
have not yet figured out how to work this arrangement out. Instead of the
flexible salaries being coups that can bring in extra residual money for
lower level personnel, flexible salaries are generally lower with no
benefits. It is this promise of residual income in the basic commodities
that makes "network-marketing" so attractive to many of these former
middle management people who are now "flexibled." Surprisingly the modern
corporation is a very bureaucratic set up with highest salaries going to
the least creative low risk situations, except at the very top.
EDUCATIONAL COMPLAINT:
Although you do not have that kind of creative stimulation in these
low paying corporations, you do have a lot of complaints from them about
the educational system. The paradox here is that any educated person who
believes a flexible position is a good long term investment needs another
degree. The pay is too low for quality work. But the corporations cry
for better education for the flexible force. It makes as much sense as
the new gambling "Winners" in the corporate hierarchy complaining about
reservation Indians ruining America's young in their Casinos. At least
one can decide not to go into a Casino, you have very little choice in
the "crap game" business demands you enter. But pity the poor investors,
with business asking for better educated people to do jobs that will not
be productive due to the low pay, no benefits and low self-esteem what
can they hope for, to stir up the work force and make them waste less time,
have a better attitude and be more creative? The traditional answer is
a war or a five or six year depression to make people work for nothing and
feel good about it.
THE MILITARY ALTERNATIVE:
The other model that MIT seems to admire is the flexible force of the
military. I'm not even going to comment on that half-baked idea. But
if it persists, why not do a serious study of the life styles and
family issues contained in the military. Why does it work for many
in the military? Education, food/clothing/housing allowances, PX and
Commissary, full health care, these are the issues that make the military
attractive at its best unless you love the authoritarian warrior life
or the safety that the job security of the Medical and Entertainment
units offer. The East Germans didn't like it.
SUMMARY:
I suspect that the movie and entertainment model is a bad idea for
the regular job market, as well as most other jobs that require
something existing long enough for the average person to have a life.
However, if you still wish to explore the entertainment "flexible"
model further, there is a very good book by an expert in Entertainment
law: "All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Donald Passman
pub. Simon and Schuster.
The Contents go like this:
Part I, Your Team of Advisors: How to Pick a Team; Personal Managers;
Business Managers; Attorneys; Agents
Part II, Recording Contracts: Overview of the Record Business; Advances
and Recoupment; Real-Life Numbers; Other Major Deal Points;
Producer Deals; Advanced Record Deal Points; Advanced Royalty
Computations; Loan-out, Independent Production, Label, and
Distribution Deals;
Part III, Composing and Music Publishing: Copyright Basics; Publishing
Companies and Major Income Sources; Secondary Publishing Income;
Songwriter Deals; Copublishing and Administration Deals;
Advanced Copyright Concepts; Even More Advanced Copyright
Concepts.
Part IV,Group Issues: Group Provisions in Record Deals; Internal
Group Deals; What's In a Name?
Part V, Touring: Personal Appearances; Roles of Team Members; Personal
Appearance Deals; New Artists; Midlevel Artists; Superstar
Touring; Splits; Hall Fees; Riders; Lining Your Pockets with
More Gold.
Part VI, Merchandising: Tour Merchandising, Merchandisers; Royalties;
Hall Fees; Advances; Term; Advance Repayment; Performance
Minimum; Exclusivity; Creative Control; Sell-off Rights;
Bootleggers.
Retail Merchandising: Royalties; Other Deal Points
Part VII Motion Picture Music: Overview of Motion Picture Music;
Performer Deals; Film Songwriter Deals; Composer Agreements;
Licensing Existing Recordings and Existing Songs for Motion
Pictures; Music Supervisors; Soundtrack Album Deals.
I have included this because these issues exist for the performer apart
from their actual work. You are not being paid for any of this. You
had better be the best at what you are being paid for and realize that
you are your own corporation, office and employer besides the skills and
work you are hired to do. This is where most actors, singers etc. end
up "broke" at the end of a long successful career. Can you imagine this
on a national scale with middle and lower management personnel as well
as flexible manufacturing workers and service personnel?
Ray Evans Harrell
mcore@soho.ios.com
--mcore@soho.ios.com (Ray Evans Harrell)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>