Greedy actors? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

winkwilliams · 03-08-2002, 04:41 PM

I see a lot of discussion about how greedy actors are and thought I would share my two cents. Never having had a hit series, yet, I wouldn't know first hand what it's like but plan on hitting that big syndication pay day soon.

The cast members of "Friends" are worth every penny they get. I love how the salaries of the cast are publicized but the profit margins of the show are not.

Here are the facts on Friends. One example of the massive profits made on a hit series:

NBC charges $500,000-$600,000 per 30 second ad for each first run episode. That's, kaching, a minimum of $8,000,000 in ad revenue for each first run episode. At a licening fee of $1-2 million per episode for seasons 1-6, that leaves them with at least a $6,000,000 haul per first run episode. NBC's profit per year: $144,000,000. Plus, they get a rerun for each episode. (two now.)

WB then licenses the show as follows:

Foreign distribution-Did you know that the show is a smash in Canada, Australia, The United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Japan and lots of other places? Kaching, they are hauling in around $2-3 million for each episode here. More than the production cost of each episode. (seasons 1-6)

Video/DVD-Several episodes are on video here in the United States and overseas. I bet the haul is minimal, somewhere around $250,000 per episode.

Licensing-T-Shirts, mugs, pencils, board games, electronic games, cd's, etc... Often licensing of a hit show generates a huge bundle. Sometimes it is more than any other source.

Syndication-This is the big payday for the distributor and producers and this is one of the biggest hauls in the history of syndication. The attractive demos and shortage of hits allowed them to fetch an initial licensing fee of $4,000,000 on each episode when it was launched a mere year after being on the air. It continues to air in syndication and concurrently now on TBS where they paid, kaching, about $1,000,000 per.

So lets add it up:

NBC: $7,000,000 profit per episode (1st run and rerun)
International: $2,000,000
DVD/Video: $250,000
Syndication+cable: $5,000,000
Licensing: $2,000,000

$16,2500,000 revenue generated per episode

Production cost $2,000,000 (seasons 1-6)

$6,000,000 (seasons 7+8)

$8,000,000 (season 9)

Are they worth $1,000,000 per episode? You bet they are or they wouldn't be getting it.

Why are the actors salaries publicized and not the network profit or producers gross? They make a lot more than any actor. The actors get it because: 1) they are the public faces of the show and the press loves to condemn those "spoiled brats." (Kara at K-Mart shakes her head in disgust as she checks out customers for $5.50 an hour.) 2) Who runs the media? Let's see, Warner Brothers is an AOL- Time Warner company and not about to say, put a headline like: "Time-Warner-AOL makes $100,000,0000 a year on Friends" in People or on the AOL log in page. Instead it will have "Actors on Friends demand a million per." It also helps them to keep the pressure on the actors. The public turns against "greedy" stars very easily. (think Suzanne Somers)

Oh, what did NBC offer Jerry Seinfeld (and then leaked it to the press,) for a tenth season? $5,000,000, which he turned down.

So if you are Carl for Clevelend and work for a living, these salaries may look outragous. But compared to the revenue and profits generated, the actors total haul is minimal.

*Most of the revenue totals are guestimates. The syndication sales totals were publicized by Warner Brothers, via the trades, when they launched the show in 1995 and NBC's ad revenue is well know as all the ad agencies publicly know the going rate.

Oh, and what do the actors owe fans? A good performance and nothing else. This idea that they "owe me" because you like them (made them?) is B.S. These are not bronze statues but human beings who are going to have all the various emotions and behaviors. Some, like Tom Cruise, tend to be incredibly patient and kind to fans. Others, less so. Remember that fan derives from the word fanatic.

Hoping to get a series to syndication someday.

http://winkwilliams.blogspot.com/

Superbatboy · 03-08-2002, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winkwilliams

Oh, what did NBC offer Jerry Seinfeld (and then leaked it to the press,) for a tenth season? $5,000,000, which he turned down.

http://winkwilliams.blogspot.com/

But, Jerry Seinfeld wanted the show to go out on top. It wasn't because he was greedy. He actually didn't want to do any more seasons after Larrry David left at the close of the 95-96 season.

Now Friends on the other hand. I love the show. But the show completely ran out of gas after the 7th season. The end of this season should've been it. After watching last night's episode, I don't know how they're going to try and keep the show funny during the 9th season. Oh well, I guess time will tell.

Sean Snow · 03-08-2002, 06:13 PM

The media seems to always suddenly turn against stars the minute they request a raise in their salary. In the case of Suzanne Somers, many people were on her side. T-shirts and a song were made about her during the contract dispuit on TC. It's really interesting to see her interviews on shows such as "Donahue" and you can tell that the hosts actually understand what's going on. The only mistake she really made was the timing of doing this at the start of the season and the fact that there was an actors strike in 1980 (Larry Hagman almost got written out of "Dallas" for the same reasons as Somers)..Now, people paint her more as a 'bad gal' because only her figure of $150,000 is talked about, but that figure didn't last because she didn't plan on getting there, she wanted to work her way down. Unfortuantly, the producers were said to have wanted her off the show since the fourth season.

LOL Sorry, I just like talking bout Suzanne

Sidenote: The producers of TC also made a lot of money via syndication I've read. Today, actors/actresses get paid higher sums than before.

winkwilliams · 03-08-2002, 06:59 PM

I never said Suzanne was greedy and don't blame her for trying to get a boost. Notice it's "Geedy." I would question her methods. That husband alienated everyone and should never have been managing her career. (thanks E: True Hollywood Story)
I think "Seinfeld" set the trend. The supporting cast stuck together and negotiated as a unit. "Friends" followed suit. To bad Suzanne didn't do the same with John and Joyce.
Jerry did want to go out on top and that's why he turned down the big bucks. I mentioned it not to imply that he was greedy but to show how huge a deal he had been offered. The total deal with the "Friends" cast is only slightly larger.
Speaking of holdouts, I recall Valerie Harper getting dumped from "Valerie" (later retitled) after she tried to hold out. I wonder what the details are behind that one?

http://winkwilliams.blogspot.com/

Kitt · 03-16-2002, 01:41 PM

A similar scenario plays itself out with baseball players or, I suppose, most any group or individual in the public eye. During the baseball strike of '98, or whenever that was, nearly everyone turned on the players. The owners have set themselves up to make as much money as possible with, it seems, doing as little as possible and with as little "in the best intersest of baseball" to be overseen by anyone but themselves if possible. Bud Selig remained the commisioner of baseball, and the owner of a team at the same time for a decade or more. That makes no sense since the commisioner is supposed to be mediator for the players and the owners. The owners have claimed to suffer financial losses season after season. They must be using the same auditors and bookeepers as Enron did.

03-08-2002, 04:41 PM	#1
winkwilliams Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Feb 15, 2002 Location: yonkers, ny Posts: 98	Greedy actors? I see a lot of discussion about how greedy actors are and thought I would share my two cents. Never having had a hit series, yet, I wouldn't know first hand what it's like but plan on hitting that big syndication pay day soon. The cast members of "Friends" are worth every penny they get. I love how the salaries of the cast are publicized but the profit margins of the show are not. Here are the facts on Friends. One example of the massive profits made on a hit series: NBC charges $500,000-$600,000 per 30 second ad for each first run episode. That's, kaching, a minimum of $8,000,000 in ad revenue for each first run episode. At a licening fee of $1-2 million per episode for seasons 1-6, that leaves them with at least a $6,000,000 haul per first run episode. NBC's profit per year: $144,000,000. Plus, they get a rerun for each episode. (two now.) WB then licenses the show as follows: Foreign distribution-Did you know that the show is a smash in Canada, Australia, The United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Japan and lots of other places? Kaching, they are hauling in around $2-3 million for each episode here. More than the production cost of each episode. (seasons 1-6) Video/DVD-Several episodes are on video here in the United States and overseas. I bet the haul is minimal, somewhere around $250,000 per episode. Licensing-T-Shirts, mugs, pencils, board games, electronic games, cd's, etc... Often licensing of a hit show generates a huge bundle. Sometimes it is more than any other source. Syndication-This is the big payday for the distributor and producers and this is one of the biggest hauls in the history of syndication. The attractive demos and shortage of hits allowed them to fetch an initial licensing fee of $4,000,000 on each episode when it was launched a mere year after being on the air. It continues to air in syndication and concurrently now on TBS where they paid, kaching, about $1,000,000 per. So lets add it up: NBC: $7,000,000 profit per episode (1st run and rerun) International: $2,000,000 DVD/Video: $250,000 Syndication+cable: $5,000,000 Licensing: $2,000,000 $16,2500,000 revenue generated per episode Production cost $2,000,000 (seasons 1-6) $6,000,000 (seasons 7+8) $8,000,000 (season 9) Are they worth $1,000,000 per episode? You bet they are or they wouldn't be getting it. Why are the actors salaries publicized and not the network profit or producers gross? They make a lot more than any actor. The actors get it because: 1) they are the public faces of the show and the press loves to condemn those "spoiled brats." (Kara at K-Mart shakes her head in disgust as she checks out customers for $5.50 an hour.) 2) Who runs the media? Let's see, Warner Brothers is an AOL- Time Warner company and not about to say, put a headline like: "Time-Warner-AOL makes $100,000,0000 a year on Friends" in People or on the AOL log in page. Instead it will have "Actors on Friends demand a million per." It also helps them to keep the pressure on the actors. The public turns against "greedy" stars very easily. (think Suzanne Somers) Oh, what did NBC offer Jerry Seinfeld (and then leaked it to the press,) for a tenth season? $5,000,000, which he turned down. So if you are Carl for Clevelend and work for a living, these salaries may look outragous. But compared to the revenue and profits generated, the actors total haul is minimal. *Most of the revenue totals are guestimates. The syndication sales totals were publicized by Warner Brothers, via the trades, when they launched the show in 1995 and NBC's ad revenue is well know as all the ad agencies publicly know the going rate. Oh, and what do the actors owe fans? A good performance and nothing else. This idea that they "owe me" because you like them (made them?) is B.S. These are not bronze statues but human beings who are going to have all the various emotions and behaviors. Some, like Tom Cruise, tend to be incredibly patient and kind to fans. Others, less so. Remember that fan derives from the word fanatic. Hoping to get a series to syndication someday. http://winkwilliams.blogspot.com/
	__________________ Wink Williams "I may be desperate, but I'm not dead."

03-08-2002, 06:13 PM	#3
Sean Snow moo Forum Fanatic Join Date: May 06, 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,408	The media seems to always suddenly turn against stars the minute they request a raise in their salary. In the case of Suzanne Somers, many people were on her side. T-shirts and a song were made about her during the contract dispuit on TC. It's really interesting to see her interviews on shows such as "Donahue" and you can tell that the hosts actually understand what's going on. The only mistake she really made was the timing of doing this at the start of the season and the fact that there was an actors strike in 1980 (Larry Hagman almost got written out of "Dallas" for the same reasons as Somers)..Now, people paint her more as a 'bad gal' because only her figure of $150,000 is talked about, but that figure didn't last because she didn't plan on getting there, she wanted to work her way down. Unfortuantly, the producers were said to have wanted her off the show since the fourth season. LOL Sorry, I just like talking bout Suzanne Sidenote: The producers of TC also made a lot of money via syndication I've read. Today, actors/actresses get paid higher sums than before.
	Last edited by Sean Snow; 03-08-2002 at 06:16 PM.

03-08-2002, 06:59 PM	#4
winkwilliams Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Feb 15, 2002 Location: yonkers, ny Posts: 98	suzanne and jerry I never said Suzanne was greedy and don't blame her for trying to get a boost. Notice it's "Geedy." I would question her methods. That husband alienated everyone and should never have been managing her career. (thanks E: True Hollywood Story) I think "Seinfeld" set the trend. The supporting cast stuck together and negotiated as a unit. "Friends" followed suit. To bad Suzanne didn't do the same with John and Joyce. Jerry did want to go out on top and that's why he turned down the big bucks. I mentioned it not to imply that he was greedy but to show how huge a deal he had been offered. The total deal with the "Friends" cast is only slightly larger. Speaking of holdouts, I recall Valerie Harper getting dumped from "Valerie" (later retitled) after she tried to hold out. I wonder what the details are behind that one? http://winkwilliams.blogspot.com/

03-16-2002, 01:41 PM	#5
Kitt James Dean Forum Veteran Join Date: Aug 16, 2001 Location: California Dreamin' Posts: 6,115	A similar scenario plays itself out with baseball players or, I suppose, most any group or individual in the public eye. During the baseball strike of '98, or whenever that was, nearly everyone turned on the players. The owners have set themselves up to make as much money as possible with, it seems, doing as little as possible and with as little "in the best intersest of baseball" to be overseen by anyone but themselves if possible. Bud Selig remained the commisioner of baseball, and the owner of a team at the same time for a decade or more. That makes no sense since the commisioner is supposed to be mediator for the players and the owners. The owners have claimed to suffer financial losses season after season. They must be using the same auditors and bookeepers as Enron did.