BSB donates huge whopper to SAG

Back - Index - Submissions - - What is RSS? Date: Sep 13, 2000 Source: The Daily Radar Submitted By: Angelskiss30@aol.com Something strange happened in the last couple of weeks. The Backstreet Boys became worthy of respect. It isn't because of their insidious music that makes young girls swoon, though you have to admit that we'd all want it that way too, if only we knew what that way actually was. It isn't because of their business sense, though heaven knows I want to be the lynchpin of a multimedia empire that includes making friends with Stan Lee and getting a line of action figures as a result. It's because they filmed a couple of commercials for Burger King. The commercials themselves aren't groundbreaking. (Though in one, the boys protest that they don't do commercials - how wonderfully ironic. Or is that post-ironic? I've lost track.) What makes these commercials important, and the Backstreet Boys into honorable men, is how they got paid. Not in a lifetime supply of Whoppers, as the commercials suggest, but in a huge whopper of a donation to SAG. Surely various handlers of the boys (phrase #17 in a series of 25 guaranteed to make Michael Jackson swoon) got their usual fees, but the bulk went to the actor's union. Presumably, so do any residuals. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but then, I'm a dreamer. You may have heard that SAG is on strike. Specifically, it's targeting advertisers, such as Burger King, demanding that companies pay residuals every time a commercial gets shown on cable. Previously, actors would get a flat license fee for cable usage, while broadcast network usage would pay residu... yawn. Yes, it's dry stuff. To which the advertisers have said, how about we pay you no residuals at all? To the average viewer, this has barely been a blip on the radar, as advertisers have actually been using hunter-killer androids disguised as actors to do commercials in the meantime. Well, they would if they could. It's not like advertising is a highly moral business. In actuality, many agencies stockpiled commercials in anticipation of a strike. They're also relying heavily upon nonactor celebrities; though Tiger Woods swore support for the actors, he's been in a suspicious number of new commercials. Some agencies have also set up shop in Canada, where the union holds little sway and where those scheming Canadians will do anything for American dollars. SAG has allowed a few interim agreements with smaller advertising agencies in the US, but I'll admit that I can't figure out what that actually means or how that helps the cause. I suppose it helps because then some actors get to eat that week. Mostly, the general public doesn't care, and maybe they're right. No doubt some of you think it's like that old Dire Straits song. Acting is money for nothing and your chicks for free. Well, no, though it is that way for Internet columnists. Granted, ridiculous amounts of money float around the entertainment industry, and some actors do quite well. We shall not weep for them. But most of the striking actors land a commercial and then don't work again for a very long time. Granted, one commercial shouldn't make an actor set for life, though it might have happened for Mikey if he hadn't mixed that Life cereal with Coke and Pop Rocks. But in an industry with an average unemployment rate of 90% and higher (even with infomercials), that residual check can help an actor through lean times. The rest of the entertainment industry is watching this strike very closely. If advertisers win, and actors start getting flat rates for commercials, then it's likely that movie and television studios will try the same thing. (Again, residuals are not an evil thing. I have a friend who appeared in Howard The Duck as a child, and frankly, the studio can't pay him enough to make up for that indignity. Nor do they.) But the studios aren't terribly cocksure yet. The Writers' Guild contract expires in May, followed a month later by the film and television actors' contract. Both groups plan on striking. By July, television could be a vast wasteland. By August or September, you might even notice. Looking out for our best interests, the networks have asked writers and actors to work overtime before the contracts expire, so the 2001 fall season could still happen even with a strike. However, some actors and writers have been bright enough to notice that this might be some sort of trick. For those who were wondering (and hey! I got two phone calls on this), this explains the gold ribbons so many actors wore at the Emmys this year, expressing solidarity for their union brothers. If you read Variety, you might have noticed the cast of Frasier making an impassioned plea for the wearing of said ribbons. But other than as a fashion statement, it really didn't seem like anyone cared. Guys like the Backstreet Boys, they don't have to care. They're not members of the union. The promotion with Burger King was likely set up long before the strike. And though we were all looking forward to their remake of Can't Stop The Music, if the union banned them from acting, the nation (and they) would somehow survive. But instead of wearing ribbons, they gave their money to the SAG so some actors could keep their health insurance for a while longer, and that's pretty cool with us in Television City... -- Derek McCaw Comment on this item. Recent Comments Submitted by: smashing top seo QwsUxq Thanks so much for the blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing. Submitted by: Monika Submitted by: Lemat Submitted by: Jennifer Submitted by: Ann Submitted by: Kelly Comment on this item. Next Item: Backstreet Boys look at fronting money for hotel Prev Item: Backstreet Boy: We Have a Brain!