So, there's one big current event going on right now that I haven't mentioned in this blog because, well, this blog is supposed to be about the Wongery and the event in question isn't really related to the Wongery. But then I started writing a post about what I would do if I were fabulously wealthy (which I'm not and never will be and none of the things I'm writing about are ever going to happen but, eh, I can still write about them), and one of those things was having my own streaming channel, and then I was going to expand upon that and then I sort of realized that I had enough to say about that that maybe I ought to just spin it into a separate post and I guess that's what this post is and it's still not really directly related to the Wongery but now I guess it has at least a vague tangential connection and yes I realize this is a very rambling run-on sentence and I'm doing that on purpose or at least well I wasn't necessarily doing it on purpose at first but as I was writing this sentence I realized it was kind of turning into a rambling run-on sentence and rather than fixing it I figured maybe it would be more fun to just lean into it and make this the ramblingest runonest sentence that has hitherto appeared in the Wongery, although not necessarily the ramblingest runonest sentence that will ever appear in the Wongery, because I make no guarantees that I won't make an even worse and ramblinger and runoner sentence in the future (although honestly I'm not 100% sure this is a run-on sentence, because I thought a run-on sentence was by definition composed of multiple sentences just joined by comma splices without conjunctions (or even just run together without even punctuation dividing them), and while this sentence does contain a whole bunch of independent clauses they at least have conjunctions between them, but I looked up "run-on sentence" online and while some sites I found agreed with that definition there were others that seemed to imply that any sentence that combined too many separate thoughts was a run-on sentence even if it did join them with conjunctions, so now I'm not sure, but what I think is the case is that while the conjunctions prevent this sentence from being a run-on sentence in the most technical sense, it is a run-on sentence in a colloquial sense, and while I generally do prefer to use more technically correct terms regarding grammar (and other things) and maybe I shouldn't call this sentence a run-on sentence if according to the most technical definitions it may not be one, I've already written more than four hundred words of this accursed sentence and I'll be damned if I'm going to go back and change it now).

So, anyway, let me start from the beginning, not in a chronological but in an ætiological sense, that is, in the order of how one topic led into another in my train of thought, such as it is.

As I was saying, the genesis of this post was in a pointless post I was going to write about what I would do if I was rich, which I'm not and never will be. I'm not going to expand further here on that topic, mostly because I do still intended to finish writing that other post despite its pointlessless, but one of the items from the wishlist in that post was my own streaming channel.

Had I been writing the post ten years ago, I would probably have instead said I wished for my own cable channel. The real point was that I would want a way to distribute original programming; it isn't the medium I care about. Back then, the primary medium for original programming was cable TV. (Well, there was also network TV, but that was dominated by a tiny handful of channels in such a way that there wasn't really a feasible way a newcomer could likely break in—and by then already it offered few advantages over the ascendant medium of cable anyway.) But now in the year 2023 cable television, while not altogether dead, is certainly moribund (and network TV lingers as a shambling undead monster); on-demand streaming rules the roost as the way most people watch television.

Except that now streaming, too, seems to be in decline. A scant few years ago streaming channels were riding high, flush with cash, and assorted other collocations, churning out endless productions of highly variable quality. There were jokes about Netflix greenlighting anything. But now their growth has slowed and they're tightening their proverbial belts, and there's considerable question which and how many of the current major players will survive the next few years, let alone the smaller channels that have sprung up vying for their own share of the sunlight like struggling saplings in the shade of dying forest giants. (Is that really a good metaphor? Probably not. Should I be asking myself in writing in the middle of my blog posts whether my metaphors are good? Probably not.)

So, quite aside from the fact that I don't and never will have the money to start my own streaming channel, even if I did, would this be a good time to do it? Is this something it makes sense to wish for? Or, in the wild counterfactual in which I were somehow fabulously wealthy and did create my own streaming channel, would I only be entering a dying industry, like an excursionist leaping into a boat that was already listing and taking on water and I don't think I'm good with metaphors and I should probably stop.

Then again, if streaming did go away... what would replace it? After having been enabled by streaming to watch programs any time they wanted, it's hard to conceive of people wanting to go back to the old ways of having shows air at specific times, and having people have to either be there at those times to watch them or set some devices to record them. And of course it seems if anything even less likely that people will lose interest entirely in watching shows at home; having once been raised the demand for home entertainment won't go away. I don't see streaming being abandoned entirely; having been introduced to on-demand entertainment, consumers aren't going to want to give it up... and once you've hit "watching programs any time you want", it's hard to see where you can go from there.

Maybe there is some logical next step after streaming that I lack the imagination to see. Could programs be made interactive? Well, there already is interactive home entertainment, in the form of video games, and they've cut somewhat into the market for television but haven't completely replaced it, and I doubt they will; sometimes people want a more passive form of entertainment, or a story that was crafted without having to take into account players' potential disruption. What about more immersive entertainment, where people can experience programs with additional senses, or in three dimensions? Yeah, that's probably going to happen—heck, virtual reality is an increasingly popular thing right now—but I feel like that's kind of orthogonal to the evolution of network TV to cable to streaming; the change in the format and technology of the programming is a separate matter from the change in its delivery method.

So it seems likely to me that streaming is here to stay, at least in the form of on-demand entertainment viewable at home, but that there will be radical changes to streamers' business models. What are those changes? I have no idea. Many streamers are now moving to ad-supported models, which seems in some ways like a step backward (one of the big selling points of cable was the lack of the constant commercials that interrupted network TV), but maybe is necessary for the services to make a profit. Indeed, while YouTube isn't generally considered a streaming service in the same sense as Netflix and Hulu, there are independent creators who do make considerable money from posting their videos on YouTube and being paid through advertisements. Is this the future of streaming, decentralization of production? (But then would that mean an end to megabudget blockbusters?) Or does streaming's future lie in some source of revenue that hasn't been widely tried yet? Could a streaming channel sustain itself entirely by merchandise sales? (Eh... probably not.) Would it be helpful for a channel to perhaps leave the first seasons of its series free to view, but require a paid subscription to see later seasons?

I don't know. I'm not a businessman. I'm not an expert in the entertainment industry, or in anything else, really. But what does seem clear is that, regardless of whatever may be destined to replace it, the streaming industry as it currently exists is financially unsustainable.

(Actually, having done a little additional research (that I maybedefinitely should have done before starting to write this post), I think I may have had the wrong impression in some ways. It seems the smaller, up-and-coming streaming channels may still be spending more than they're making in an effort to establish a firm foothold, but the biggest streamers are raking in money. The issue behind their changes in strategy isn't that they're not profitable—they are—it's that they're not growing as fast as their stockholders want. But it's looking like a handful of the biggest streamers are on track to utterly dominate the industry—just like the old days of network TV all over again!—so this doesn't change the fact that trying to start up a new streaming channel in this environment would probably be a really stupid idea.)

Which, anyway, leads us to the big current event that I wasn't originally going to write a blog post about.

In their drive to scrape as much profit as they could from their programming, the streaming services have pulled a lot of shady shenanigans. Recently, some services have received a lot of criticism for pulling existing programs from their services—and even just not airing programs that were already basically finished and ready to go!—apparently partly to get tax writeoffs, and partly to avoid paying licensing fees and residuals. Some of the people who worked on those shows, having devoted months or years of their lives to the productions, were disheartened to discover that now nobody would be legally able to see the fruits of their labors—the creators of some of the shows in question being, understandably, particularly devastated.

But the chicanery started much earlier. Actors, writers, and some other creatives working on films get much of their payment in the form of Residual (entertainment industry) residuals, payments for later showings coming often long after the original production. In the days of network television, residuals were relatively straightforward; the programs were re-aired at specific times, and the numbers of viewers were known and publicly available, and residuals were paid out to the appropriate cast and crew members based on those numbers. (Residuals for movies and DVD sales were likewise relatively simple, based on the number of movie tickets or DVDs that were purchased.) Streaming services, however, are much more secretive about their viewer numbers—and much stingier with residuals. And since the streaming services weren't a major factor when the current contracts with the cast and crew unions were drawn up, those contracts didn't really address the differences in these distribution models, so the streaming services could get away with paying a lot less—and they did.

But now some of those contracts are up, and the executives are finally facing the music. (Hm, I seem to be using more clichés than usual in this post... or do I always use this many clichés and I just hadn't noticed it before?) The contract between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the collective bargaining association to which all the major production companies belong, and the Writers Guild of America, the union representing screenwriters in the film and television industries, expired in May. The AMPTP and the WGA were negotiating for a new contract, but were unable to come to an agreement, and so the WGA went on strike. The AMPTP's contract with SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors and performers, expired at the end of June; SAG-AFTRA agreed to an extension in negotiations until July 12, but when that date passed with no agreement in place, SAG-AFTRA joined the WGA on strike.

(As for other unions, the contract with the Directors Guild of America expired at the same time as the WGA contract, but the DGA did come to an agreement with the AMPTP—not every DGA member was necessarily happy with the deal, but enough were to put forth its approval. As for IATSE, the union that represents most "below-the-line" crew members (almost anyone involved in a film who isn't an actor, writer, director, or producer), IATSE's Basic Agreement contract for film and television productions expired in 2021 and they did vote for a strike authorization at the time, but ended up coming to an agreement with the AMPTP before the deadline; their current Basic Agreement expires in July of next year, so with a valid contract in place IATSE is not currently in a position to strike against the AMPTP—though IATSE leaders have spoken in support of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA and have encouraged their members to respect the picket lines. (IATSE did, in fact, recently call for a strike authorization vote, but that was for a different contract regarding stage productions that wouldn't affect their film and television work—and anyway as of the time I'm writing this a tentative agreement has been reached there and they won't be striking unless the agreement ends up being rejected.))

Streaming residuals are not, by any means, the only issue regarding which the AMPTP and the unions are at odds. Another issue behind the strike, for instance, is the potential effect of artificial intelligence on the entertainment industry. But streaming is a big part of it.

For what it's worth (which isn't much, especially as by the time of the Wongery's hard launch when anyone might be reading this post the strikes will presumably (hopefully!) be long over), the Grandmaster Wongers support the WGA and SAG-AFTRA in the strikes. (Although that may have already been apparent from some of my wording in the previous paragraphs.) While the AMPTP is trying to paint the unions' demands as unreasonable, this is disingenuous at best; the union members fully deserve everything they're asking for, and it's the AMPTP's intransigence that is indefensible. (This was already pretty clear before SAG-AFTRA recently released a detailed list of the unions' demands and the AMPTP's counterproposals, but now everyone can see for themselves just insultingly insufficient the AMPTP's offers have been.) Heck, even if somehow I did get lots of money and get my own streaming channel and production company and all the other things I'd dreamed of doing if I had lots of money, at this point I don't think I'd want my production companies to join the AMPTP; it seems to exist just to try to screw over the unions. (Although, of course, it's not like I'm ever going to own any production companies; admittedly it's easy to say I wouldn't do something that I'll never have an opportunity to do anyway.)

That being said, I do very much hope the strike ends soon. But not because I'm starved for new content—I don't watch much TV and see very few movies (though mostly out of lack of time rather than lack of interest), and if I do find time for it there are plenty of old shows I want to see but haven't yet watched that I can catch up on. Rather because of the financial hardship it's causing for workers in the entertainment industry—not just the striking writers and actors; less filming going on means less work for cinematographers and editors and grips and gaffers and make-up artists and other crew members too. So yes, I hope the strike ends soon, but I also hope it ends with the unions getting what they're asking for.

(Prior to this strike, I guess I was pretty much indifferent toward Disney CEO Bob Iger, mostly because I didn't really know much about him; I knew that Disney engaged in some exploitative practices but I didn't know how much Iger was personally responsible. But now after seeing him yammer despitously about how unrealistic the strikers are being and how this just isn't a good time, guys, okay, clearly Iger is a part of the problem and a terrible person, noted.)

I've mentioned in the past that one of the ways I hope to possibly make revenue from the Wongery is through licensing, and that part of the reason why all the Wongery material isn't released under a CC BY license (as opposed to a CC BY-SA) is so that if ever someone wants to "make a big-budget movie", we can potentially negotiate for a cut of the profits, or at least a decent licensing fee. Given that, is it unwise for me to be badmouthing the AMPTP? Might this threaten that potential, and ensure that the major producers would want nothing to do with the Wongery? Eh... maybe so, sure, but honestly the idea that anyone might ever want to make a major motion picture based on Wongery IP was always a huge longshot anyway. Maybe my criticism of the AMPTP in this post is going to make that an even longershot, if possible, but I'm not going to let that stop me from going ahead and saying that the leaders of the AMPTP are a bunch of greedy lying jerks who prioritize short-term profits over the welfare of their workers, because, well, they've made it very clear that that's what they are.

In the meantime, I'm going to go on wishing I had my own streaming channel, or whatever other delivery method might replace streaming channels in the future just as streaming mostly replaced cable and cable mostly replaced network TV. I'd really like to have an outlet to produce and release my own professional-quality video content. It's never going to happen, because it would require far more money than I'm ever going to see in my life, but I can dream.