This is exactly why I think deals should be made where talent takes no profit participation. The sweetheart deal rears its ugly head again. This involves "Home Improvement."http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/home-improvement-te...The thing that's really terrible about this is I'm certain the talent in this case is correct about what Disney promised. From what I've read, what usually happens is -- and I'm sure everyone knows this already -- Disney makes a deal and then tries to prevent distributing monies due by shielding revenue through various overhead charges, company divisions, etc. So, in my mind, Disney (as well as other studios) make false promises so that they can get talent to work for it. In the article, you will note that supposedly Disney promised 75% of net profits to certain participants in the production company that made Improvement. Again, I'm sure Disney did, but Disney needs to stop doing this. Bigger talent have ways of combating ambiguous accounting practices, but for the benefit of everyone, including shareholders, studios should pay talent one-time fees for the delivery of projects, forget setting up annuity streams tied to future exploitation of content via ancillary distribution mechanisms. Shareholders want, and expect, Disney to use vertical integration to its benefit -- but without the frictional costs of litigation.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra