| Should Developers Be Paid Royalties? |
| Thursday, May 22 2008 |
|
I just read a very interesting article on the NY Times about Michael Hollick, a relatively unknown actor who did the voice and motion-capture work for Niko Bellic, the main character in Grand Theft Auto IV. The basis of the article is that actors who perform work for video game publishers are not given royalties on the sales and distribution of those games. In other words, why are actors being paid differently for video game work as opposed to TV shows or movies or radio? In those traditional mediums actors are paid royalties every time their TV shows or radio commercials air. Rockstar Games has spent millions marketing their latest creation on TV and radio, almost all of which contain the voice work of Mr. Hollick, yet he doesn't see a dime from all those commercials.
Oh, he was certainly paid decently enough for his work, about $100,000 over the course of 15 months, but that's nothing compared to the cast of Friends in their last season when they were each paid $1,000,000 per episode and of course continue to roll in the royalty money from syndication. I admit it's an extreme comparison, but still.
The article goes on to point out that the real fear with the video game studios is that by paying royalties to actors, does that then open the door for all the artists, designers, and programmers who develop the game to also collect royalties? Like I said, it's a very interesting article.
So that got me thinking about the rest of us developers who don't work on video games. Should we be paid royalties for our work? Think about that line of business app you wrote for a client that helped increase sales. Should you get a piece of each new sale?
What about the call center app you wrote a bunch of code for? The one that saves the company tons of money every time they bring new users into the system. Why shouldn't you get paid for continuing to save the company money?
Or what about the cool online community that you were instrumental in launching? You know, the one that's adding thousands of new users a month, thus greatly increasing the advertising revenue for the site. Shouldn't you get a slice of that advertising revenue for each new user?
I realize this is a bit out there, but I don't think it's as far-fetched as it seems. I mean, think about why actors are paid royalties: because they can continue to entertain people over an extended period of time, and because the TV and movie studios profit from that, so should they. So how is that any different from what we do? As software developers we provide value to our customers that last for extended periods of time, and the companies for whom we performed the work either profit from that work, save money from that work, or both.
I understand trying to track such things would be quite the undertaking, and I offer nothing other than my thoughts, but obviously it works in other places. So I ask you, should developers be paid royalties?
12 comment(s) so far
Actors are paid royalties for ONE reason. They demand it. Because they have a union, those demands are honored.
Marc - Agreed, but the unions are the reason those royalty payments are enforced. If we start demanding being paid royalties, does that mean we have to create and join a union to enforce it?
It's an interesting question but depending on the case it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. If you work for a company, you're compensated via salary (or bill rate) on a regular basis and your success is directly tied to the success of the company. They fold, you don't get paid, they succeed you do. You can take that notion a step further with equity or ownership.
The difference with acting, is that most actors don't have long running ties to the properties that make them money. Friends and Seinfeld are 2 bad examples because of their popularity. Those actors are going to be set for a very long time because their agents reached great deals not because of the residual checks they get established by the union.
The other thing to note is that residuals, in the acting world, are not long term. They are a stop gap to the next gig and in MANY cases once the ad campaign or sitcom or movie has run it's popular course you can expect to see little to nothing in the mail from the work you put in on Crest while the people who make Crest will continue to benefit from your work long after you're gone.
I don't think software developers and actors are not quite a match it's tough for me to say whether we do or don't deserve them. I will say this, the real money is in ownership of the property. If that voice actor was someone famous and asked for a percentage of the backend the residuals would have paled in comparison to the money that the TRUE deal would have made. Same is true for developers, if you get equity, stock, etc then that can stand to be compensated more handsomely for the effort.
It'll never happen, and should never happen. I'd wager most actors actually just get daily rates and never get residual deals that the big names get.
I was listening to an interview with the guy that directed Iron Man, and he said that he got a flat rate for the movie, and will get nothing else from box office gross or DVD sales. While a director isn't an actor of course, the big names typically do get a piece of the back end.
And us programmers? We get a daily rate, and we can take it and be happy, or go do something else. Fact is very very few programmers (maybe even none) are truly irreplaceable.
Jamie - Yea, I know. It was just something that I found really interesting and wanted to throw it out there to spark conversation. But at the same time, the director of Iron Man didn't negotiate anything from box office or DVD sales? What was he thinking? ;-)
I don't think it would work, and in many ways would become a support nightmare.
First, things like movies, TV shows, commercials, are all tracked and monitored pretty good. Reporting on how often a Friends episode is good. But how can you set up tracking on a call center? The company likely has it, but how do you get it and enforce it?
Additionally, actors push on it being their face/voice/likeness, but what about the camera guy or the prop man? They don't get royalties. The show is the actors. The program isn't necessarily the developers. You know the actors from friends, but what about the developers on Outlook? Often, the show becomes that actors perceived identity. Hence Jason Alexander can't get any work now, everyone things of him as a short, bald, dumb guy who screws up a lot.
Additionally, support becomes a factor. If someone is continuing to pay for usage of software, they'd expect to receive support when something breaks or goes wrong, and with software, something always does. That becomes difficult to support of some straggler is using a 5 year old version of something, or if you used to freelance and wrote something a long time ago that is now having issues. With film, there is little support. You won't get a different ending or anything, it is a fixed resource. The show can't break, only the tape it is on can, but that doesn't mean the actors need to reshoot it. :)
At the end of the day, you're either a permanent employee or a contractor. Either way there is a contract in place with the person you're doing the work for.
If you're the former, then you'll have a longer future with the company but probably earn less.
If you're the latter, you'll have a shorter term stint with the company and probably earn more.
Either way, you get what you negotiate. Negotiate what you want up front and the contract that you sign will bind what you've negotiated.
Actors in shows like Friends CAN negotiate those kinds of terms because of their positions in the acting world. Voice actors can't. There's always going to be another voice actor to play Niko, there's not necessarily going to be another Jennifer Aniston.
So can we charge royalties?? Sure we can, so long we negotiated that up front.
i am just impressed u were reading the NYTimes.
wow--that guy's a loser. whining about not being paid enough... guess he forgot to look around him and the overall general economy.
personally i think he should shut up, take the money, and keep looking for work.
Most actors do not make a million bucks per TV show, only a select few who achieve widespread success. Most are stuck with day jobs waiting tables while filming TV commercials at night. The average software developer is much better off than the average actor. And at the high end, people in our profession like Bill Gates and Larry Page aren't exactly bad off either.
Besides, most companies do have ways for their employees to benefit financially with the company's success in the form of stock options or employee stock purchase plans.
Perhaps, but then we'll have to pay reverse-royalties for each bug, ouch.
I'm actually writing a paper on precisely this issue. My personal stance? Developers and actors should get a piece of the back-end ONCE the game sells a certain amount of units (or brings in a certain amount of revenue). The tricky part is that developers aren't unionized, but actors are. This means that (often) a voice/movement actor has the collective bargaining power of the SAG behind him or her, and the developer is left out in the cold.
Really, the best option is for the person working on the game to negotiate up front. But often that's not an option -- it's take-it-or-leave-it. I think developers should unionize. Not that it'll ever happen, but it should . . . .