NOR'EASTER
Audio Post Package Pricing:
Pick Any Two
by Louis Bertini, MPSE
 Louis Bertini, MPSE |
A friend of mine had to have some repair work done on his car recently. The mechanic gave him a cost estimate, and he gave his approval to go ahead with the job. But when the work was finished, the final bill was quite a bit higher than the estimate. “What happened?” he asked. “How did the price get so high?” The mechanic replied, “Sorry. We ran into unforeseen problems, and had to add on some overages.”
Unfortunately, my friend had to pay the bill, or he wasn’t going to get his car back. But those of us who work in the world of editing have often encountered “unforeseen problems” in the course of our jobs. And when we attempt to add on some “overages” to cover our extra time, we often meet with stiff resistance––or even outright refusal––from producers, who still expect to get their job done, no matter what.
Since production costs are ever increasing, budget control is naturally an area of concern for producers. But in recent years, a new trend in budget negotiations for audio post-production has become a cause for concern at the Editors Guild in New York.
In a previous column (see “Nor’Easter,” Editors Guild Magazine MAY-JUN 08) I described how the New York production unions meet together with Producers as a united group to negotiate contracts for low- and mid-budget productions. (Those with budgets of $10.25 million or higher are automatically covered under the terms of the Majors or Independent contracts.) Assistant Executive Director Paul Moore represents the Editors Guild at these meetings.
The negotiations process is very different in Los Angeles and therefore this kind of issue isn’t a part of the scenario there. But in New York, the different jobs of the production are discussed––camera, picture editor, costume and makeup, grips, electricians, etc.––and salary rates are negotiated based on the budgets and can vary from project to project, even though some standards have been established. But unlike the other positions, the producers have been proposing the entire audio post-production––including sound editorial and re-recording––as one package price instead of as individual salaried jobs.
A few years back, we heard this kind of proposal occasionally. But more recently we have been hearing it at every negotiation meeting. Furthermore, the number requested for the audio package is always roughly the same, no matter which producer is asking for it.
This is the kind of proposal that the Editors Guild will not consider. It is a disservice to our members for many reasons. Our job is to negotiate salary and benefit rates, not package prices––even if the package does include the proper rates. If a package price for a job were locked in, it would not take into account any unforeseen problems that might arise, or the extra time required to work on them.
But the fact that package prices are requested again and again, and in basically the same form, is making us wonder where it is coming from––and who may be talking to whom behind the scenes to try and force it upon us.
To an extent, it is a representation of the way sound jobs are done today. It wasn’t too long ago that sound editors worked independently and were hired by the production––the same as everyone else on the job. But today they are by and large aligned with an audio facility, whether they work freelance or staff. The facilities bid a package price for a sound job, oversee the sound edit and re-recording, and pay their employees according to the terms of the contract.
But it is the responsibility of the facility to tailor its bid to account for unforeseen circumstances, as well as any extra time that might be needed because of them. The Editors Guild will not do the job for them. We will not let a production off the hook for poor planning by accepting a “one size fits all” package price.
It has also come to our attention that, in an attempt to bring down costs, some supervising sound editors are asking their crews to work off the payroll, without any benefit contributions, and be given 1099s instead of W-2s. This is a violation of every one of our contracts. The Editors Guild is monitoring these situations and will take action against any supervisor who breaks the rules in this manner.
Often facilities can get themselves into trouble by doing package pricing, and making too many promises. Some costs can be discounted more easily, like equipment, supplies or studio time. But other costs are locked in, like contractual wages and benefits, rent or utilities.
One facility owner told me a story that illustrates the problem. He has a longtime client, who heads a successful independent production company. The client came to him with a feature film that was suffering from “budget shortfall.” He asked if the audio package could be discounted, and promised to make it up on the next job by paying the full rates. The facility could not afford to alienate this client, so it bit the bullet, discounted its bid and got the job done for a low price.
A few months later, the client came back with another feature that did not have any budget shortfall, but he still wanted the same price that he paid on the previous one. And a major argument ensued. He yelled, “You got the last one done for that much money! Why do I have to pay more for this one?” As you can guess, the facility regretted that it ever gave in, and it was stuck with the lower price.
 |
Another sound editor friend of mine has a simpler solution. When he sits down with a producer to work out a bid, he starts by showing them the diagram that appears here.
And he tells them, “You can only pick two. It can be good and cheap, but it won’t be fast. It can be fast and cheap, but it won’t be good. It can be good and fast, but it won’t be cheap.”
Though simple, this diagram is worth keeping in mind.