intheweeds said:
With all due respect(and i do respect you for what you have achieved with the Escapist), if James and crew have been paid all monies due for services (as you state in your Facebook note) and you have relinquished any claim on the surplus donation money as well, then why is there still a problem at all? You write that there is a problem on Facebook.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I can't speak for James, and contract negotiations are legally confidential, so all I can say is that: (a) as of yesterday, before his dialogue on Facebook, we had sent full payment; (b) we are not making any claim on any Rocket Hub money; and (c) we'd like Extra Credits to stay on the Escapist.
Here is the main problem that I am having. You have as I understand it an agreement to pay Extra Credits a certain amount of money for a new show each week. Regardless of the late payment thing(forget it exists, it's irrelevant), you pay a fee for a show. They deliver a show. Production costs are on them and have always been on them. Imagine instead that the product you were buying was a bathroom renovation. You pay company X for a new bathroom and company X delivers a bathroom. How much it costs them to buy supplies and pay their workers are costs that have nothing to do with you. They are 'production costs'. What if they did use the money for production costs? - It doesn't affect you. If they don't? - Again, it doesn't affect you. I don't understand why you care.
Without discussing James' contract in general due to privacy, our agreements over the last 5 years have generally been of two sorts. When we own the IP, then content creators get (a) a flat fee to cover production costs; (b) a bonus payment for every video stream their show delivers, regardless of any ads or not; and (c) a royalty on any other revenue the show makes from any source.
The idea is that we cover production cost, give them a bonus incentive to make good shows that will have great traffic, and work together to find additional revenue sources. In general this is a good relationship and a successful show can allow its creator to do quite well.
Unfortunately, due to the recession, we have fallen into problems when we fall behind on (a). As a result, many of our most recent deals we have structured such that we leave the IP rights with the content creator, and we only pay the traffic bonus (b) and affiliate revenue (c), with more generous royalties. The content creator is now covering their own production costs so they have more control and more upside.
So cost of production does affect us, at least on some of our contracts. The cost of producing shows probably represents 50% of The Escapist's costs every month, in fact. (The rest is overhead, bandwidth, servers, ad hosting, sales team, tech team, art team, editorial team).
then in point 7 you write:
" I then emailed James and his business development manager to explain that I wanted to get them paid as quickly as possible so that the back debt was not a sticking point in negotiations."
The only negotiation I see that you could possibly be talking about is how much wholesale Tshirts cost. Any other negotiations would imply that you disagree that you owe back payments or that you do in fact have a claim pending on the surplus donations. Anything they decide to do with surplus funds is between them and the people who donated money.
No. We already came to agreement on the t-shirt costs. We have an exclusive deal with Split Reason as our t-shirt provider. James and crew didn't like the cost of Split Reason shirts so they decided to do them on their own. We couldn't use a different vendor, but they were free to do so, and that's already been agreed on.
The negotiations I was referring to, and the only outstanding legal disagreement that I am aware of at this time, have nothing to do with payment or the RocketHub overflow. They have to do with whether or not Extra Credits will stay on the Escapist. We'd like it to.
While I agree that James has not handled this well and I will not be leaving the Escapist, you have a very double-speak quality to your replies here and on Facebook. This is a situation where you have made a mistake and now you need to take your hit and back off.
I am not sure where I'm double speaking. Hopefully what I've said above is helpful.
I have already admitted I made a mistake in not making things clear. As I said, neither side anticipated an overflow. We retracted any request for any share of the overflow weeks ago, in writing, when we realized how far apart our views on this situation were from James'. I stand by my *personal opinion* that the overflow money from fans of Extra Credits given to "save Extra Credits" should have been used on Extra Credits and not on a start-up publishing business, but a personal opinion is just that, and it's ultimately going to be up to the backers to decide.