(6-minute read)

Multi-billion-dollar corporations have grown into the corporate behemoths we see today thanks to the hard work and vision of the global creative class. These international conglomerates have profited off the work of creators to launch and sustain the numerous streaming services consumers now have at their fingertips.

While the CEOs and executives of steaming services are receiving record-breaking salaries and bonuses, many of the creators who helped make the streaming content continue to struggle to make ends meet, receiving the bare minimum – if any – in residuals based on outdated models.

Content creators won’t soon forget the pandemic when consumers were craving new content and flocking to streamers at warp speed. Streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ saw subscribers grow in the tens of millions during this period, further lining the pockets of those at the top.

And during this time of upheaval, who was putting their health at risk to help streamers create new content to meet consumer demand? It was the creative class – performers, crew, technicians, directors – who were on set, adjusting to ever-evolving health guidelines almost daily to help streamers’ profits soar.

As new subscribers have levelled off and inflation has soared, creators are waking up to the stark reality of what has now become an outdated streaming residual model.

Residuals became one of the sticking points last summer when U.S. actors and writers’ unions were both on strike.

“I’m a dual-cardholder and have worked quite a bit under the auspices of SAG-AFTRA,” says ACTRA Toronto Member Shawn Doyle. “Like all my brothers and sisters, I spent last year’s strike in a state of disbelief as the Employers fought tooth and nail to roll back our residuals while their Streamers made record profits off our work, and the individual CEOs of these companies pulled in TENS OF MILLIONS each year. Just as they did with the advent of Cable and DVDs, the producers will have you believe the future of Streaming is uncertain, and we should let them roll back our pay, as they laugh all the way to the bank. We can’t let this happen.”

The world watched (and was hopefully appalled) as streaming giants cried poverty with Disney CEO Bob Iger saying both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA’s asks for fair pay were “unrealistic.” A report in U.S. news outlet Deadline alleged the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) – which represented the U.S. studios in negotiations – was willing to wait until the unions “bled out” before resuming negotiations because they would be “more willing to compromise on their demands.”

This is not the first time the industry has had to adapt residual models to a new technology. We have seen this before with the introduction of television, VHS, CDs, DVDs and now streaming.

Producers and studio executives use the absence of an existing monetization model to renegotiate creators’ compensation every time a new technology is introduced, yet each time it is clear studios’ income grows far more rapidly than creators’ income.

What is different between these older technologies and streaming is that streamers don’t have additional sales and can keep shows alive for years without reporting any revenue or data on how many times the show has been watched.

Take the Toronto-shot, U.S. television show, Suits, as an example (which featured many ACTRA Toronto performers). NBC Universal licensed Suits to Netflix years ago where it sat for a while. When the show Billions became popular and ended, a new generation of viewers found Suits on Netflix thanks to the streamer’s ‘recommend’ algorithm and binge-watched all nine seasons, making it the “most streamed show of 2023.” While this was great news for Netflix, how did the artists who helped create this show benefit from the show’s newfound success? They didn’t. Why? Because there was no mechanism to pay residuals to performers in this scenario since the original sale happened so long ago.

“Being a part of Suits has been one of the highlights of my career and will forever have a special place in my heart,” says ACTRA Toronto member Raven Dauda. “I am so proud of all of us and the work we did on that show. But now… I have so many mixed emotions when I think about it. A part of me is overjoyed that it continues to be popular and finds new audiences year after year. And another part of me is very angry and disappointed – dumbfounded that I as a performer received no additional residual payment.

How is this possible? How is this fair? It isn’t. Artists should and must be compensated for their work. Period. Residuals are an integral part of how we as artists survive, and the gravity of this is paramount. There is more than enough profit to be shared. The days of giving in to corporate greed must come to an end. Now more than ever we need to stand together to ensure we get properly paid and compensated for the work we do.”

Knowing what the annual salaries of streamers’ CEOs are (Disney’s Bob Iger was paid US$31.6 million in 2023 while Netflix’s Co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters took home US$49.8 million and US$40 million, respectively, in 2023), it’s incredibly disrespectful to performers and everyone who contributes to a production’s success to have their contributions ignored. There is enough to be shared.

What is being asked of streamers is fair and simple: when you have a hit production on a streamer, the goal would be to have everyone benefit from the success when it comes to residuals and profit sharing.

It’s time to recognize the contributions of the creative class by paying them what they’re worth.