As this issue of Boards went to press, the opposing forces entwined in the US performers strike had walked away from another brief session with federal mediators with no movement toward a resolution to this draining predicament. During that week, the collective fidgeting from the industry was palpable; entreaties were made, stats were released, rhetoric continued, things were announced.

Among the announcements: a Canadian mediator rejected Canadian talent union ACTRA's initiative to support SAG by insisting that the SAG interim agreement be applied to commercials shot in Canada for US use. Industry representatives called it a "stunning defeat" for SAG.

Needless to say, the strike is a giant stunning defeat to all parties involved and to those third parties which have no official voice in the dispute but who still watch their careers idling at the roadside. Obviously both camps have valid points, but hot air from both is clouding the issues. SAG released stats from the Cable TV Advertising Bureau which indicate that cable ad revenue is expected to reach $13.5 billion, a 20% increase over last year. The money pouring into TV from dot-com and traditional advertisers is well documented, but it's misleading to use that stat to demonstrate financial profligacy on the part of agencies. It seems comparable to pointing to $25 million dollar salaries for actors and assuming that performers generally make too much money. On the other hand, the industry trumpeting the Canadian arbitration decision as a "stunning defeat" for SAG is needlessly inflammatory.

Another, more relevant stat reported by SAG indicates that the strike is costing the California production community $1 million a day (according to the EIDC). The costs are drawn from people, from crews to craft services, and of course, producers, who go not lightly, but with resignation to shoot elsewhere.

In the UK recently, the Advertising Film and Video Producers Association and crew union BECTU have concluded a long stretch of negotiations with a deal. Does that bode well for the other areas of UK ad industry labor relations, where stalemates abound between bodies representing agencies and advertisers and the performers union, the British Actors Equity Association? No, says Equity spokesman Martin Brown: "It would be hard to read positive signs in this because [the producers] have always been the doves in this -- they have always been seeking a way to find a settlement with equity throughout our dispute." (In fact, he says, the AFVPA had formerly been ejected from a tripartite producer/agency/advertiser group in negotiations with Equity reportedly due to the producers' conciliatory ways.)

It makes sense. While not necessarily "doves," who are producers but a group of people programmed to get things done, make things happen, find a way, etc etc.? Perhaps producers' voices should be added in a more significant way to the SAG debate.

A previous British strike in the 80s went on for several months (although, Brown says it is not entirely accurate to call it a strike in either case -- nobody actually broke a contract; members were simply asked to say no to any new work). Predictions for the current UK Equity dispute? Says Brown: "It's hard to see any resolution in the near future of our dispute with the ad industry I'm afraid."

There has to be a lesson somewhere in here, and if there isn't -- one more dire entreaty: Boards has a special report on Acting Talent coming up -- please, for the love of Pete, let us have something good to write about.