In a very interesting article published last week at FT.com - Networks set for $120m from web ads the four US television networks are estimated to have made $120m of revenues in 2007 from free web streaming of their content, according to a leading media buyer.

 "…The networks have been reluctant to acknowledge the size of their streaming businesses, partly because online video advertising has become a sticking point in pay negotiations with the writers, who have been on strike for almost a month."

"…Revenues generated by the US networks - ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox - form a sizable chunk of this total and are expected to grow sharply next year, partly because of the quality and popularity of the programming they offer."

"…The total online video advertising market will be worth close to $1.3bn this year after doubling in size in 2006, according to Accustream, the digital media research company."

To me, the above suggests profit over spend (were the 4 major TV networks the entire Online Video market in the US - which they clearly aren't ) would be about 9%.

Interesting - so let's say the 4 major networks were to split the 120 million with the writers - how much would each writer get?

According to WikiPedia - 2007 Writers Guild of America strike

"…The WGA's membership of approximately 12,000 writers (more than 7,000 in WGAW and more than 4,000 in WGAE) primarily work on live-action, script-driven movies and television programs.^[17]

"..The WGA has proposed that writers receive 2.5% of distributor's gross for new-media sales and distribution.

The companies have thus far refused to address this proposal, and have instead proposed that Internet sales follow the same formula as DVD sales. With regard to streaming, the companies have proposed that so-called "promotional" streaming—including the streaming of a program in its entirety and even for profit via advertising or other means— does not entitle residuals to the writer or writers whatsoever.

Both of these proposals have been rejected by the WGA and are cited as evidence that the studios "(want) to shut down rather than reaching a fair deal."^[16]"

So let's do the math. 

If the the 4 major networks shared (half) 60,000,000 million dollars (sixty million dollars with 12,000 writers that would equate to an average of 5,000 Dollars per year per writer more than they get now.

However, according to Wikipedia, the writers aren't even asking for that much, only 2.5% of the distributors gross - or  30,000,000 which means the average writer, for just the online video portion, would get 2500 dollars more per year.

[NOTE: I'm not sure if the 2.5% is from the 1.3 Billion dollars or the 120 million dollar profit - if it's 2.5% of 1.3 Billion - that's around 33 million dollars....whatever, it doesn't sound like all that much money]

Not that much money in any case, if your looking at writers, as a whole - undoubtedly, some writers will get a lot more and some, hardly anything.

Still - right now, it sounds like the revenues coming in are going be less than what the writers had hoped for - but ultimately, it's the right thing to fight over - if you r going to fight over anything.

It seems to me, quickly settling the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike would be in every one's interest.   I don't feel I have all the facts, but when you drill down to the money - it doesn't seem like all that much yet…. but I probably don't have all the information.

Another thing the FT.com article brought up - that video recall is much, much superior for online 

"..Media buyers expect streaming revenues to increase because online video commercials have better recall rates than traditional TV advertising.

"You get 85 per cent recall [with web streaming] versus single-digit recall for TV," Ms Scheppach said. Syndication of online video commercials across social networking sites will also fuel future revenues, she added.