Net 90

[thenannymoh]

So, I guess this has been circulating.  Apparently, you can get paid sooner if you forfeit about 2% of the invoice (that's the 'financing tool').  Wow. Just wow. 

[Allen Rowand]

I wonder how much of a kickback they're getting on the Citi payday loans, I mean "financing tool"?

 

Gross.

[Philip Perkins]

Net 90 doesn't fit with MY "corporate requirements".   I guess they won't be cool with me raising my rate by 2% to cover their "financing tool"?   Yes, I bet Warner and Citi are splitting that 2%.  Hyenas.

[Dalton Patterson]

All my contracts and invoices say NET 15. I would charge late fees. They count on you just giving up. 

 

I heard a rumor  about NET 90 but I thought it was a joke as nobody would wait three months before getting paid. What is this? The Guitar Center model of business?  

 

 

 

 

[Philip Perkins]

There have always been co.s that ended up doing net 90 one way or another.  But this business of offering you a "deal" to get paid sooner than that (how much sooner?  right away?) that costs YOU money is a new kind of slime.  Such creative people!

[tourtelot]

They suck!

 

You can bet that I won't be paying any money for anything produced by these scumbags.  Not one penny.

 

God!  This boils my blood.

 

D.

[tourtelot]

I just put out a "bulk" email to anyone I though might be offended by this and suggested that they might consider boycotting anything under the Warner/Turner umbrella along with a copy of the above letter.

 

I am not so naive as to think it will make any difference to the company's "Corporate Requirements."  But I had to say something publicly.

 

D.

[Constantin]

Wow, that is awful. I hope the german Warner subsidiary is not copying this. 

I sometimes offer my clients a 2% discount if they pay within 2 weeks. Should I offer any further discounts, those too will expire after 2 weeks. That works really well

[Mirror]

As the saying goes, " Corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass it along to the consumer." Just use their tool but raise your rental by 2%. 

[TVPostSound]

You're taking this out of context.

This is standard procedure for vendors, people that supply goods.

They can't hold individual service payments for 90 days!!!

[al mcguire]

Here are my Net 90 rates...

[Mirror]

1 hour ago, TVPostSound said:

You're taking this out of context.

This is standard procedure for vendors, people that supply goods.

They can't hold individual service payments for 90 days!!!

 

Equipment rentals?

[tourtelot]

1 hour ago, TVPostSound said:

You're taking this out of context.

This is standard procedure for vendors, people that supply goods.

They can't hold individual service payments for 90 days!!!

 

Kit rentals?

 

D.

[Johnny Karlsson]

How can this even be legal?

 

Basically:

”We are going to chose to hold on to the money that we owe you, unless you pay us. If you give us a cut of your money that is rightfully yours, then we will chose to release the funds (not sure exactly when, but in less than 3 months)“.

 

Sounds in practice just like kidnapping, or blackmail.

[Jay Rose]

It's not only legal, it's considered "business". The only legal defense is if you can show a contract or other written understanding that they'll pay in 30, and then they spring this on you. Even then it can be hard to collect, or to charge them a late fee, or to get them to pay your lawyer unless that kind of stuff was in the original contract.

 

What would be illegal is if they assert "work for hire". That has a specific meaning -- you can find a definition at irs.gov, among other places -- and by not accepting "work for hire", you may have more rights to than a usual employee has. 

 

I throw small-type boilerplate into my production agreements and deal memos covering this stuff as well as rights to the recording, to master tapes, talent (which sometimes they have me hire for off-camera recordings), and so on. Having that there means I can usually bluff a recalcitrant accounts-payable department to pay promptly... with the threat that "I'll don't want to have to go to your client or funder and point out that I still own the soundtrack". 

 

BUT: IANAL. There are laws governing contracts, and laws governing 'interfering with the contractural performance of others'. Make sure of your own position.

 

The worst thing you can do is accept the gig and grumble (if you agree to 90 days, you still owe them your best work). The best thing is to have the experience and relationships so producers think of you as more than a commodity that can be replaced by the next newbie off the bus... and to realize that you're allowed to play "business" back at them.

[Philip Perkins]

In CA the state is busy trying to reclassify anyone they can as an employee, subject to withholding and so on.  As an employee they can't hold your (labor) payment up for 90 days, or charge you to pay you on time.  Rentals and expendables could be a different issue, but most people I work for want to clear their books of a job as soon as they can so they pay labor and gear at the same time or close to it.  (On many corpos and commercials where the production staff are freelancers themselves they have very limited time after the job in which to tie up all the loose ends and produce actuals for their client.)   There will always be people who want to apply the same rules and policies they use with companies that sell them cafeteria food service or janitorial work or Google-bus service or re-striping all their parking lots to tiny freelancers like us.  Usually, once they realize how much work they are making for themselves to pay a tiny one-time invoice they find a way around all that crap, again, to get it off their books.  Or so we hope.

[Jay Rose]

Quote

 

There will always be people who want to apply the same rules and policies they use with companies that sell them cafeteria food service or janitorial work...

 

 

Back in 1999, I had at least four corporate clients who needed me to certify, in writing, that my past delivered CDRs and DATs would not self-destruct at Y2K!

[codyman]

On 5/31/2019 at 1:19 PM, Jay Rose said:

 

Back in 1999, I had at least four corporate clients who needed me to certify, in writing, that my past delivered CDRs and DATs would not self-destruct at Y2K!

That might qualify as the most 90's thing ever.  Well that and zip drives!

 

In all seriousness though, these Corporate morons can try to pull this stuff but there are specific laws for us in the motion pictures industry that specifies otherwise.