ACTORS ARE SURER BET TO WIN AD STRIKE IMPASSE AN ECHO.

Byline: Susan Shelley Local View

HOW long will the actors stay on strike?

Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have been on strike since May 1 over the contract that governs the production of TV and radio commercials. Federally mediated talks collapsed on July 21. Mediators will try again, but not until Sept. 13.

Advertisers maintain they are successfully producing commercials with nonunion actors, and the situation is ``business as usual.'' If that sounds vaguely familiar, it should.

On Dec. 19, 1978, SAG and AFTRA went on strike over the commercials contract. The chief negotiator for the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies, John McGuinn, declared the industry would conduct ``business as usual'' during the strike.

When the strike ended in February of 1979, actors received significant wage increases, while advertisers settled without achieving any of their major objectives.

How did two actors' unions defeat the corporate giants of America? And today, as John McGuinn and the ANA try once more to change the structure of how actors are paid for commercials, will the same thing happen again?

That's the way to bet.

The basic principles of payment for actors in commercials were set in a 1953 contract following a three-month strike. Actors would be paid for each commercial they made, regardless of how many were made in an eight-hour day. In addition, actors were to be paid for the use of their performance in a commercial. Use payments, or residuals, were computed according to the number and population of cities in which the commercial was broadcast.

In 1978, the ANA wanted actors to agree to the filming of undefined ``alternate scenes'' at the time a commercial was produced, without additional payment. The unions determined that the proposal would allow advertisers to make several commercials in one session while paying the actors for just one.

Negotiations reached an impasse and the unions went out on strike.

Advertisers attempted to produce commercials with nonunion actors.

At the end of the strike, the advertisers agreed to pay 15 percent more for session fees and 30 percent more for non-network uses in major markets.

The alternate scenes proposal ended up codifying existing industry practices. Advertisers gained nothing.

What happened?

For one thing, striking actors did not give up a weekly paycheck. They continued to receive payments for commercials that were already on the air, and they continued to work in TV, films and theater. Actors proved they could stay on strike for as long as necessary.

The news gets worse for advertisers, who today are trying to abolish the pay-per-play residuals formula and replace it with a potentially smaller flat fee. By definition, professional actors are a very determined group. People who would choose short-term financial certainty over the potential for greater long-term success have already gotten out of show business.

Will advertisers be able to produce commercials with nonunion actors? Sure. Will advertisers who sometimes audition 600 professional actors for a role - and that's the callback - be satisfied with the talent pool from the local community theater? That's a different question.

One source of conflict in any negotiation between advertisers and actors is the misconception that actors are paid for a day's work, like any temporary employee. Creative talent is always paid according to the value of the work, not just the time it takes to do the job. Since an effective ad is run more often and for a longer period of time, and an ineffective ad is pulled quickly, the pay-per-play formula provides higher payments for performances that have proved to be worth more.

Exclusivity is another source of tension. Advertisers want to hire performers who are not identified with any other product. Therefore, every commercial an actor makes reduces his employability. Pay-per-play compensates actors for the loss of future income caused by overexposure.

Does an actor's performance really make the critical difference in the success of a commercial? Do professional actors have some special power to connect with an audience? Could Ronald Reagan sell a tax cut?

It's something to think about if advertisers bet their third- and fourth- quarter sales on amateur talent.