When you look at the funding models for Publishing and TV, (which, trust me, is not something I wake up wanting to do), it is hard to imagine a more polarised situation. Yet last week at CMC in Sheffield they were the two prevalent industries coming together and looking to the future. The shaded area where their two circles of interest cross is New Media... or more specifically e-books (ie 'electronic' or perhaps lately 'enhanced') and apps. (I reckon if I'd written 'Apps' on a Post-it and stuck it to my back a queue would have formed of TV and Publishing execs asking how I made it...)
'Why?' I asked myself, not particularly enthusiastically but the question wouldn't go away... so I 'noodled' it a bit. Apparently that's Amercian slang for 'thinking.... Is it.... typical U.S. They have something perfectly good and have to change it... but don;t get me started...
Anyway... Publishing appears to employ a 'toe in the water' approach. It usually releases one of a title and, if it gains sufficient traction/interest/sales or whatever jargon means 'works', releases another. If it really 'works' there might be a sequel with a teeny beany plush, audio version and christmas special - but even all of that is barely getting wet above the ankles. The process is measured and careful, the production costs relatively low, and it all appears well managed from a risk point of view, quite comfy slippers and cocoa really. (Obviously there are the cases of two three and four book deals with big advances and much trumpeting, but if a title bombs the sequels will never see the light of day)
TV on the other hand talks big and brash and dives straight in with 52 episodes, budgets in the millions and high expectations of reach, retail sales and brand lifespan. It is a high risk, arse twitching strategy that leaves most folk in the business so stressed a sudden cough might cause them to shatter into a million pieces (TV people are secretly held together by gaffer tape under their Gilly Hicks shirts) - and it requires everyone around the boardroom to simultaneously nod vigorously so no-one can be held responsible individually for making a bad call.
So creatively are publishers in the best situation? They can certainly get a wider variety of titles to the audience, and there certainly seems to be much more love, care and creative freedom. But their problem is the returns/profile just doesn't compare to TV - and they begrudge the idea that they can do all the work to raise a book's profile, only for TV to sweep in, buy the rights and grab all the glory. I imagine that's why they've started to try and roll the TV rights into their publishing deals (Not really fair chaps...) and some have made rather bold strides towards becoming some form of production company in their own right.
I keep wondering how we ended up at such an impractical funding model for Kids TV. It wasn't always the case that 52 eps needed to be made from the get go... there were days, not so long ago, when it was much more normal to have 13 eps - or even 6 or 7. What seems to have happened is that the cut in broadcaster funding has inadvertently upped the ante. I reckon the cycle went like this;
Broadcasters reduce license fee paid - forcing producers to fill the financing gap from distribution/toy companies.
Distribution/Toy companies say 13 eps is not enough to drive licensing - so increase requirement to 26 eps.
Financing gap left even bigger as broadcasters can't afford to commission and majority fund so many episodes from each series they take. So percentage of budget paid as a license fee drops even further.
Distribution/Toy companies say larger investment required needs even more confidence in potential success, therefore need to be sure all channels will give high profile to shows, so make 52 eps - which becomes accepted as a norm. (This is a micro version of the Hollywood $200million blockbusters being the only ones that recoup)
Industry settles at a base level of 52 eps and roughly 3-4million pounds budget to raise. Which means it takes about 5 years from concept through commission to production being delivered - 7 years to income coming back. Everyone loses the will to live and seriously discusses opening cake shop.
What interests me (OK... 'interests' might be a bit strong...) What occurs to me about the New Meeja isn't enhancing a book or interacting with a TV show (unless, as I've blahh'ed before, the enhancements are about story and character, not just making characters somersault and flowers appear) but rather the fact that it can give back to programme makers the chance to test things out, let them evolve, beautify and streamline them in front of an audience, and potentially get the audience to pay them to do so.
If TV can begin to develop and release new formats and characters using apps in a way that properly presents character and story, they might find they can free themselves up from the shrinking broadcast market which is reducing not only in the number of commissions, but also the level of adventurousness. The unknown is whether making this route to an audience successful will attract a broadcast slot, or ultimately make it unnecessary....
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
'I'm your agent - not your Mother!' 'I'm your client - not your property!'
So JK has left Christopher Little and they are talking of sueing... why? Surely the millions are enough - why give it to the lawyers? Traditionally actors and writers are never happy with their agents - because the agents don't pay them enough attention to make them feel 'special' - and of course the agents are frustrated with their clients because they behave like needy, selfish over grown children - but can they ever meet in the middle?
As an actor I could never leave things to my agent. The idea of sitting waiting for the phone to ring was totally alien to me, I just couldn't trust my career to someone trying to manage a list of actors that was too many to be realistic. I was proved right. All of my work, bar a commercial, a couple of training videos and a presenting job, came from my own endeavours. My first agent took this as an affront to their ability - but as their ability didn't stretch to getting me many auditions I didn't lose any sleep over it. In the end we parted company because i just wasn't getting enough jobs in the West End Musicals he was putting me up for. Really. Check my face for surprise. If he'd taken five minutes to think where my casting strengths might lie he would never have sent me up for any of them. It was lazy and dismissive - everything that is bad about agenting.
My second agent was totally different - he took time, he talked to me, he gave advice on photos, audition technique and welcomed my own efforts to get work - stepping in at the right time to negotiate on my behalf. It was teamwork and worked brilliantly. Better than that, when I met producers they all said they liked working with him - something that is hugely important in this business - which I didn't realise until much later.
There is often an unrealistic expectation of what an agent is to an actor. Firstly the idea that you are their primary concern (You're not, get over it.) Secondly that the agent spends as much time thinking about your potential as you do (If you're an actor NOBODY thinks about you as much as you do...) - and thirdly that you have the right to screw up an audition, but they don't have the right to miss an opportunity for you. Its a business arrangement, if they have taken the time to put you out there the least you can do is try not to f*ck it up. It is staggering the amount of turns who arrive at auditions without anything prepared and knowing NOTHING about what they are auditioning for. Grow up. Agents get you opportunities, they are not there to show you how to pay your bills by direct debit, tell you what colour you should paint your front door or advise whether you should wipe your bum front to back or back to front. In short, they are not your parents.
As a producer I saw a totally different side. Casting is hard. I'm sad to say the number of folk doing the rounds who just aren't good enough is a lot higher than Equity would like you to think. (Good actors take solace from this - there are fewer of you than the stats ever lead you to believe!) producing is the least appreciated of the roles. A producer spots, pitches, finances and takes responsibility for a show. People court you to get a job, then moan about it when they get it.
A good agent never sends you people who aren't suitable. A bad agent is just grateful you're seeing somebody off their lists. After a few castings where an agency repeatedly sent unsuitable actors we just stopped using them. No reflection on the actors. (I was once rushed a script for a West End Comedy - travelled down from Nottingham where I was working to audition with six others. We all lined up... I am 6'1", they were all 5'0... the part was for a jockey. The agent hadn't read beyond 'Actor required, Liverpudlian...')
When negotiating I was staggered how many agents (and Union reps) just didn't know the commercial realities of the business we are in. Making grand assumptions about the income from programmes and naive guesses about 'What people in Telly make' If an agent doesn't know what deals are being done how is the actor going to trust the deal they get? It worked in reverse too, with Unions and agents assuming we would always pay as little as possible. (Once Equity called our office, angry, threatening blacklisting us, and INSISTING we paid all the actors equity minimum in one of our live shows. This would have meant halving their wages...)
Worst of all is the agent who tries to use unreasonable leverage, threatening to close down filming, organising cartels with the actors and being offensive and rude to staff. We once told an actor we would no longer employ him if his agent didn't change their tactics. He brushed us off, saying that was their job. So we stopped using him. We had an easier life, he got an overdraft. Unless an actor is the name, the money, unfortunately the commercial truth is they are dispensable.
Its a business, nurture it.
So what has it been like as a writer? Many of the same rules apply regarding the easily bruised creative ego and the overly busy agent who is so busy being busy and tweeting about how busy they are that they haven't actually got time to be an agent. One agent completely screwed up by sending out the wrong version of a manuscript and tainting anyone's chances of reading it afresh again. They also apparently sent two other manuscripts out to 16 publishers all of whom just said 'No'. Via a different agent two of those same publishers said yes, very quickly. Now I'm not saying the first one never sent anything out at all but...
The publishers use the literary agents as a clearing house - a filtering system to stop them being inundated. This is fine - but puts the pressure on busy agencies to filter the mass of unsolicited manuscripts. It also takes the direct option away from authors, giving the agents more power in the equation, but also inappropriately turning them into first stop editors too.
The biggest difference I have found is the impression of ownership. Now, this might be agency specific, but my belief is that when a writer writes a book and an agent sells it, the only rights that pass over, and which the agent enjoys a percentage of, are those named in the deal. Being represented does not mean being owned. Every idea I have is owned by me until a deal is signed - and that goes for all rights associated with it. The BBC do this in their contracts, they specify that all your IP created whilst in their employ is theirs (a totally immoral stance if you ask me) This is why I won't sign a contract with an agent. Get the deal and enjoy the benefits, have me under contract and you will get lazy. (This is of course assuming I still deliver the goods too!)
This is about realistic expectations. As a writer what I need from an agent is an honest and constructive dialogue about what I'm writing, where it might be placed and, frankly, if its good enough. As an actor I need to know about my ideal casting, what the people I'm auditioning for are like, and approaches for the audition. As a producer I need suitable actors suggested, who arrive prepped for the audition. As an agent I need writers who keep delivering, because it is about the book and not the author, and actors who prepare properly. But then if everyone did all that it would make for a pretty boring industry...
As an actor I could never leave things to my agent. The idea of sitting waiting for the phone to ring was totally alien to me, I just couldn't trust my career to someone trying to manage a list of actors that was too many to be realistic. I was proved right. All of my work, bar a commercial, a couple of training videos and a presenting job, came from my own endeavours. My first agent took this as an affront to their ability - but as their ability didn't stretch to getting me many auditions I didn't lose any sleep over it. In the end we parted company because i just wasn't getting enough jobs in the West End Musicals he was putting me up for. Really. Check my face for surprise. If he'd taken five minutes to think where my casting strengths might lie he would never have sent me up for any of them. It was lazy and dismissive - everything that is bad about agenting.
My second agent was totally different - he took time, he talked to me, he gave advice on photos, audition technique and welcomed my own efforts to get work - stepping in at the right time to negotiate on my behalf. It was teamwork and worked brilliantly. Better than that, when I met producers they all said they liked working with him - something that is hugely important in this business - which I didn't realise until much later.
There is often an unrealistic expectation of what an agent is to an actor. Firstly the idea that you are their primary concern (You're not, get over it.) Secondly that the agent spends as much time thinking about your potential as you do (If you're an actor NOBODY thinks about you as much as you do...) - and thirdly that you have the right to screw up an audition, but they don't have the right to miss an opportunity for you. Its a business arrangement, if they have taken the time to put you out there the least you can do is try not to f*ck it up. It is staggering the amount of turns who arrive at auditions without anything prepared and knowing NOTHING about what they are auditioning for. Grow up. Agents get you opportunities, they are not there to show you how to pay your bills by direct debit, tell you what colour you should paint your front door or advise whether you should wipe your bum front to back or back to front. In short, they are not your parents.
As a producer I saw a totally different side. Casting is hard. I'm sad to say the number of folk doing the rounds who just aren't good enough is a lot higher than Equity would like you to think. (Good actors take solace from this - there are fewer of you than the stats ever lead you to believe!) producing is the least appreciated of the roles. A producer spots, pitches, finances and takes responsibility for a show. People court you to get a job, then moan about it when they get it.
A good agent never sends you people who aren't suitable. A bad agent is just grateful you're seeing somebody off their lists. After a few castings where an agency repeatedly sent unsuitable actors we just stopped using them. No reflection on the actors. (I was once rushed a script for a West End Comedy - travelled down from Nottingham where I was working to audition with six others. We all lined up... I am 6'1", they were all 5'0... the part was for a jockey. The agent hadn't read beyond 'Actor required, Liverpudlian...')
When negotiating I was staggered how many agents (and Union reps) just didn't know the commercial realities of the business we are in. Making grand assumptions about the income from programmes and naive guesses about 'What people in Telly make' If an agent doesn't know what deals are being done how is the actor going to trust the deal they get? It worked in reverse too, with Unions and agents assuming we would always pay as little as possible. (Once Equity called our office, angry, threatening blacklisting us, and INSISTING we paid all the actors equity minimum in one of our live shows. This would have meant halving their wages...)
Worst of all is the agent who tries to use unreasonable leverage, threatening to close down filming, organising cartels with the actors and being offensive and rude to staff. We once told an actor we would no longer employ him if his agent didn't change their tactics. He brushed us off, saying that was their job. So we stopped using him. We had an easier life, he got an overdraft. Unless an actor is the name, the money, unfortunately the commercial truth is they are dispensable.
Its a business, nurture it.
So what has it been like as a writer? Many of the same rules apply regarding the easily bruised creative ego and the overly busy agent who is so busy being busy and tweeting about how busy they are that they haven't actually got time to be an agent. One agent completely screwed up by sending out the wrong version of a manuscript and tainting anyone's chances of reading it afresh again. They also apparently sent two other manuscripts out to 16 publishers all of whom just said 'No'. Via a different agent two of those same publishers said yes, very quickly. Now I'm not saying the first one never sent anything out at all but...
The publishers use the literary agents as a clearing house - a filtering system to stop them being inundated. This is fine - but puts the pressure on busy agencies to filter the mass of unsolicited manuscripts. It also takes the direct option away from authors, giving the agents more power in the equation, but also inappropriately turning them into first stop editors too.
The biggest difference I have found is the impression of ownership. Now, this might be agency specific, but my belief is that when a writer writes a book and an agent sells it, the only rights that pass over, and which the agent enjoys a percentage of, are those named in the deal. Being represented does not mean being owned. Every idea I have is owned by me until a deal is signed - and that goes for all rights associated with it. The BBC do this in their contracts, they specify that all your IP created whilst in their employ is theirs (a totally immoral stance if you ask me) This is why I won't sign a contract with an agent. Get the deal and enjoy the benefits, have me under contract and you will get lazy. (This is of course assuming I still deliver the goods too!)
This is about realistic expectations. As a writer what I need from an agent is an honest and constructive dialogue about what I'm writing, where it might be placed and, frankly, if its good enough. As an actor I need to know about my ideal casting, what the people I'm auditioning for are like, and approaches for the audition. As a producer I need suitable actors suggested, who arrive prepped for the audition. As an agent I need writers who keep delivering, because it is about the book and not the author, and actors who prepare properly. But then if everyone did all that it would make for a pretty boring industry...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
