Confessions of an Executive Producer

inner thoughts

I love meetings. I better. I attend a lot of them. The only thing better than a good meeting is a good meeting with a director. 

Director meetings are a bit of feeling out process. We trade gossip. Play industry geography. The director impresses me with their filmmaking prowess and creative brilliance. I try to charm them with self deprecating praise of Epoch while subtley zinging my competitors. It's good fun. 

My aim is to determine two things. Is the director a talented filmmaker, as much or more than his reel reads.  And, are we a good cultural fit.

A couple months ago, my mind was wandering in a director meeting. It wasn't that I was bored. Well, maybe a little. As I get older I my attention span is receding at a rate equal to my hairline. I found myself less focused on determining their talent as a filmmaker and more on their talent as a salesman.

As he was talking about his process, I was thinking about...

I told you my attention span is waning. 

After the meeting I sat alone at my desk eating my Joan's on Third Chinese Chicken Salad. I started to ask myself some odd questions. Will an above average director who excels at selling be more successful than a superior director who isn't comfortable pitching? The former will certainly get more at bats. What they make of them is an entirely separate issue. 

The Chase or The Kill. Which is more important? I use to believe the kill but I'm not so sure anymore. Ideally the director is equally adept at both, but if I had to choose the superior talent which would it be? It's a dog fight. I believe the agency cares more about the kill except when they're hunting. 

It comes down to this, "Pitching is the New Directing"™. Harland Weiss of OPC coined that phrase. I started blogging again just so I could use it. I've now trademarked it and the t-shirts are at the printer. It's too true a statement not to steal. Sorry, Harland. It's not whose idea it is or even who had it first but rather who's better at marketing it.  

we've got talent

Attracting, building and maintaining talent is the name of the game. Whatever the role anyone plays in helping talent fulfill their potential by providing, financing or managing opportunities their talent is their own. They can take their services wherever they see fit. This is true for Hollywood actors, commercial directors, and NBA superstars. For those of us in the talent management business it's a reality of the trade.

To be clear, as talent managers we have value. We are not just conduits. We must be strong at what we in order to attract top talent yet we are only as strong as the success of the talent we manage. 

This brings us to Lebron. There is very little I can add that hasn't already been said but I'll do it anyway. The consensus outside of Ohio, it's not what he did, it's how he did. I believe he owed Dan Gilbert, the Cavs owner, nothing except full disclosure. Announcing on National TV he was departing without notifying his current team privately is the NBA equivalent of leaving your wife via text message. At least in the case of a text, it isn't aired in front of 9 million people. 

I understand what Lebron did. If I was 25 years old with all the fame, money and talent the world has to offer I may take my services to a warm climate to work, win and hang out with my closest friends. He just could've handled it a lot better. One of the by products of having a young and an experienced manager in Maverick Carter.  

The Cavs should be thankful for the 7 years of service Lebron brought. He made the city relevant and exciting in the time he was there. The franchise value increased greatly and they made a lot of money. He is not an indentured servant. Yet, the nationally televised over hyped "text message" break up, sent Dan Gilbert into a tirade that only confirmed the Cavs are an inferior organization. If Lebron had any doubts about leaving Cleveland, Gilbert did an awesome job of erasing them. And, probably a better of job of making sure no other name player would ever voluntarily sign there. 

In truth, the Cavs landing Lebron in the first place was a luck of the draw, literally. It was not as if Lebron was this amazing raw talent nurtured from obscurity and built into the superstar he is today. Yes, the Cavs helped his growth as a player but he was the unquestioned number 1 pick out of high school and viewed as a can't miss prospect. With all that said, I think going to Miami was a lame move for various other historical NBA and legacy reasons but that's an entirely different post.

What does all this have to do with commercials? 

Production companies like an NBA franchise value is determined by the level of their talent. They are also held in high regard based on the quality of their organization. It is that foundation that draws talent to the company in the first place. Do you think D Wade would've stayed in Miami and recruited his friends had he not already won a championship and had 3 time title winner Pat Riley at the helm? 

Directors are like NBA players. They know when they've become valuable not only to their companies but are also valuable to the industry. As their stock rises other opportunities present themselves whether they are financial or diverse. They may be grateful for the efforts and investments made on behalf of their careers but that doesn't mean they are forever indebted, as much as we'd like them to be. 

The only different with players and directors is the companies not only had to build the reels but also have to make business decisions based on their roster. Bigger offices. More staff. Diversifying the business. If a director departs, the company is left with the long term investment and a potential reduction in billings. These are the risks company owners must take. We must believe we can retain our talent or adjust our companies in the case of departure.

Directors need to always push their careers and seize their moment. Company owners need to always push their companies and look for the next new thing. In the perfect world when their is a strong relationship, they can find a mutually beneficial way to do this together. 

won't get fooled again

Someone once told me that production companies do two things, produce films and manage talent. One we get paid a mark-up for and the other we do for free. 

A major trend over the last decade was the rise of the so called "buying a job" strategy. It is the perfect example of where our skill set of management and producing come into play. 

"Buying a job" is when the agency sends a project that is creatively desirable but under financed. Believing it is a great opportunity to gain a spot for our director's reel, we bid on the project despite the obvious budgetary shortcomings. We're prepared to call in favors, go into the mark-up and even pay out of pocket to finance the production.

Utilizing the "buy a job" strategy presents a fine line between investing in your talent and subsidizing advertising for a major corporation. Often that isn't defined until after you see the finish product. This is where management comes into play. 

We had a job a while back. The creative had potential to be a very good spot. The director was inspired upon first seeing the storyboards. He had a real vision how to plus the creative. We decided to engage. On the initial conference call and the follow up preceding the treatment, everything was going well. The agency was buying the director's take but most important seemed to be a very willing partner. We knew going in the the budget was super tight. We tested the creative waters and now we had a decision to make. Should we start slashing the mark-up? Call in favors? Ask the director to work below rate and forgo participation? Are we prepared to possibly go out of pocket?

We had the conversation internally. All fingers were pointing toward "buying" the job. The directors treatment was great. The efx house we were partnering with was gung-ho and added a lot to the concept. The creative director was supporting the vision. If we took out a whiteboard and wrote down all the pros and all the cons, the pros would be overwhelming dominant. However, there was only one nagging con, the agency itself. 

I raised the question that the agency had no history of producing high quality creative work neither had their client. What was going to make this project different? I said one thing before we made the decision, "If this agency was any good they'd be called Wieden & Kennedy...and there probably is a very good reason they aren't." Not wanting to be unsupportive, we went for it regardless of my misgivings. We submitted a number the client could stomach, clearly stated our creative goals to the agency and soon enough the job was awarded. Off we went with the highest of hopes and the greatest of intentions. 

I will not go into the sordid details but let's say it didn't go as planned. The spot won't go on the reel. And, we discovered the reason why this particular agency doesn't produce quality work. Agencies have lots of problems but do not undervalue or underestimate their creative impact and contribution in producing spots. When deciding to buy in you need to bet not only on your director but also the agency. This determines whether you are investing or subsidizing. 

In the end our story didn't have a terrible ending. The agency and client got the spot they wanted. We didn't. The financial damage was limited. We turned a small profit. Although I would've traded all of it and then some to see the director's vision on the screen and on his reel. 

Lesson learned all around. 

inspirational director and supportive parents

Yesterday I promoted one of our competitors. After that magnanimous gesture I felt the urge to promote ourselves. Indulge me. 

This week we signed a director named Jessica Sanders. Yes, that's right she's a woman. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. We met Jessica a couple years back. She had a great story, lots passion and endless potential. What she lacked was experience. We curiously watched her career progress, in particular Mal kept a close eye. As time went on she continued to hone her craft and find her voice. And then she made a piece for Sony.

After watching it I was sold. I won't spoil it by throwing out a bunch of cliched adjectives. I'll only quote Tara who said "It made me wish I had nurturing parents." Watch it. You'll understand why. 

SONY make.believe from Jessica Sanders on Vimeo.

What prompted us to sign Jessica is not only the ability to tell human stories in an artful entertaining way but her entire persona. She is a great creative and cultural fit for Epoch. We need both. Although she comes from a documentary background it's too limiting to describe her talents. She is a filmmaker with a wide array of experiences and influences to draw upon. Her work is graphic and beautiful and most of all honest. I won't sell her too hard in this post but we will in the real world for no other reason than we're believers. So... 

Check out her reel. 

Jump on it while supplies last. I have a feeling it's going to be in high demand. 

some girls

Sam Phillips, the founder of Sun Records, was famously quoted as saying (and i paraphrase) if you can find me a white guy who can sing like a black guy i'll make a billion dollars. He signed Elvis Presley to his label and the rest is history. Taking a lead from Sam, find me a woman who can direct comedy like a guy and I'll make...whatever is left of my mark-ups. Or at least provide the industry something it's conspicuously lacking. 

I've talked about this for years at the risk of company annoyance. I was raised by a divorced mother. I grew up with older sisters. I have two daughters. My partner is a woman. Do you sense a pattern. 

Despite my predisposed affinity towards women, it's hard to dispute they are poorly represented in our creative ranks. When you look across the commercial directing landscape it's amazing how few there are. Over the years there are pioneering notables - Pam Thomas, Peggy Sirota, Annabel Jankel, Melodie McDaniel and Epoch's own Paula Greif. There are other equally bold and talented women but comparatively the divide between male and female directors is disproportionally large in number and stature. 

Why are there so few women directors? It's not like they're operating heavy machinery. Is the female gender less creative? Less ambitious? Less visual? Less interested in storytelling? I'm sure not. Is it the proverbial glass ceiling? A vast industry conspiracy? This seems to be too organized and calculated to be pulled off in our community. So, what it is? Maybe just inadvertent societal sexism. 

There are women creatives I've spoken to over the years that would love to work on Nike, ESPN, Budweiser or other supposed masculine brands. It's a fight to work on those accounts. Very few are afforded the opportunity. They are usually relegated to tampons, packaged good or various feminine products. Maybe from the onset, female directors are pigeonholed in a similar fashion. I don't have any concrete proof although It would make an interesting sociological study.

This lack of representation isn't limited to women. It's Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, pretty much all minorities with the exception of Swedes.

To me directing will always me about point of view. Many people can learn craft (lighting, composition, performance, coverage, etc) but self expression in a collaborative art form is a true talent. To quell unique voices, whether intentional or not, limits the creative heights our industry could rise to. We need different perspectives. Different experiences. People who see the world from a different perch and not just in specific genres but across the entire creative spectrum. 

In an industry in a constant search for fresh ideas and new talent, this maybe one of our last great untapped natural resources. Let's start mining it.  

what happened to the director's cut?

There was a time when every spott on our reels were a director's cut. Well, not every one but the majority. The client got their cut. The agency got their cut. And, the director got their cut. Everyone was happy. 

Rarely did anyone make a big stink about it. On occasion we'd have the discussion whether it would be insulting to the agency. They loved their edit and doing our own indicated we didn't. We rationalized it by saying we had the luxury of creating a :43 or they had to make compromises for the client or were forced to lose great moments or shots. It is no longer so simple.

Have the agencies become more sensitive? Are the clients more proprietary? It has nothing to do with ego or procedures and everything to do with distribution.

Back in the day when we edited a directors cut it was only for our reel. No one ever saw it except for the generous agency person who screened our work. It was solely for marketing. Today, if the guy in the machine room decides to download it onto Youtube or the company tape librarian unknowingly places it on the website, it's out there for the world to see. 

The brands are no longer in control of their images, the marketing tools they own and paid for. It was one thing when it was for industry use. It's another thing altogether when it's for anyone with wi-fi and a computer. I can understand the client's refusal to allow director's cut now that the films are available for the world to see with the click of a button.

Whether the death of director's cuts are a good thing or a bad thing is clearly debatable. Some say we should see the director's original intent. Others say its a collaborative endeavor and should remain within the marketing parameters. Regardless what side of the argument you stand on, there is little question director's cut are becoming yet another casualty in the digital revolution. 

sign on the line that is dotted

Whenever I receive a call from a director looking for a new home I ask two questions - Why do you want to leave? And, have you told your company? The first question has many different answers. The second is slightly more loaded.

As a general rule I don't to talk to directors until they have told their companies they are unhappy and are planning to shop around. In most cases the director has spoken to their companies about their dissatisfaction. Once secure everything is out in the open, I'll set up a meeting. If it isn't the right fit for Epoch, I often offer my unfiltered advice to help in their decision. Some take me up on it. It's a great learning experience for me. 

Recently I've encountered three situations where the director was still under contract. They all had similar stories. They spoke to a company owner about their concern over where there career was heading. By their account, they were honest and upfront. In each scenario, the companies were understanding. They wanted to work on the relationship with the hope that it could be repaired. While they were addressing their issues, they understood the director's need to explore other possibilities. It was open, respectful and civil, that is until they decided to leave.

The problem was not the departure. It was the contract. The directors all had several months remaining on their deals. In two of the cases, a company principal gave them verbal assurances that they would release them from their commitments if they wanted to opt out. When confronted with the reality of the loss the company struck a different tone. They wanted compensation for release or the contract term honored. They were concerned over perception, lost billings and company morale. Understandable. It hurts the ego and the pocketbook. That's when things get nasty. Talk turns to buyouts. Lawyers get involved. Contracts are examined for breach. It's bad for everyone.

It's a very emotional situation. A company has invested time and money into a career. The departure is public and can be humiliating. I understand all the personal and business reasons to insist upon the director honoring their contract. But, when you pragmatically examine the dilemma you have to ask yourself, do I really want someone in my company that doesn't want to be there?

Directors are not chattel. They are human beings. Well, most of them. For me, I only want directors who believe in what Epoch does. Who trust our ability to manage their careers. That feel a part of and appreciate our culture. If they are losing faith or growing unhappy I want to understand it. May be we can resolve it. May be we can't. If in the end, they feel they would be better served elsewhere, they should leave regardless what's on a piece of paper.

As I see it negativity spreads like a cancer. It infects your staff, your culture, your brand and your roster. Whatever short term monetary value is gained by retention it creates long term and potentially lasting damage. Life is too short to be deal with someone who is marking days off a calendar. Set them free and you along with it.

the art of the pass

A typical production company occurrence... 

The Rep found out about a project. They knew they had the perfect director. They put together special links. Double checked on the director's avail. Worked the agency producer hard. And finally, in came the scripts. Off they went to the director. Then the word came back. It's a pass. All that effort for naught.

REP
"He's passing? You're kidding me, right?"

EXEC PROD
"Nope. He doesn't like it"

REP
"Why not? He's perfect for it. He hasn't worked at this agency. It's top creatives."

EXEC PROD
"He just isn't into it. Says it's a lame idea. Same thing he's seen a million times"

REP
"Can't he just get on a call? If he doesn't like it after that we can pass then. What's the harm? I practically begged them for this board. Can you talk to him?"

EXEC PROD
"Believe me there is nothing I'd like more than to take the agencies money but I don't think it's great enough to convince him."

(Long Pause)

REP
"Fine. What the hell are we going to tell the producer?"

No one likes to pass. Directors don't want to appear ungrateful to the agency or the rep. Reps want to be able to deliver on what they sold. And EP's want to book work. To effectively manage a directors career passing is a must. I'm a firm believer in it. It's a necessary tactic for building talent. It shows the agency the director has integrity and standards. It shows the director you have taste and support their instincts. And, it shows the Reps you're committed to building creatively viable directors.

Determining how to pass, when to pass and why to pass, I have a few steadfast rules.

• Never pass on schedule unless of course its true. If you lie inevitably the schedule gets pushed and you get caught. Been there.

• Never do a job to solely get into an agency. Mediocre boards lead to mediocre spots. Agencies don't come back to directors who deliver mediocre work unless, they really like them. Then, they send more mediocre boards. Fast track to B status.

• Never convince a director to bid on a project unless your confident it's can't miss creative...or it's lots and lots of days with lots and lots of money.

• Honesty is the best policy. If the director is passing for creative reasons then say so. Be tactful, respectful and vague unless they want specifics. The first reaction is anger but the second one is a challenge. You'd be surprised how often a spurned agency will come back.

Ultimately there are only 3 reasons to do a job - love, money or experience. Assuming the budget sucks and your not getting an all expense paid trip to Tuscany, all that is left is creative desire. If a director doesn't feel inspired then it is only fair to all parties to pass...and then desperately sell it off to someone else.

relationships matter

Quite a few years back Epoch wanted to get into the London market. We made a deal to be represented by Danny Kleinman's newly formed production company called, Large. The company didn't work out as well as everyone had hoped. Within a year, it was dissolved.

We wanted to continue our presence in the UK. The best way to do so was to open our own company. We partnered with Rob Godbold, our producer at Large, to form Epoch London. To get started, Rob made a deal with his good friend Johnnie Frankel, Danny Kleinman's producer, to share office space. It was a great situation as we both needed time to recover from the Large demise and begin our new ventures with minimal overhead. Very quickly it helped grow our companies. After a year, we moved into our own space. Danny and Johnnie partnered with Ringan Ledwidge to form Rattling Stick. We maintained our bond after ceasing to be roomies. Whenever Danny had a US a based production, we would bid the jobs for him and act as a service company. This situation created an even greater degree of trust and comfort, enough so that we formed a deal whereas Epoch would represent the Rattling Stick roster in the US.

Last week, Ringan Ledwidge, opted to no longer be part of the Rattling Stick/Epoch alliance and sign with Smuggler despite being an RS partner. Ringan has an amazing reel. One of the best in the industry, here and abroad. He could work as much or as little as he wanted in the US market. He chose not to work at all. The absence of engagement wasn't for lack of boards. Or, for lack of effort on our part. Or, for lack of our desire to deliver him into our market. In retrospect, it was for lack of relationship.

The Rattling Stick deal stemmed from our friendship with Johnnie and Danny. Ringan was simply part of the package. For us and him it was an arranged marriage. We knew this going in. I went to London and met with Ringan before the deal was reached. We aided in the spec production of a music video off a canceled Nike job. When he was in LA we attempted to get together but never were able to connect. I offered to travel to Vancouver on a job he was shooting there. We tried to make a relationship. Not hard enough.

If asked Ringan would readily admit he didn't make much of an effort to forge a relationship with Epoch. The truth is the onus was on us. I should never have expected him to meet us halfway. We needed to give 90% from the onset with the hope that eventually it would lead to a more balanced relationship. If he rejected our overtures then it would've ended sooner saving everyones time and efforts. Or maybe he would've appreciated our gestures and reciprocated. Gotten to know us better, and we him. Maybe it would've led to a successful venture. We'll never know.

Ringan told us, as he was quoted in the trades, that he wanted to be at Smuggler based on a friendship he had developed with Brian Carmody. It was more fun and comfortable for him. This personal connection may motivate him to make himself more accessible for the US market. I believe his comments are sincere.

When it comes to relationships with directors nothing can ever be taken for granted. Seeing a lot of boards or working consistently is only part of the equation. There needs to be chemistry. Respect. Likability. Personal trust. Common goals. And, in the best case, friendship. If none, or few, of those intangibles exist chances are the relationship will be at best dysfunctional when booking work and short lived when not. 

As it relates to Ringan. We wish him well. He's extremely talented. And, what I got to know of him a good guy.

Lesson learned.

can i really blog about director participation?

A few months back my main man, David Bochner, sent me a link to an editorial piece on espn.com. It was written by Bill Simmons. In the article Simmons discussed how the Great Recession is impacting the NBA. It's a pretty long piece so if you click on the link read the section titled "The 2011 Lockout That Hasn't Happend Yet". What struck me most in this particular section was the parallel to my industry.

Like the NBA, commercial production companies are a talent driven business. Talent is the NBA's product just as directors are ours. The players have a very specialized gift and skill. So do directors. NBA players, are compensated through a profit sharing system (I don't want to detail the NBA salary cap in this blog so trust me on this one). Directors are also paid by profit participation along with their day rate.

The problem that Simmons points out is the league is currently losing revenue by dwindling attendance as people prioritize their spending. That's the least of their worries.  In 2011, their TV contracts are due to expire. This is league's main revenue source. The networks and cable stations who air the games are going to pay considerably less for the broadcast rights. They are receiving less ad revenue therefore will pay less for the NBA game rights. Based on the league players agreement, the smaller the owners profits the less money left for player's salaries. So what in the world does any of this have to do with directors?

Production companies are in a similar boat. Major corporations are making less commercials. Even the ones they make, they want to make for cheaper. Our mark-ups continue to go down. Our margins are lessening. And, we are taking on considerably more risk and liability than ever before. In response, we are requesting better deals from vendors and crew and in some cases salary cuts for staff. I have yet to hear of anyone asking directors to re-do their deals.

I was surprised recently to learn of director's profit percentages that I felt were greater than the value of their work. Our industry places such a high premium on talent company owners tend to consistently overpay on director deals. When times were good we escalated the compensation of these deals. Yet, as times grow worse, we have not seen a contraction. Simmons makes the point top NBA players are under compensated and the role players are over compensated. Stars are near priceless and roster players are relatively expendable. Kobe Bryant is paid 21 million/year. Lamar Odom is paid 14. I think it's fair to say Kobe brings more value to the franchise than his 21 million and Lamar Odom brings a lot less than 14. I believe the same applies to directors.

Top directors add creative value, brand value and financial value to a company. In this economic climate, a mid level director relies as much on their reel as they do upon a production companies brand, expertise, solvency and relationships. To create a more financially healthy industry, director profit share should reflect whatever value their presence on the roster brings.

As the profits in commercials continues to ebb will reduced director partipation deals follow? It's happened in the music industry. It's happening in Hollywood. My guess it will happen in the NBA. Will it happen to us? It may occur eventually out of  financial necessity or maybe through the natural course of a market economy. Until that moment, prodco culture would indicate it's the last place most companies will look to cut when maybe it should be near to the first.