|
As always, Steve Davies's avuncular presence, provided reassurance that the conversation is moving in the right direction but there is still a real concern, especially from production-side companies, that many of the clarifications are too nebulous to have a significant impact. Eliot Liss deserves praise for stepping into the proverbial lion's den and certainly appears to understand many of the issues that trouble production companies. Liss walked a tightrope between offering empathy to production companies frustrated by the lack of clarity in a process hopelessly tilted towards those who commission the work, and defending aspects of the process which, one suspects, he would privately concede leave a great deal of room for improvement. It was refreshing to hear someone from agency-side admit that agencies have neither the time or the inclination to read sixty-page treatments. But it was only when challenged in the questions afterwards that Liss conceded that only agencies have the power to end the arms race that has prompted the exponential growth of these documents, both in length and sophistication. In reality, it's simple to solve this issue. All agencies need do is add a line to the document inviting production companies to submit a treatment, outlining the parameters of those treatments. A single sentence stating a word limit and a limit on the number of images would suffice. These numbers can be determined on a project-by-project basis. There is no need for a clever formula or for these numbers to be consistent with other similar projects. They can be fairly arbitrary so long as they are sensible and appropriate to the project. The only hard rule would be that any treatment which does not conform to the request would be returned without being read. It could then be resubmitted after it had been corrected. Liss said some agencies are already imposing limits on treatments. This is a helpful development, and DAVID would be interested to hear how well these restrictions are working. Please get in touch if you have worked within such guidelines. Another problem highlighted is the tendency to operate a triple bid even when the value of the project doesn't appear to make it worthwhile. Steve Davies pointed out that the 'triple bid' is supposed to mean a maximum of three bids, and that agencies can and do operate single and double bids. Eliot Liss concurred but it was clear from the reaction in the room that this discretion is sparingly used. This difficulty is amplified by the lack of transparency. Eliot Liss said only in unusual circumstances would an agency withhold the names of the other bidding directors/production companies to a director/production company on a bid, and added that he could see no reason why this might be routinely withheld. This remark generated the most dissent of all, clearly indicating that this is not the lived experience of many of those in the room who are accustomed to a culture of secrecy. Th uncomfortable truth is that this practice, along with a number of other aspects of the bidding process, likely derives from the power imbalance that lies at the heart of this business relationship, especially at a moment in the industry's history when supply of directing talent far exceeds demand. This manifested itself again when Liss suggested that production companies should push back against agency expectation that bid amendments should be prepared over a weekend if they are requested on a Friday with a Monday deadline. This doesn't remotely reflect the reality because production companies fear they will be the only bidder who fails to comply with such a request, and so they tend to just get on with it. DAVID has heard of many occasions when a harsh deadline has been met... and then there is no action whatsoever for a considerable amount of time. Aspirations of reasonableness, fairness and transparency may have been clarified by this document, and we will monitor this situation closely to see what happens next, but it doesn't seem likely that the situation will improve until mandated changes are introduced, and agency-side comply with them. We shall see.
| 
