What turns a director on to a board?
Hoping to gain some insights into that query, last month FCB, New York, senior producers Stuart Raffel and Laura Benjamin gathered four of the leading players in the commercial production industry into one room.
Frustrated by not always being able to get the director it hoped for, the agency set out to clear up the mystery behind rejected boards, and to inform its creatives about the intricacies of the process.
"We’re working on rebuilding our creative department, and there are a lot of new employees," said Benjamin. "Some creatives—especially junior teams who haven’t done a lot of TV—don’t know what happens once that board is delivered [to a production company]. Rather than sit around and complain, we decided to do something."
To that end, Benjamin and Raffel organized a seminar titled, "Reeling in the Right Director," and invited production company executives whom they thought could best speak for the industry. Present were Jon Kamen, proprietor of bicoastal/international @radical.media; Jules Daly, managing director of bicoastal RSA USA; and Stephen Dickstein, president/partner of bicoastal/international Partizan. Additionally, Tim Case, managing director of representation firm Creative Management Partners (CMP), bicoastal and Chicago, was part of the discussion. FCB also called in all its creative teams—who work on accounts such as AT&T, Alamo Rental Car, Chase Manhattan Bank and numerous others—to participate in the forum.
The overwhelming question that FCB wanted answered was, what happens once the boards get to the production company office? Does the director care about the presentation? Does he or she actually see the board? Would a director take a risk on an agency that he or she was unfamiliar with? And what other considerations are at play during that decision-making process? The issues raised were common, but the afternoon was not without surprises. Below is a roundup of the topics discussed.
Face Value
One of the first questions raised by FCB was whether the advent of the conference call has hindered the agency/production company relationship.
The panelists agreed that because half of their business was generated through established relationships, the conference call was not necessarily a deal breaker. The exception was with overseas directors. "In London they don’t have conference calls," related Case. "It’s such an alien process for them. They’ll pass on boards because they don’t know the people." Daly agreed that she experienced the same reaction from her U.K.-based helmers. "I have directors from London who have a hard time believing that one phone call is going to make or break the job."
Kamen was less concerned about the conference call dilemma, pointing out that the business has operated the same way since the advent of the fax machine 15 years ago, when face-to-face contact became less of a reality. "But obviously familiarity breeds confidence," he said, alluding to the fact that if a director or production company has a pre-existing relationship with an agency, he or she might be more inclined to accept the job.
One way to combat the hesitation overseas directors experience is to make sure the executive producers or sales representatives have a solid relationship with the agencies. "The times that I go to [the directors] and mention that it’s a job with someone that has worked with us before, that has huge weight," noted Case.
Of course without the rapport, it becomes more of a crapshoot. "I’d like to think we’ve all been able to do heroic sales and get directors to work at agencies … so the most important part of the relationship to me is that we become the liaisons for the talent because [the agency] often never sees [the director]," asserted Dickstein. "[The agency] sees a reel and you get a snapshot view, but what you really trust is the executives at the production companies to deliver, regardless of what happens with the director."
To Rip Or Not To Rip
Another query raised by the FCB audience was: Does presentation of an idea matter? Often times the agency will send its storyboards to the production company with elaborate packaging and/or a rip-o-matic—an approach that taps the agency’s in-house creative resources and can cost thousands of dollars. Is there an advantage or disadvantage to sending a rip-o-matic, and does the director take into account the packaging?
Across the board, the participants generally felt that the packaging absolutely didn’t matter, citing reasons such as, "You can’t put a pretty box through a fax machine," as Kamen noted.
And the rip-o-matic? Kamen acted as though he would rather receive a summons for jury duty. "Rip-o-matics for us are the kiss of death because invariably it has been shown to the client to sell a campaign," said Kamen, making the point that if the client is on board with a very specific idea, it stunts the director’s ability to tweak a script. Case suggested strategizing with the production company executive producer about how to present the work. "We can introduce a rip-o-matic to the director later and say, ‘Look, this is a client reality. How do you feel about it?’ " Case said.
The issue of packaging and presentation stirred a response from an audience member, who asked, "I’ve always thought or hoped that people would look at [the presentation] just long enough to get the concept. And as soon as they get the concept, that that’s the thing they’re going to react to."
While agreeing that a good idea is key, the panel held firm on the issue of less is more, stating that elaborate packaging makes the director suspicious that it might be masking a weak idea, rather than a stellar one. "Frank Budgen [of Gorgeous Enterprises, London] is a writer," noted Case, referring to one of the directors represented by CMP. "I could send him a whole chunk of gold, and he’d get in there and find out that there’s nothing there immediately."
While Kamen conceded that at times a cool package could be a taste indicator, he later summed up his point of view like this: "While it’s a lovely thing and we all appreciate the wonderful art direction and creativity that goes into the packages that we receive, I think the whole thing’s a pain in the ass. It’s expensive and sometimes gives us a false sense of reality."
Reel Motivation
Will a director do a job even if he or she knows it’s not going to make the reel? If so, what would be the reason? Money? To establish a relationship with the agency? Dickstein was first to answer.
"Hopefully, all of us at a certain level of the business fancy ourselves talent managers. We do things for the reel, we do things for relationships and we do things for money," he said. "It’s a business, and I think you completely strike out if you don’t make money, you don’t make friends and you don’t make the reel."
For Case, the criteria included money and a good idea. "I don’t think the relationship thing comes into play as I see it. If I tell [a director] to do a less-than-compelling project to get in with an agency, that’s a formula for disaster," noted Case. "It only works when everybody’s excited about it."
The consensus among the panel members was that more often than not, directors put 150 percent into any project they do. "Sometimes, something that you didn’t think was going to be fantastic turns into something amazing," said Daly. "They have the ability to make it more special than it was."
This led to the question, "How do you get directors to see the potential in a board? Every agency wants to hire a Michel Gondry (of Partizan) or a Tarsem (of @radical.media). But what if you’ve got a diaper commercial on your hands?
"Often you get the feeling that, ‘Well, this is a diaper commercial. Who am I kidding?’ I’m not going to send it to Ridley [Scott of RSA USA]," said Raffel, "and so we’re often put in the position where if we don’t shoot high, it looks like we’ve given up too soon."
Kamen suggested that the agency keep things open-ended. "You can call us and say, ‘We have a board and it has some potential—or it has its share of problems—would you take a look at it, and tell us what you think before we tell you who we want?’ " related Kamen. "We might look at it and say, ‘You know what? Ridley’s got a thing for diapers now. Diapers could be good that week.’ You never know. And we’re only talking about great directors turning down work. There’s a lot of young, talented people who are looking for an opportunity to develop a relationship with an agency."
The suggestion of using a new director raised the issue of trust. "How do you get us to trust a new director so we can go back to our clients?" Raffel asked.
Dickstein responded, "I would hope that I am a consultant to the advertising business and that I’m not going to just give you someone who’s tried and true, but someone who is best for the job." Daly concurred, "Maybe don’t call about one specific director. Call and talk about the project you have. Especially with companies like ours because we know our guys best, and we can work through that as far as time goes or input or creativity."
Case did some role-reversal for the group. "If I woke up tomorrow," said Case, "and was a good agency producer, based on what I’ve learned, I’d call up Billy Sandwick [executive producer at bicoastal HSI Productions], and I’d call Jon and Steve and a few others and I’d ask them, ‘Here’s the script, could you make a recommendation for me?’ I would let that happen first."
But an FCB audience member countered, "Often when I call your companies and speak to the people who represent directors, they’ll say, ‘Did you have somebody specific in mind?’ "
According to Dickstein, that kind of question is meant to feel out the agency’s creative vision. "A lot of times people will say, I’m looking for Mike Mills," explained Dickstein, referring to the helmer represented by The Directors Bureau, Hollywood. "Well, Mike Mills can’t do every job, but that gives me an indication of what you’re after."
"It’s like playing Jeopardy," added Kamen. "We suggest a director and the agency says, ‘That’s who we were thinking of’ and we’ve won. We’d like to think we picked the right answer because we’re all thinking along the same lines."
Big Vs. Small
Is there an aversion to working with a larger, more bureaucratic agency rather than a boutique shop? More bluntly put, Raffel asked, "You have two boards sitting on your desk. One is a mediocre idea from Goodby, [Silverstein & Partners, San Francisco], and another is a great idea from an agency that has more layers of people to go through. Would the director take the Goodby project?"
Ever the diplomat, Kamen responded, "You always have to look at the work. O&M [Ogilvy & Mather] is an agency that has done a lot of work to come a long way with IBM. It was a problem project to begin with and the end result turned out to be much better. We were open to listening because [O&M] has set a reasonable standard," said Kamen, referring to a project @radical. media director Lenard Dorfman helmed for IBM’s long-running "Blue Letterbox" campaign.
Raffel put the question to the panel again: "So if an agency said, ‘OK, it is a dog of a client, help us move it along,’ [a director] would do it?"
"Yes, they’ll do it for the relationship," affirmed Kamen. "[Joe] Pytka [of Venice, Calif.-based PYTKA] did it all the time, and Pytka’s so-called ‘favor jobs’ turned out to be award-winning."
Seemingly unconvinced, Raffel asked again if there were two ideas on a table and the better one was from an agency the production company didn’t have a relationship with, would the production company take it?
Case stepped into the ring, "Look, we all want to be heroes," he said. "Our directors would rather take the D script to a B rather than take a B+ script to an A-. I’d rather go the distance too."
"Agencies, for us at this point represent cultures. At Wieden+ Kennedy [Portland, Ore.], you know the beast. Same with Goodby. Is this going to be good? Frustrating creatively? Some are a no-brainer and everyone speaks the same language," Kamen said.
Context
While everyone would like to think that a great idea always warrants getting the director the agency is aiming for, the panel was quick to remind FCB that a rejected board could mean a hundred different things, including scheduling conflicts, taste, money and general availability.
"The decisions that are made on the production company side are on the basis of context," said Dickstein. "If someone hasn’t worked for two years and needs to buy a house in Los Angeles, or they’re starting their own production company where all of a sudden the bottom line makes a difference, you might get a different decision than someone that’s been working end to end on award-winning projects.
"The same board that Traktor wouldn’t even consider," continued Dickstein, "might be a career opportunity for a Barbara McDonough. It could flip-flop two years later. We’re completely tracking the context of the decisions." (Both McDonough and the directing collective Traktor are with Partizan.)
Gauging that context is the hard part. If there is anything to be learned from the seminar, it is that the production company-agency relationship is crucial to getting results. Without an open dialogue, there can be no assurance as to why one job is chosen over another. Being aware of the realities that exist in each other’s business is the first step.
Perhaps Case summed it up when he said, "Look, the best thing in the world is send me nine words. If they’re a good nine words, I can get anyone in the world to do it." q
