Questions of intent

One idea from my last post is starting to bug me: what distinguishes documentaries from reality TV?

The old fashioned answer would be that one is highbrow and aspires to something more noble than the other but, ultimately, both manipulate participants to meet the expected outcomes of the producer(s). They're both forms of entertainment and, if you take a cynical view of something like the sexploitative approach of Big Brother last year, both genres aspire to make an impact beyond entertaining. In fact, Big Brother had an impact in parliaments that any honest documentary maker would love to achieve - issues of professional credibility aside.

I reckon the key issue is intent. Producers of reality TV have an obligation to engage their audiences financially, whether it's SMSing the show or purchasing the CD or responding to the sponsors and advertisers. Documentary makers aspire to engage their audiences in thinking and, potentially, responding. This is where it gets shady when you think about documentaries that attempt to influence. Perhaps reality TV is more honest by virtue of being obvious about it's intentions? It'd be like finding out that Supersize Me was developed after an informal proposal to KFC!

Content with intent

Your blog topic for this week is to research the proposal/pitch for a doco - how to write a proposal and whom to send it to.

While my previous post gives the impression it is becoming easier to have your documentary footage screened on television, I'd guess the budget for stations to actually pay for documentaries is shrinking. This would follow the diminishing budgets provided by the federal government for the ABC and SBS; and it is the public broadcasters who are most likely to screen documentaries:

SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) are major purchasers of Australian documentaries.

The ABC's online information is particularly helpful to producers of television documentaries, including many contacts. (However, the style of the page suggests it may be a historical document so I'd check contact details in advance of addressing the proposal)

The ABC also provide a thorough description of what should be in a proposal:

HOW TO SUBMIT A PROJECT
Initially, we prefer short submissions, 2-4 pages. That way we can respond quickly as to whether we have interest in the idea, and if it's a priority for the current slate.

This should include:
* A short synopsis;
* An outline of the concept in terms of how you conceive it working on screen;
* An idea of the audience and strand it is targeting;
* Additionally, you should list the key creative talent on board the project (and include CVs), and outline whether you are after development funding or pre-sale

SBS Independent outline a similar format for proposals on their website.

For proposals being sent to other broadcasters there may be different requirements. Anna Kelvie advises keeping to the minimum page length outlined by the ABC but other online resources outline and utilise a much longer format.

Another interesting online resource is this proposal checklist. While it's not specific to documentaries it gives some sense of what may be important to the person evaluating and, thus, better inform the proposal planning process.

Aside from the importance of writing an engaging and succinct proposal, the document must address the funding required. The ABC pages previously cited distinguish between informal, formal presale and acquisition proposals.

My impression is that an informal proposal would outline the proposed subject and request funding for development or production. It would be like a 'cold call' in terms of offering the sale of a product and stating your qualifications to deliver. If you already have contacts with executive producers, you may be able to skip the informal process. A broadcaster, like the ABC, may fully or partially cover the cost of production and I'd guess this would be a formal presale. This commitment can open other avenues of funding, such as the Film Finance Commission (FFC) or the financial interest of foreign broadcasters, who "generally only consider projects which have an Australian pre-sale":

Before approaching networks and overseas markets, it is important to examine the FFC's requirements noted in their Guidelines. Producers who have contacts in the domestic and overseas film community, and whose work the potential financier knows, can send proposals at almost any stage of development. However, for producers who are not known, it is advisable to send the broadcaster a presentation package as an introduction to the project...

Here is a checklist of items that should be included in a presentation package:
* title of the project
* contact details
* project copyright holders
* estimated length, gauge/format, genre
* production budget estimate
* estimated production and completion dates
* synopsis: one-line, one-paragraph, one-page
* principal crew plus short biographies
* brief director's statement about the style of the production and why it is interesting/relevant
* financing (including details of any other pre-sale offers)
* a short treatment

The final type of proposal, the acquisition proposal, must rely on having a finished documentary. If you've already funded the production and are not desperate to recoup costs, I'd guess there are other avenues to explore such as film festivals to build interest before approaching distributors and then broadcasters.

Before concluding this blog I'd like to raise other issues related to proposing a documentary that interest me. Ownership of the final product and rights for screening would require thorough consideration and, undoubtedly, some sort of contractual negotiation. This might seem an obvious statement but I'm thinking how some documentaries change direction during production. An example is the film Some Kind of Monster, which began filming as a documentary about Metallica recording an album but went on to find critical success beyond the audience of fans for whom it was originally envisioned. There's a turning point in the film where the documentary makers have to discuss with the band whether to proceed but I wonder what the executive producers had to do?

This next point returns to issues from my previous post. With the internet and other media now available there are more ways to promote a documentary and also enhance it so I'd expect a proposal should include strategies to capitalise on these. The ABC expect online rights, including segments and transcripts and commercial stations are also moving in this direction; but many new avenues for content will open as broadcasters eventually embrace and exploit the legislated move to digital. (I consider taxes well spent when the ABC are able to explore many things the commercials stations can't or won't tackle.)
The ABC might not list all the possible permutations for documentary content in their proposal information but Duane Varan, director of the Interactive Television Research Institute at Murdoch University, believes they are important:

"If you go to the BBC and you are pitching a linear documentary you are at a huge disadvantage, because the BBC is looking for content which it can use across its diverse platforms. If you pitched a concept that is rich with the opportunity to exploit content interactively, then you have a leg up." (Quoted by David Crowe in Coonan's perfect road map to the past, Australian Financial Review, 18-19 March, 2006.)

Other online options being explored by documentary makers include offering raw interview footage for review or to adapt and reuse under Creative Commons licensing; or how content is being licenced by the Discovery Channel to Google for their Google Earth service.

The subject matter of the documentary may lend itself to other broadcast formats, such as music clips or advertising, so there may be potential to cross-sell the program. I think one of the reasons the documentary genre has enjoyed increased popularity in recent years is because it shares something in common with reality programming. Reality TV has thrived on product placement and utilising new technology such as the internet and SMS. Maybe we'll see Documentary Idol, a TV show about producers pitching proposals where viewers pick the documentaries they'd like to see?

Anyway, this isn't entirely academic, the opportunities for savvy documentary producers to capitalise are being encouraged. As the AFC's website states:

The integrity and infinite possibilities of the form demand your creativity. Explore the greats and experience the new.

Free content

Ten would like you to be our roving reporter!

Recently channels Seven and Ten have been offering to broadcast material submitted by viewers, whether it's SMS, MMS or emails of footage, pictures or text messages. Ten's news director Jim Carroll said some footage of cyclone Larry they received from viewers was of broadcast quality and both Ten and Seven screened submissions in news bulletins. Yahoo7 have also published it online.

I'm sure you're thinking it would be exciting to have your footage screened nationally but it's worth reflecting on the deal they're offering, here I quote from Crikey.com.au:

Ten News Director Jim Carroll acknowledges that anyone who submits material to Ten using the new service will not be paid. Or to use his quaint phraseology, the material will be submitted “on a glory basis”. The reward is meant to be seeing your images used on the news.

Meanwhile, the fine print on the deal specifies that anyone submitting content grants Channel Ten a “perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, unrestricted world-wide licence to use, and license others to use, your footage.”

In other words, if you send them anything it becomes theirs. They own it. You might not even be able to put it in your portfolio.

This is a dodgy deal.