Almost every documentary begins with a proposal. Unless a filmmaker is lucky enough to be able to work entirely from his or her own financial resources, some commissioning body or other will have to be persuaded to underwrite the project. The task of the proposal is to get somebody to say: ‘yes I will fund this idea.’ To get that to happen the film-maker must first identify potential commissioning organizations and then present the concept in as clear, as attractive and as persuasive a way as possible.
A documentary maker with an idea to propose must first to decide where to send it. An independent film-maker, or one at the start of his or her career usually has two options: to go directly to a broadcaster or distributor, or to approach an established production company. The benefit of the first course is that it cuts out the middleman—and the middleman’s percentage of whatever profit there may be. Working in the second way, through an established production company, has two advantages. The first is that unless the film-maker has a company of his or her own with limited personal liability, if anything goes wrong, the film-maker is left financially responsible for the mess. The second advantage is that an established production company is likely to have good relations with a number of executive or commissioning producers among the broadcasters. One must remember that commissioning a film or video production involves the broadcaster in a financial risk. The money may be spent without the production living up to expectations. Many broadcasters try to minimize that risk by selecting producers and production companies with a known track record, with whom they have worked before and whose professionalism they trust. On the other hand, they are also always under pressure to develop new ideas and new talent.
If the film-maker decides to go it alone, he or she will need a knowledge of available television channels and funding bodies, as well as of who is responsible for commissioning their work. It is not very hard to get this information. Many film-makers will be aware of their locally accessible television or cable networks and production companies as well as other possible sources of finance. In some places handbooks published by a film-maker’s group or association will contain the necessary information.
Where such a source of addresses does not exist, a documentarist’s best way forward is to ask the advice of other colleagues and film-makers. Some film-makers are afraid to do so in case the person to whom they speak steals the idea. Bringing a subject to a production company’s attention may possibly stimulate the company to develop the idea itself. There is no copyright in ideas—just in the way they are realized. In truth, although this does sometimes happen, it is really rather rare. Most documentary makers are honest and few creative people would wish to spend their time and energy on a second-hand theme. After all, a bare idea is usually so general that it is something nearly everyone will already have thought of it at some time or another. The risk of plagiarism is far outweighed by the advantages of sharing knowledge and information resources.
Different countries and states work in different ways. In some, like Britain, funding for the whole process from start to finish is usually provided by the broadcasting organizations. It is they who will pay not only for shooting and editing the production, but also for the development from a preliminary idea into a fully fledged working treatment. In other countries, the documentarist will have to find support from other sources, as the broadcasters will only come in to provide finance for the actual production when all the preparatory work and research has been done, and a complete ‘dossier’ has been compiled. In a few places, such support is provided by the state, elsewhere private financial institutions play the funding role.
Very often the amount of money from any single source will not be sufficient to cover all costs. Today, more and more filmmakers are having to approach a number of different backers at the same time, putting together a package of complex financial deals. Many television documentaries are credited on the screen as ‘co-productions’, which once used to mean little more than co-finance arrangements, one leading partner taking editorial control of the work and the others simply coming in with a share of the money. These days co-production frequently implies an active involvement by all the named parties. The film-maker often has to perform a difficult balancing act to satisfy a number of collaborators, even in the form of collaboration known as ‘presale’, in which the right to show the film is purchased in advance at an advantageous price.
It can be especially hard if the co-production is an international one and the local culture of each different organization demands a different approach. British-American co-productions are one example of such a conflict. Though the culture of British television and that of the American Public Broadcasting Service are not so very dissimilar, other US channels, such as Discovery, A & E or Disney, have a very different outlook and favour very different styles. Collaboration between a producer in Britain and one in France or Germany involve a different kind of complication, even though the broadcasting culture may not be dissimilar. Co-productions involving countries which use different languages may even make it necessary to allow for the film to be shot in more than one language at the same time. If the film is in-vision presenter led, this may mean having more than one presenter standing by at each location; alternative interviews may need to be shot in more than one language, separate graphics—titles at least—may need to be prepared for each language. All this is within the realm of the possible, but it does increase costs which must be allowed for in the initial budget.
Where the film-maker is looking for partners to finance the production, it may be necessary to create different proposals for different funding bodies. Not, of course, to tell each a different story, but to make sure that the aspects of the story most relevant to each target organization are made quite clear. Some broadcasters are above all concerned with the factual content of the suggested film, often requiring detailed support and references from acknowledged experts in the production’s field, others are far more concerned with the artistic treatment proposed and wish to see it described in detail.
Having identified a suitable organization, the next task is to discover to whom in particular to send it. Here it will be necessary to identify the specific department or strand of programming for which the concept would make suitable fare. The only way of really getting to know the subjects and styles favoured by the different strands of output coming from a broadcaster or production company is study: watching the output carefully, and noting the names of the executive or series producers responsible. For example, it does even the best of ideas no favours if it demands the use of a presenter when the strand under consideration invariably restricts itself to voice-over commentary.
The prospective film-maker should take account not only of customary style of a commissioning organization but also of the range of subjects covered over time—and not just in the strand in question. If a documentary about the same subject as the film-maker wishes to propose has recently been shown, even elsewhere, it is extremely unlikely that another bite at the same cherry will be commissioned. Unfortunately the quality of what has already been broadcast is not an issue here. It doesn’t help to protest: ‘Yes, I know that you recently showed a film about X but it wasn’t very good, whereas mine will be.’
A film-maker with an idea to put forward will need to be familiar with other factors too: the kind of treatment the subjects are given in this strand of programming, the sort of budget allowed for—estimated if necessary from the perceived production values—and, last but not least, the length. It is not unknown for a naïve film-maker to send a proposal for a one-hour film to the editor of a strand of half-hour programmes.
Each commissioning producer or strand editor has his or her own likes and dislikes, favourite subjects, preferred formats. When writing the proposal it is obviously an advantage to know what they are. Mostly they are not mysterious or difficult to find out. A telephone call is often all that is needed to get a good idea of what the commissioning editor is looking for. Some broadcasters in the UK hold open days for their different sections, at which the person responsible for commissioning new programmes meets potential film-makers and makes clear the kind of production currently being favoured. These meetings are organized in the UK by PACT, the independent producers’ association. Similar meetings have been held elsewhere in Europe under the auspices of the European Union’s Media project. Going to open days and other such events is useful for the independent film-maker working alone, not only to find out more about what the market is looking for but also to meet other documentary makers and compare notes.
The proposal will of course be written in such a way as to attract the commissioning editor who reads it. One must not forget that such individuals receive huge numbers of proposals every week. What does a commissioning editor want to know initially? In the experience of most documentary makers, the answer is three things above all:
1 What is it about?
2 Who is in it?
3 What will it show on the screen?
and in some cases, important though not over-ridingly so, a fourth:
4 How much will it cost?
In addition, some commissioning organizations may require further information in order to consider an idea for production. These details usually relate to their specific needs. Educational television broadcasters or producers, for example, are likely to want to be given a detailed account of the intended audience and the educational aims of the proposed film. Some broadcasters openly publish their proposal requirements, others depend on prospective film-makers speaking directly to the person responsible for commissioning work.
Note that the above list is hardly different from what would be in the billing—the published promotion for the programme in a newspaper or magazine tv listing. That is not surprising, given that the person commissioning the work will try to respond to the idea as an ordinary viewer, and is likely, therefore, to be attracted to precisely the same kind of production as are the general public. In addition the commissioning editor’s first task will be to ‘sell’ the film to whoever makes up the channel’s schedule. After that, the production will have to be promoted to the audience. A proposal which from the very beginning suggests to the broadcaster how it might best be pitched is likely to be received more warmly than one which depends on the commissioning producer’s imagination to see its potential. (However, documentary makers should be wary of making claims that are not achievable. It is one thing to claim that, say, Sean Connery or Robert Redford will be the presenter, quite another to convince the broadcaster or production company that the big star has agreed to take part and will appear at a price that the budget can afford.)
The proposal should be a concise account of the project. At this stage a long essay is not the appropriate way to put the idea forward. Given the number of submissions arriving daily on their desks, commissioning editors are likely to read no further than the first few paragraphs unless their interest is immediately aroused. Some admit quite frankly that too long a proposal will simply not get serious consideration. Others openly request that no proposal should run to more than two pages long. Naturally such considerations depend on who the proposer is, and whether the commissioning editor knows his or her work. An Executive Producer at one large broadcasting organization admitted that she employs an assistant to send all proposals back automatically ‘except for those that cannot simply be returned.’ When asked what characterized a proposal that cannot simply be returned, she said ‘one with-’s name on the bottom,’ referring to one of the best known and most distinguished producers in the industry.
The proposal’s primary job is to generate interest and enthusiasm. The idea must be presented with sufficient clarity for anyone reading it to grasp the essentials right away. Covering up uncertainty in the approach with cloudy language will be unhelpful to the idea’s prospects. Commissioning editors are quick to notice gaps in logic and fudges in concept. If the writer is not entirely clear over what the proposed documentary is really about, you can be sure that the person reading the proposal won’t be either. Suggesting that the film might do this or possibly might do that is a sure way of courting rejection.
Who is in it does not just mean starry names. Of course, if the proposed documentary is to include well-known personalities with clear public appeal, this should be mentioned. But ordinary human interest is far more important to the success of a documentary than famous film-stars. If the film is built around a character, that character’s personality should come over in the proposal as well as can be contrived. If the subject is a group of people, or if people are otherwise involved in the film, they should be described in such a way as to make them seem as immediately interesting to the reader as they are to the film-maker. Of course, many kinds of documentaries, wild-life films for example, are not about people at all. In such cases, the question who is in it is irrelevant. But it should be recognized that without strong characters on the screen, the proposer may often have a more difficult task persuading a commissioning producer to take the project further.
One most important point must always be borne in mind: if the proposed documentary depends on the willing participation of particular people, they must be asked for their agreement first. It happens all too often that an idea is accepted by a broadcaster and subsequently it turns out that the film-maker is unable to deliver the contributors promised by the proposal because they are unwilling to appear before the camera. Not only does this waste everybody’s time but it puts a black mark against the name of the film-maker involved—a black mark which may take much time and effort to erase.
What will be shown on the screen is perhaps the most important part of the proposal. In advance of detailed research, it will not be possible to be specific about actual sequences and scenes. Nonetheless, an idea of how the subject is to be handled in terms of film values is absolutely essential to the success of a documentary idea. ‘Remember, format is everything,’ one executive producer advises.
The link between the idea behind the film and its realization on the screen is one of the main keys to the success or failure of both the proposal and the final documentary Most subjects can be handled in a large number of different ways—through different participants’ eyes, for example. A commissioning producer or editor will be looking both for achievability and originality in the proposed way of handling the subject.
Achievability is sometimes forgotten in the first flush of enthusiasm about a subject. Some film-makers put forward grandiose ideas which seem fine in theory but look obviously impossible—to the commissioning editor at least—in practice. Of course just because the style of handling a subject seems impossible to the commissioning editor, that doesn’t necessarily make it so. It is the task of the documentarist writing the proposal to make sure that the editor understands that any difficulties in the proposed technique have been foreseen by the proposer—foreseen and solved. This applies not only to technical and logistical difficulties—’how exactly do you suggest getting permission to film in the White House lavatory for two continuous weeks?’—but also artistic ones—’how do you intend to make the viewer understand that the whole film is shot from the point of view of the pet dog?’ The commissioning editor is not likely to believe that it can be done unless the proposal indicates how.
Originality is important in both the concept and its realization After all, many documentary ideas relate to a world which is already familiar to the television audience. The film-maker is saying to the viewer not just look at our world, but look at our world my way. The approach a documentary maker takes to the subject is his or her signature. The commissioning editor will be looking for a signature that is both attractive and original. However, novelty just for its own sake is not generally appreciated. The originality of the treatment must be appropriate to its subject if it is to appeal to the proposal’s reader. It goes without saying that what seems original to one editor may not do so to another, just as what strikes one as appropriate may appear unacceptable to another. This is where the film-maker’s knowledge and understanding of the likes and dislikes of the person to whom he or she is sending the proposal come into play.
The last inclusion in many proposals is some indication of the project’s budget. At this early stage, it is not possible to determine exactly what all the costs of the production may be. Nonetheless, even at the start, it is important that the documentary maker shows a good grasp of the financial significance of what is in the proposal. Every strand of television programming will have a standard budget against which any idea may be judged. Though some commissioning editors are reluctant to tell prospective producers exactly what that target budget is, and will often say that it all depends on the kind of project that is being proposed, there are obviously extremes beyond which it is not possible to go. Too low a budget and the broadcaster may suspect the quality of the production, too high and the proposer may be excluding the project from serious consideration.
Whatever budget is suggested at this stage should be sufficiently close to the real thing that further discussion changes it by no more than a few per cent. It is not a good idea to start with an impossibly low cost, so as to attract a potential commissioning organization, and then at a later stage, to increase the estimate. Any commissioning editor will know very well what the costs of production of a particular project are likely to be. An unrealistic price smacks of unprofessionalism, if not downright dishonesty. In the worst case, a documentary maker can find him- or herself legally contracted and bound to deliver a film which is not achievable at the price agreed. Of course the budgetary target included in the proposal is only a first estimate. The full costing will be subject to later discussion in much greater detail and will be specified in the production contract if the project goes ahead.
What is best, at the start, is to divide the costs up and indicate how much is estimated to be spent on development, on pre-production, production and post-production. Before the idea has been fully worked out, it is quite hard to estimate these sums with any accuracy but with experience, a documentary maker will develop the ability to make a good judgement of how much will need to be spent on each part of the process. The beginner would be strongly recommended fully to imagine the final film, researched, shot and edited—how close the imagined production is to reality is not relevant at this point—and work out the costs accordingly.
A six part Documentary Series to investigate and celebrate the ingenuity, craftiness and tight-fisted stratagems of Britain’s scrimpers.
With
Ray Brooks & Rik Ball
Writer/Producer - Ian Davidson
Director/Producer - David Collison
Whether it’s for survival or pleasure, economy or profit, ‘scrimping’ offers many rewards. There’s ingenuity to be proud of, there are savings to be boasted of, and there’s moral superiority to be savoured. In this series, which aims to amuse as well as inform, ‘scrimpers’ from all over Britain and from all walks of life reveal their inventiveness and thriftiness, their triumphs and disasters.
The programmes will be shot entirely on location, in North Devon, Tyneside, the West Midlands, the Brighton area and the London suburbs.
Programme 1 will draw on material from all five locations but programmes 2 to 6 will each come from a single, broad based location. The precise content of progs. 2 to 6 will depend on research on the ground, but it will always be subject to the ideas set out in the Contents Overview (see following pages). We have not ruled out the possibility of shooting beyond the main locations when a good story demands.
Ian Davidson
David Collison
January 1994
Front page of a successful
proposal from
3rd Eye Productions Ltd
to Channel 4 Television