A commenter posted a series of questions/comments about my Spec Market reports from a friend (I think the person is a screenwriter, based on some of the comments) on the July Scorecard that I thought warranted a separate post in response. The commenter edited the friend's emails to keep company- and person-specific information out of the conversation, and I've edited a bit further for clarity in this context. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything, though, and you can
read the original post here.
Where's/how's [Scoggins] getting his data? Our own management company isn't on these charts, so we know there are at least 4 more specs than recorded, right? With 0 sales. What about the 100 other management companies their size, [A, B and C] for example (all small 1-3 person lit management companies)? And those are just the three that I've personally worked with. Did they not send out a single spec?
I collect and confirm my data from a bunch of sources:
- tracking boards, including www.trackingb.com (which I highly recommend) among half a dozen others;
- the trades;
- several sites that boil down the trades, including DoneDealPro.com and FilmNewsBriefs.com (which I also highly recommend); and
- personal conversations with agents, managers, producers and executives.
Based on those conversations, I'm pretty confident I'm collecting information on basically all the scripts that go wide, but I know I miss the bulk of those scripts that get slipped out to just a few people and don't hit the bigger boards. This is the reason I started separating the numbers for specs that go wide from the others: The sales percentages for the latter are meaningless, since I don't have enough data on the ones that don't sell. I've been pretty up-front about this in several of my Spec Market articles, in particular the June Scorecard.
Regarding specific management companies that haven't made the Scorecard, the point of the Scorecard is to list the studios and other buyers who have bought specs this year, and the agents and managers involved in selling those scripts. It doesn't list companies who haven't sold or bought anything this year, so if the management companies this person references are in this category, they would by definition not be included in the Scorecard. That said, the grid I use to pull my numbers together includes the information for hundreds of such scripts, including who sent them out. If the material these companies sent out hit the boards, chances are I've captured it.
It's hard to imagine he's tracking every spec that "goes out". And what is "going out"? Submitted to all major/mini-major buyers? Or one manager giving one spec to one friend (maybe even a producer, not a buyer), in which case it COULD sell, right? This data is not making the charts...except, my guess is, only in the rare occasion that it sells...creating a bias toward good news...
Again, I think I'm getting more or less every script that goes wide to producers, and I trust people will point out the few projects I miss. But I definitely can't capture the scripts that stay below the radar unless the rep contacts me directly to let me know. (And by the way, I wish more reps and assistants would do this; I'm perfectly capable of keeping the details on the DL, and it would be great to have a better dataset to mine for insights into the market. Email me directly at jscoggins at lifeonthebubble dot com.) Often, the first time I hear about a script that went directly to just a couple of people is when news of the sale hits the trades. I wish I had a better window on this part of the market, but it is what it is.
I don't think I'm biased toward good news; if anything I've been pretty pessimistic about the numbers. You only have to read the opening remarks of my articles to get a sense of this.
Which is only to say those companies (including the one WE work with...) ARE submitting specs (the three above all did for me, some of them multiple times...)...but are below the radar...and the numbers are FAR worse than we imagine.
I think the numbers are pretty solid for the the stuff that goes wide, but yes, it stands to reason that the bulk of the numbers I don't have are for scripts that go out to select producers/buyers and then don't sell, which would mean the sales percentages are much worse than the Scorecard shows.
Where's he getting his numbers? Reverse engineering from sales? TrackingB? Well, two of our acquaintances' screenplays were [on TrackingB] and not included on these tables, so he's not getting his numbers there, right? So, he's probably just counting on data he collects personally from agents and managers? He could be going from sales recorded in Variety and Done Deal, etc., but then how does he capture data on "non-sales"? Voluntarily submitted by agencies and managers? That would be suspect (though you think it'd be higher with self-reporting). Tracking boards? That'd be best, I suppose, but what about things that didn't make tracking? What about submissions by companies/individuals below the radar?
Again, I'm covering all of the above sources pretty thoroughly, but I welcome additional input from the community to make sure the numbers are as complete as possible. If the two acquaintances' scripts went out wide but didn't sell, I'd bet I have them on my grid. If they did sell and I haven't included them in my numbers, I'd like to hear about it. There was a case a week or two ago where a script that sold in March, before I locked down my methodology, didn't make it onto my grid. I've since corrected that and will make a note of it in my next Roundup and Scorecard (sorry, Luber-Roklin), and I invite anyone else who thinks their script sales aren't in my numbers to let me know so I can fix the problem.
What's the difference between "Wide" and "All Specs"...what category(ies) are being added to "Wide" to get it to "All"?
"Wide" is any script that gets sent out widely to the town. Admittedly, this is pretty subjective, and I basically have to rely on the reps themselves to label their strategy appropriately. For example, if a script is said to be "out to select producers" or goes "direct to buyers," it's not being sent "Wide" (even though everyone who wants it will eventually get their hands on it) and I keep it out of the "Wide" numbers. "All Specs" means those that went Wide plus the rest (projects that get reported as sold in the trades, plus those few scripts each month that hit the boards or come up in conversation that aren't going wide). If I had better data for "Select" scripts, I'd list those numbers in their own grid, but at this point those numbers are meaningless, so I simply list "Wide" and "All."
If you go through the 7 months he's tracked the average sale rate is 20.7% which seems WILDLY high to me and is skewed by the 1 in 5 sale he lists for the first half of July...which seems more like 20% than 33% to me...and the asterisk doesn't seem to explain that deviation...this is the only math I checked, but only because it stood out as highest, but maybe there's something in the numbers I don't get.
There was definitely an error in one "Wide/Percent Sold" cell in the July Scorecard (it should indeed have been 20% instead of 33%), and by the time you read this I'll have fixed it. I can't tell where the above 20.7% number comes from, though. The two sets of numbers seem pretty straightforward to me, but if that's just because I'm familiar with them and other people are confused at how I've laid them out, please don't hesitate to suggest alternative ways to go.
Lastly, I think there's not really enough data here to constitute a statiscally significant sample -- 304 specs might be large enough, but the ones that sold...may not be really. When we say 30% of those sold are comedies, we're talking about a very small number of screenplays (14).
I totally agree, the dataset is not a statistically significant sample, with the possible exception of the "Wide" numbers, since I think I have pretty good underlying data for that category. Regardless, the "About The Scoggins Report" blurb at the bottom of my monthly articles specifically acknowledges that it's a "terribly unscientific analysis." I do think the numbers are interesting in and of themselves, and I think one can draw some conclusions about the market as a whole from them. But I wouldn't decide to sign with one agency or management company over another, for example, just because one had a higher spec sale batting average. I might take into consideration a total lack of sales in 2009, perhaps, but that number really doesn't paint the picture of the agent's or manager's or company's capabilities.
I'm glad he's doing this, and even if it's invalid, it's better than nothing as far as guidance for what to write and what representation to seek or sign with. And maybe it IS valid, but...what can we really learn from it? WGA stat: 40,000 scripts registered annually (and that's if all are registered which they're not), so...75% EVER get circulated..."20%" of those circulated ever sell...meaning... .15% sell, I think? 1.5 in every thousand written?
I don't think it's useful for aspiring writers to consider the total number of scripts registered with the Guild as a baseline. Relative quality varies so widely among that cohort that in many cases you might as well be comparing a child's drawing to a Picasso. Or at least, a 2nd Grader's self-portrait with that of someone who had been to art school for a year or two. Don't get me wrong, the numbers are definitely daunting, and breaking into the business as a writer is still a crapshoot. But there are screenwriters and there are screenwriters, if you know what I mean.
So? What if we like the odds? We write. What if we don't? We still write.
Well said.
Recent Comments