Life On The Bubble

OWA Scorecard Update

For last week's BOSI newsletter, I updated the OWA Scorecard Overview Grids to show the activity between the beginning of December and the beginning of February.  The article is below.  FYI, this is the last OWA Scorecard article I plan to write for the public until this summer, since I'll be focusing on the spec market between now and then.  As always, though, we keep up with OWA developments on a daily basis at www.itsonthegrid.com -- you haven't already, you should consider subscribing.  All the cool kids are doing it...

***** 

The Scoggins Report
By Jason Scoggins
February 24, 2010


If you’ve been keeping an eye on the www.itsonthegrid.com blog lately, you know there’s been quite a bit of positive activity in the spec market already this month, including several sales.  While it’s far too early to tell how this buying season will compare to the first half of 2009, I’m optimistic, and I’m looking forward to writing my first Spec Market Roundup of 2010 next week.

In the meantime, I thought it would be instructive to update the OWA Scorecard summary grids from my last article in this space.  The below grids are a comparison of that same big agency’s OWA Grid from early December 2009 to early February 2010.  If you’re interested in my methodology, read the introduction to the first installment of the 2009 OWA Scorecard here.

This will be the last OWA-oriented article in this space until mid-year when the Spec Market goes on hiatus for the summer.  The full 2009 OWA Scorecard will remain available for another few weeks to anyone who signs up to receive it at http://blog.itsonthegrid.com.


OWA Scorecard Overview – December 2009 vs February 2010

As you review the below numbers, keep in mind they are based solely on snapshots of one big agency’s OWA grid.  As with the full 2009 OWA Scorecard, what’s most interesting here (to me, at least) is the scale of the numbers and the comparison between the companies, as opposed to the raw numbers themselves.

MAJOR STUDIOS	On in Dec	Added	Closed	On in Feb
Columbia	24	5	5	24
Disney	15	1	5	11
Fox	17	3	9	11
Paramount	38	9	17	30
Universal	63	14	8	69
Warner Bros.	91	17	11	97
TOTALS	248	49	55	242

MINI-MAJORS & STUDIOS’ LABELS	On in Dec	Added	Closed	On in Feb
CBS Films	6	1	1	6
Dimension	7	2	0	9
DreamWorks	5	3	1	7
DreamWorks Animation	5	1	2	4
Focus Features	10	3	4	9
Fox 2000	5	5	2	8
Fox Animation	4	2	0	6
Fox Searchlight	8	0	2	6
Lionsgate	6	3	2	7
Mandate Pictures	1	1	0	2
MGM	5	x	x	n/a
Miramax	1	1	0	2
New Line	6	5	1	10
New Regency	10	1	6	5
Screen Gems	2	1	1	2
Sony Pictures – Stage 6	2	0	1	1
Sony Pictures Animation	4	1	1	4
Summit	3	0	2	1
The Weinstein Co.	7	2	0	9
TOTALS	97	32	26	98

Obviously, the above totals don’t add up because MGM fell off the grid between December and February, which I think says a lot about what the community thinks of that studio’s fate.  Interestingly, Miramax is not in the same category despite being on the block at Disney.  The agency even added a project to the grid by February (The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency).

OTHER BUYERS	On in Dec	Added	Closed	On in Feb
Cartoon Network Movies	2	1	2	1
Film Dept.	4	1	1	4
Gold Circle Films	3	1	1	3
Illumination Entertainment	2	1	1	2
Millennium Films/Nu Image	2	2	0	4
Overture	2	0	0	2
Participant	6	1	3	4
Relativity	2	2	0	4
Spitfire	4	0	0	4
Spyglass	2	3	1	4
Walden Media	3	0	1	2
TOTALS	30	12	10	34

Millennium Films/Nu Image didn’t have any OWA activity on the grids in 2009 until very late in the year (Bangkok 8 and the remake of Conan the Barbarian popped up in October), which is why the company didn’t appear previously on the 2009 OWA Scorecard Overview.  The addition of their numbers and the subtraction of MGM’s accounts for the discrepancy in the totals, below.

TOTALS	On in Dec	Added	Closed	On in Feb
Major Studios	248	49	55	242
Mini-Majors and Studios’ Labels	97	32	26	98
Other Buyers	30	12	10	34
TOTALS	375	93	91	374

About The Scoggins Reports:
The Scoggins Reports are terribly unscientific analyses of the feature film development business (in particular, spec script and open writing assignment activity) based on information assembled from a variety of public and non-public sources.  The numbers in the reports are by no means official statistics and should not be relied upon as such.  Past editions of The Scoggins Reports can be found in the archives of The Business of Show Institute (http://bit.ly/2HRZ67) as well as on Jason Scoggins’ website:  http://www.lifeonthebubble.com.

Details on each person, project and company in the Reports can also be found at www.itsonthegrid.com, a database of feature film development information [subscription required] including active open writing and directing assignments in Hollywood.  Click here to explore the IOTG blog, which includes daily posts of new and updated spec script, OWA, ODA and other film development information.

About Scoggins:
Jason Scoggins is a partner at Protocol, a literary management and production company.  He manages writers, directors and producers of film and TV alongside Protocol’s founding partners Brian Inerfeld and John Ufland.  Follow him here:  http://twitter.com/itsonthegrid.

2009 OWA Scorecard - Overview Grids

Below is my article for this week's Business of Show Institute newsletter.  It's basically the overview grids from the full 2009 OWA Scorecard I released this week (if you haven't gotten your own copy of the PDF yet, it's available over at http://blog.itsonthegrid.com), with opening remarks targeted at aspiring entertainment professionals.  

*****

On “Getting It”
By Jason Scoggins
February 10, 2010


Below are the summary grids I put together for my 2009 OWA Scorecard project.  They’re in the same vein as the 2009 Spec Market Scorecard, in that they show the overall numbers of the various buyers’ open writing assignment activity throughout last year.  These grids are part of the full 2009 OWA Scorecard that is available to anyone who signs up to receive it at http://blog.itsonthegrid.com.  Before I get to the numbers, though, I wanted to take a minute to talk about why this kind of information is as important to aspiring entertainment industry professionals as it is to people already working in the business.

One of the things I love most about the entertainment business is how remarkably different its rhythms and processes and customs are from other industries.  It’s difficult to understand just how peculiar this business really is, to “get it,” unless you take the time to study how the business works.  For most of us, our period of study took the form of entry-level positions as assistants to writers and filmmakers and reps and executives.  By the time we start to ascend the ladder, the business has been baked into us (think industrial forges and “trials by fire”); we get it, and we can tell within a few minutes of talking to someone new whether they get it or not as well.  And one of the things that make the industry so hard to break into is the sad but true fact that many people inside the business have the attitude that if you don’t get it, you’re a waste of their time, even if you’re a writer, and even if you’re just starting out.

So getting it is unequivocally important; it can make the difference between being dismissed out of hand and landing your first paying gig.  And that’s where companies like The Business of Show Institute and services like http://www.itsonthegrid.com come in.  The more information you know about the business (how it works, who’s where and what they’re working on), the more you will come across as a potential peer – someone worth working with, or (knock wood) hiring.

With that in mind, take a look at the below grids.  They were eye opening for me, someone who’s been in and around the business for going on 15 years, and they’re going to be just as instructional for you. 


2009 OWA Scorecard – Overview Grids

As you review the below numbers, remember they are based solely on one big agency’s OWA grids, with snapshots taken at six different points throughout 2009.  (For a refresher on my methodology, take a look at my first article on this topic here.)  Obviously, there are a number of projects that did not appear on those grids for one reason or another, and therefore the actual number of projects in active development last year is some percentage higher.  What’s most interesting here (to me, at least) is the scale of the numbers and the comparison between the companies, as opposed to the raw numbers themselves.

MAJOR STUDIOS	On in April	Added	Closed	On in Dec	Total	On all year
Columbia	36	29	41	24	65	9
Disney	15	14	14	15	29	6
Fox	14	24	21	17	37*	2
Paramount	38	47	47	38	85	7
Universal	55	60	52	63	115	23
Warner Bros.	71	79	59	91	150	31
TOTALS	229	253	234	248	481	78

The big reason to separate the above six companies from their subsidiaries and the mini-majors is to make it easier to rank the majors by last year’s OWA activity, as well as to see just how big the differences were between them.  I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the efficacy of having 85 or more (much more, in the case of Warner Bros. and Universal) projects in active development at a time.  Interestingly, the above rankings generally followed the rankings from the 2009 Spec Market Scorecard:  Universal and Warner Bros. bought the most specs last year (6 each), followed by Columbia and Paramount (5 each), with Disney and Fox bringing up the rear (2 and 3, respectively).

MINI-MAJORS & STUDIOS’ LABELS	On in April	Added	Closed	On in Dec	Total	On all year
CBS Films	3	7	4	6	10	1
Dimension	8	4	5	7	12	4
DreamWorks	4	12	11	5	16	0
DreamWorks Animation	5	9	9	5	14	0
Focus Features	4	8	2	10	12	3
Fox 2000	8	8	11	5	16	1
Fox Animation	2	5	3	4	6*	0
Fox Searchlight	6	5	3	8	11	2
Lionsgate	6	11	11	6	14*	0
Mandate Pictures	3	1	3	1	4	1
MGM	2	4	1	5	6	1
Miramax	4	1	4	1	5	1
New Line	10	8	12	6	18	0
New Regency	7	13	10	10	20	0
Screen Gems	3	6	7	2	9	0
Sony Pictures – Stage 6	0	4	2	2	4	0
Sony Pictures Animation	1	4	1	4	5	0
Summit	5	5	7	3	10	0
The Weinstein Co.	12	1	6	7	13	6
TOTALS	93	116	112	97	205	20

With a couple of notable exceptions, the hallmark of the above group is their efficiency in terms of filling their open writing assignments.  If you remove those 3 outliers, just 10% of these companies’ OWAs were on the grid for the entire year (7 out of 69 projects). 

OTHER BUYERS	On in April	Added	Closed	On in Dec	Total	On all year
Cartoon Network Movies	3	2	3	2	5	0
Film Dept.	1	3	0	4	4	1
Gold Circle Films	6	1	4	3	7	2
Illumination Entertainment	2	3	3	2	5	0
Overture	1	2	1	2	3	0
Participant	1	8	3	6	9	0
Relativity	0	4	2	2	4	0
Spitfire	2	3	1	4	5	1
Spyglass	1	4	3	2	5	1
Walden Media	3	6	6	3	9	0
TOTALS	20	36	26	30	56	5

TOTALS	On in April	Added	Closed	On in Dec	Total	On all year
Major Studios	229	253	234	248	481	78
Mini-Majors and Studios’ Labels	93	116	112	97	205	20
Other Buyers	20	36	26	30	56	5
TOTALS	342	405	372	375	742	104

While it’s tempting to think in “glass half empty” terms (a pretty small group of professional writers got writing assignments in Hollywood last year compared to, say, the active WGA membership as a whole), the above numbers are pretty encouraging when you consider how few films these companies have been producing annually for the past several years.  In my spec market reports last year, I took a number of potshots at the studios for not buying more original material.  I still believe bringing original material and new voices into the system is vitally important to the health of the business as a whole, but now that I’ve seen the above numbers, the subdued pace of 2009’s spec purchases makes more sense.

Perhaps the thing to focus on going forward is the percentage of projects at each company that were on the grid throughout 2009.  Here’s the breakdown, the alphabetical order:  Columbia – 25%; Disney – 40%; Fox – 14%; Paramount – 18%; Universal – 42%; Warner Bros. – 44%. 

Food for thought.


About The Scoggins Reports:
The Scoggins Reports (Jason Scoggins’ Spec Market Roundup, Spec Market Scorecard and now this OWA Scorecard) are terribly unscientific analyses of the feature film development business based on information culled from a variety of public and non-public sources.  These are by no means official statistics, merely a fairly complete summary.  Past editions can be found in the archives of The Business of Show Institute (http://bit.ly/2HRZ67) as well as on Scoggins’ website:  http://www.lifeonthebubble.com. Past editions of the OWA Scorecards can be found at http://blog.itsonthegrid.com.

Details on each person, project and company in the Reports can also be found at http://www.itsonthegrid.com, a subscription-supported, web-based database of feature film development information recently launched by Scoggins and several other literary managers.  For daily posts of new and updated spec script, OWA and ODA information, check out the IOTG blog here:  http://blog.itsonthegrid.com.

About Scoggins:
Jason Scoggins is a partner at Protocol, a literary management and production company.  He manages writers, directors and producers of film and TV alongside Protocol’s founding partners Brian Inerfeld and John Ufland.  Click here to follow him on Twitter.

IOTG: 2009 OWA Scorecard Part 3

2009 OWA Scorecard Part 3:  Fox
by Jason Scoggins
January 12, 2010

Here’s part 3 of my look back at the studios’ 2009 open writing assignment activity.  I explained how and why I’m doing this exercise in Part 1, but here’s what you need to know...

via blog.itsonthegrid.com

Again, in case you're not already a devotee of both www.lifeonthebubble.com and blog.itsonthegrid.com, here's the link to the latest installment of my 2009 OWA Scorecard series.

Scoggins: Part 2 of the 2009 OWA Scorecard

Here’s part 2 of my look back at the buyers’ 2009 open writing assignment activity.  I explained how and why I’m doing this exercise in Part 1 (which covered CBS Films and Columbia Pictures and is available here), but here’s what you need to know in order to understand the below grids: 

via blog.itsonthegrid.com

I just posted the above over at blog.itsonthegrid.com. This installment covers Cartoon Network Movies, Dimension, DreamWorks, DreamWorks Animation, The Film Department and Focus Features.

Shameless plug: Check out www.itsonthegrid.com

I just posted the Spec Market Roundup for October, and since that always means a bump in traffic here, I wanted to post a reminder to check out www.itsonthegrid.com, the new feature film development website that launched last week.

Big Announcement: www.itsonthegrid.com is live

So...you're in the entertainment business, or want to be, right?  You scan the online versions Variety and the Reporter most days, you have a pirated login for The Studio System, a dog-eared, year-old copy of the Creative Directory is on the floor next to your desk, and you live for Nikki's next derisive post about NBC/Universal and WME.  Think you're well-informed about the development side of the movie business?

Right -- you're scratching the surface, but you're not plugged in to what's happening on a day-to-day (sometimes hour-to-hour) basis inside the studios and agencies and production companies and management companies.  No one person is, truthfully, but some of us have access to more information than others.  Plus, it'd be great to have all that stuff in one place online so you can access it and do your thing whenever you want -- search, sort, research, track, and so on.

That's been the impetus behind www.itsonthegrid.com.  It's an online database of all things feature film development.  We took our collective 2009 spec grid, expanded it to include our current OWA/ODA grids and then connected each project with every person and company involved (including writers, directors, agents, managers, producers and executives).  Now that the site is live (Oh, did I mention it's live, as of this morning?  Check it out at www.itsonthegrid.com), we'll be updating it on a daily basis.  By the time you read this it will have become the holy grail of the entertainment industry.

In addition to the main site (where the searchable, sortable data lives, and where you can keep your own private notes on every person, project and company in the database), we've also set up a free section at blog.itsonthegrid.com, where we'll be teasing you with inside information as well as linking to articles from the trades and other sources about the development business.  Like LifeOnTheBubble, you can subscribe to the blog's RSS feed or receive daily emails with the previous days' posts.

If you're serious about the film business, you should get on the grid right away.  We've got very low introductory pricing through the end of the year, and if you sign up before January 1, 2010, we'll lock you in at those low rates for as long as you stay subscribed.  If you leave the business and don't need access to the grid anymore, no sweat -- just shoot us an email and we'll cancel your subscription at the end of that month.

Try it risk free:  Sign up now, spend the day on the grid and we'll charge you tomorrow.  If you don't like what you see, just shoot us an email and we'll deactivate your account.  

In Hollywood, information is power.  And it's all on the grid.  www.itsonthegrid.com

Scoggins Endorses: www.phonesheet.com

I've mentioned this in passing a few times over the past couple of months, but I want to haul out the megaphone to promote a friend's product:  www.phonesheet.com.  If you make or receive more than a handful of phone calls a day, you're going to want to sign up for this service.  And if you do, be sure to enter the promo code "scoggins" -- you'll get 10% off the already-so-low-you-won't-believe-it monthly fees.

Those of you already working in the entertainment business will know exactly what the site is/does just from the name.  For those of you unfamiliar with the term, phonesheets are the tools everyone in Hollywood uses to keep track of incoming and outgoing phone calls.  Back when I started as an assistant at ICM, the old school paper-based phonesheets were just getting converted over to electronic (usually FileMaker Pro-based) versions.  Lots of us assistants still had to keep track of calls with pen and paper and various colors of highlighters, believe it or not -- hundreds of marks and codes per day indicating "left words" and "returns" and so on.  (Ah, the joy of call dumping at the end of the day so your boss could start the next day's phonesheet with a clean sheet of paper.)

One of the guys who designed and built those FileMaker Pro phonesheets was Jan Zands, who earlier this year launched his new service.  www.phonesheet.com is the supercharged, web-based version of your now-old school desktop-based phonesheets.  I've been beta-testing it for the past six months or so, and it's totally badass.  Here are some of the things I love about it:

1. Since it's web-based, you can access your phonesheet wherever you are.
2. More than one person can access a given phonesheet simultaneously (no charge for additional users of a given phonesheet), which means my assistant can update it for me as well.
3. Its color-coding is completely intuitive (watch the demo video on the site to see the thought process behind it): red = incoming calls I need to return, blue = calls I've made/returned, green = outbound calls I want to make.
4. If your contact list is in Outlook or Entourage, it's easy to upload your whole address book.

PLUS...there's a mobile version of the service for Blackberries called Phonesheet2Go that's a game-changer (the iPhone version is already in the works; in the meantime, you can access your phonesheet with your iPhone through Safari).  Every call I make or receive gets logged right there on my phone and automatically syncs with the web-based version.

There's a lot more to love about www.phonesheet.com than just the above, but you should check out the demo yourself.  Regardless, the pricing is pretty perfect:  $6.95/month (when you sign up for 6 months; $9.95/month otherwise), plus $2.95/month if you use the mobile version.  Again, if you enter "scoggins" as the promo code you'll get 10% off those prices for the first year.  And there's absolutely no downside thanks to the 30-day free trial they're currently offering.

Bottom line, whether you're working in Hollywood or not, if any part of your day is spent working the phones, you've at least got to check this thing out.  Trust me, you'll thank me later.

Shameless self-promotion

My friend Julie Gray over at Just Effing Entertain Me emailed me a question last week about OWAs that she turned into a blog post that might be interesting to my readers as well.  Here's a link to the post; I waxed eloquent there, and the below is just an excerpt.

+++++++

Do you happen to know how many OWA’s are floating around in a given month? And compared to that number, how many repped writers, guild and non-guild are vying for those jobs each month?  I have a friend who’s gone to meeting after meeting for months now, with no gigs being landed of the OWA nature and she’s beginning to wonder what the ratios are of jobs to writers. Do you happen to have a take on that?

[snip]

I think the ratio of writers to jobs is a meaningless number. It's not as if every eligible writer (WGA or not) is being considered for a given gig. The actual number is probably no more than a couple dozen candidates per job, with each producer having a relatively short list that they go to for any given project (depending on the genre), plus a handful of outside-the-box suggestions from internal development executives and another handful of flavor-of-the-month writers.

Your friend shouldn't despair, though, or even get discouraged. The key to getting on those lists in the first place is all those general meetings she's taking. She's no doubt getting invited to come up with takes for projects with various producers, and to bring her own ideas to the table for development with them as well. She should just keep her head down and gut it out. She's got a seat at the table, and she just needs to hang in there until she gets her first (or second, or whatever) break.

[snip]

Seriously, go read the rest of the post on Julie's site.