Informal poll here, guys, as we await the WOTS top ten.
Some of CI's competitors, for example Script Shark, ostensibly refer scripts that do well to industry contacts. CI's policy has always been that we make no representations about helping you market your script (Writers on the Storm contest excluded, of course.) We simply give you a thorough analysis--usually much more in-depth than our competitors--and charge you less, but the marketing is up to you. I've always hated the carrot and stick approach personally. I think it's a bit disingenuous to hold that prize out for people and then hand out disappointment to the vast majority of clients.
However, we HAVE actually helped a few clients from time to time. We just don't make a big deal about it. In fact, we've gotten a small handful of folks agents and managers.
So the question is: do you guys think CI should change our policy or keep it as is? Would like like to know (stated publicly on our website) that if your script gets a strong consider AND we consider it marketable, that we will all read it, discuss our feedback with the writer and then, with writer's permission, give it to some industry folks--bearing in mind that's less than 1% of submissions? Or do we just continue to offer better service and cheaper prices and not dangle some imaginary carrot? We're rolling out our new website within the next 2 weeks, so now would be a great time to incorporate any changes... IF we are going to make any. The floor is open!
--Jim Cirile
10 comments:
Keep it as is.... seems like a lot of bs from those guys, although on their web sites they have some success stories, but yeah thats probably one in a thousand right?
Contests wins and favorable analyses are both well and good, but they are, in themselves, dead ends. What the writer needs is an opportunity to have his/her scripts read by agents and producers. (That's my main reason for entering contests, not for the cash prize.) I would suggest that you state it as you did in your blog, that, in exceptional cases, you may offer such an opportunity to the writer. Also make it clear whether there are strings attached. In the fine print of the ScriptShark contest, the entrant guarantees ScriptShark an "exclusivity period" if he/she is a winner or finalist, and the fine print fails to make it clear exactly what that is. I don't know whether that "exclusivity period" or something similar applies to their coverage services. So, make it clear that such promotional help is rare, and state on what terms such help is offered.
Hey Jim,
Keep it the way it is.
I've always wonder w/ the other services that use the stick and carrot approach, if you have to buy all the 'add-ons' to the basic analysis to get a nibble at the carrot. It's easier to trust a service that simply offers an objective critique and that's it.
If you can and want to help a writer out, cool. But don't offer that as a way of enticing writers to use your service.
Best regards,
As long as you refer MY script to the right people, I'm fine with it! :-)
I think you should offer help to those scripts and writers you believe have potential. We all know how hard it is in this industry to make any headway without the help of others. However, I would not change your whole company make up for it. I would let it be know that few will even get that far and if they do there's no promise of anything. Because we all know there are no garanty's in this world.
In the rules & regs you guys stated that ALL entrants would recieve feedback, when does that happen?
Anonymous, if you enetred the contest and did not receive feedback, you need to contact us at coverageink@aol.com. Surely leaving anonymous messages on our blog is not the way to make sure you get your mini-analysis. We did actually have one fellow of out 907 slip through the cracks and I read his script personally this week. So please contact us.
Anonymous, if you enetred the contest and did not receive feedback, you need to contact us at coverageink@aol.com. Surely leaving anonymous messages on our blog is not the way to make sure you get your mini-analysis. We did actually have one fellow of out 907 slip through the cracks and I read his script personally this week. So please contact us.
I think you can keep things as is. But like one other person said, if you read something remarkable you'd be crazy not to pass it on. And if it gets made, that's pretty promotable.
Strong consider?
In the final table at the end of the comments, should be everything "excellent" for the
Recommendation?
Post a Comment