Production Company Structure Options - Page 2

In Page 1, I introduced a few organisations structure and my thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Preference

My current preference is for something like Option 4. I don't actually care whether a person is a "professional" in the field or not, after all a professional is just someone who earns money from their chosen activity. There are enough professionals in the world that give the rest of them a bad name, especially as technologies becomes easier to use. Look at the plethora of wedding videographers backing in the early 90s. There were a lot of bad wedding videos then.

I'm happy to accept that people are happy to get involved whatever their professional status. Just because they're pro, doesn't mean they'll get a bigger share.

Other issues

a) How much is loaned kit worth?

If I'm the director, composer, producer, sound designer, then I'd expect the shares associated with those roles. More problematic is that if I can bring in a camera, microphones, etc should they be worth a share as well? If I didn't provide them, the production company would have to so they're not losing out. Same questions apply to the animator who uses their own workstation and software, the actor who obtains appropriate costume and props.

If this were a contracted-out world, then you'd contract the role and expect them to provide their own equipment. Only works so far, until you find the contractor uses different software or a different format to the rest of the production house.

I think there's an idea there, if it's to be given a share, then it's got to be worth something, e.g. over £500. That would stop people at the other extreme saying that the pen and paper they're supplying should count. Again more complicated than at first glance.

If it's based on Option 8 above, then maybe there's a case for percentage points for loaned kit.

I'm against procedures going to this level of detail for a start-up based on people volunteering, so I tempted to say it's the people that count, not the equipment. I like nice, clear and simple rules that everyone can adhere to. So no shares for loaned kit. May have to change that if a sponsor donates kit, but that's another story.

b) How good is good enough?

This is an issue for every production house but has some quirks when people have less expectation of being paid. In my case, I've stated the level of quality I'm looking for. If it's my own production, then in the first instance, I'll be the judge and either accept or reject the products. The counter-side here is that if I reject, then I won't use the product unless it's resubmitted for approval.

This will probably result in a few upset submitters. But that's a fact of life. My view is that it's better to hear constructive criticism now than live in the belief that everything's acceptable.

As the production company grows in size, I'll probably expand the number of reviewers. Think of how many of the micro stock photography sites work at the moment with numerous reviewers. In the end though, it'll mainly be down to the director to review and pass judgement on quality.

If I'm signing up to someone else's production, then I'll only look for projects that look like they'll be of good enough quality. They also have the right to confuse me.

c) Licensing

I've mentioned something similar before. If you submit and we accept, then the submitter agrees to the appropriate licence whether they back out later or not.

d) How much is talent worth?

Same as no talent in my opinion. This is where I would differ from a professional production company. I'm aware there's a difference, but I choose not to recognise it. What I'm interested in is what the person delivers to the project. If that is of sufficient quality, then that's good enough.

e) How much is each role worth?

Is an actor worth more than a cameraman? I don't know where to start here. One part of me says start with everyone equal. Another says focus on the time that people. I may base the percentages on a typical Hollywood breakdown.

f) How long should it take?

Think about an experienced pro creating a product in 2 hours. It may take a less experienced person 5 hours to achieve and the quality may not quite be there. So when members say that they've spent 3 hours on a product, should you take into account how efficient they are. Now that's a minefield. Imagine telling someone who's spent a week on something that you'll only give them a share based on 1 day. This issue smacks of bureaucracy to me. I'm very keen to avoid this one. I'm curious if you've any tales about this issues arising.

Why bother?

I know that a lot of what I'm writing may seem overly formal. I've had a bit of time where I've had nothing else to do other than write or read (no internet connection either) so I decided to write down my thoughts about setting up the production company so I can complete the Space Opera project that I want to.

Whatever the organisation format, I fully believe in being upfront, honest and clear. It may mean reading a bit more, but there's fewer chances of arguments later. I don't want people getting involved in the project only to take offence at a later decision.