PBS Needs Indies – Guest Blog from Kartemquin Films

Posted on April 8, 2012
Email

For those of you who may not be documentary filmmakers (or even for those of you who are), you may not be aware of a recent decision PBS made which has the potential to impact independent documentary producers.  While the decision to move PBS’ two flagship independent film series Independent Lens and POV, from Tuesday nights to Thursday nights may, on the surface, seem like no big deal, it actually has a great deal of potential impact and has caused an uproar in the documentary community. 

Chicago-based Kartemquin Films — which has been producing documentaries for more than 45 years, including a number which ended up on PBS (The Interrupters, Milking the Rhino, In the Family, The New Americans, and Hoop Dreams just to name a few) — has been particularly vocal on the issue, publishing an open letter to PBS on March 15.  We recently asked Kartemquin’s Communications Manager, Tim Horsburgh to share more of the story of the “PBS Needs Indies” campaign.

*********************************************************

PBS Needs Indies grew out of phone calls and emails shared by independent producers in the wake of an article in Current, published March 12. Alarmed at the confirmation of fears we had all privately held for months, a decision was made to draft an open letter to PBS.

We published our open letter to PBS on Kartemquin.com on March 15. “As independent filmmakers, as participants in the evolution of public broadcasting, as viewers and as citizens,” the note read, “we protest PBS’ decision to move the two premier strands of independent documentaries, Independent Lens and POV, from their established home on Tuesday nights to Thursday, a night on which local stations program locally-selected material.”

The effect of moving the two shows to Thursdays, as reported by Current, was a 42% drop in ratings from the previous season. This dramatic drop in viewership concerned us greatly, suggesting that viewers were now unable to find these documentary film programs in the PBS schedule.

As Kartemquin’s Artistic Director Gordon Quinn stated: “In terms of having an audience in a democratic society, in terms of getting people talking about things, there’s nothing like a PBS broadcast. PBS is free, and it’s huge in getting into rural areas. That reach, all over the country, it’s a critically important audience that’s vastly underserved.”

Worryingly, the treatment of these shows seemed indicative of a diminished sense of their value in fulfilling the public service mission of PBS, and of PBS’ support for airing independent, diverse voices and stories.

More than 1000 filmmakers, viewers and patrons of public broadcasting joined our movement as signatories over the next 3 weeks. But the initial pressure was enough for PBS to announce just one week later that they would reconsider their scheduling.

Major filmmakers pledged their support and made our letter look like a greatest hits of Independent Lens, POV, and some of the best American documentaries of the past decade: A Lion in the House; King Corn; Where Soldiers Come From; Power Trip; Have You Heard from Johannesburg?; My Perestroika; The English Surgeon; Freedom Riders; Hip-hop: Beyond Beats & Rhymes; Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room; Enemies of the People; The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court and many, many more.

Our campaign caught fire on social media, under the Twitter hashtag #PBSNeedsIndies. Coverage in the press was also significant, with The New York Times covering the campaign, and positive support from About.Com Documentaries and Alt. Film Guide. Kartemquin Board member Patricia Aufderheide also wrote at the Center for Social Media “Why it Matters Where PBS Puts Independent Lens and POV.” And we were honored to have the Writers Guild of America, East advocate that their membership also sign the letter. For his IndieWIRE article “The PBS Debacle: Why a New Time Slot Spells Disaster For Indie Docs”, Anthony Kaufman spoke to filmmakers who had signed the open letter, as well as Gordon Quinn, and representatives from ITVS, POV and PBS. In a report at Fair.org Peter Hart asked, “Is PBS Trying to Hide Some of Public TV’s Best Work?”

A blog post by PBS veteran Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, entitled “To PBS, With (Tough) Love,” galvanized public television viewers and independent film advocates. “If you think the creativity and unique visions of  life captured by independent producers, journalists and filmmakers deserve the best possible platform on public television,” Moyers and Winship wrote, “you can read and sign [Kartemquin's open letter] yourself.” The response was a deluge of audience support for these programs.

The PBS Ombudsman also weighed in on the matter, stating: “These programs are very important, probing subjects and issues not likely to be seen elsewhere on television.”

Most recently, we formed a steering committee with the full participation of the International Documentary Association, the world’s leading member organization promoting documentary film. The intent of this committee is to continue our leadership role in watching out for independents, and ensuring the PBS mission is met. The initial members of the committee are the following veteran and award-winning filmmakers who have long supported and been supported by public television: Beth Bird, Heather Courtney, Marshall Curry, Tim Horsburgh (for Kartemquin), Byron Hurt, Brad Lichtenstein, Steve Mendelsohn, Paco de Onis, Gordon Quinn, Julia Reichert, Bernardo Ruiz, Carlos Sandoval, Renee Tajima-Pena, Michael Winship, Pamela Yates.

PBS has still not decided on which day the series will find their home. We hope that the final decision will reflect the way in which the programming in these series meets the fundamental mission of public broadcasting. We are grateful and appreciate that PBS has honored the public mission of public broadcasting, recognizing that independent programs showcased on Independent Lens and POV showcase underrepresented viewpoints, serve underserved audiences, and offer innovative strategies for making connections with Americans in ways that help them be more active and productive members of society.

For those just learning of this issue and wanting to pledge their support, our open letter is still open and accepting signatories and comments. We feel it is a crucial time in ensuring the future of these programming strands, and that it is vital for the audience to tell PBS just how important these programs are to them. As Bill Moyers put it:

“The effort has made a difference. Talks are ongoing and the [New York] Times reports that PBS now has “agreed to find a new home next season” for the two series. An announcement is expected to be made at the PBS annual meeting in May. That’s good news, but until the decision is made, it’s important to keep letting them know how you feel — write PBS or sign that petition.”

We encourage all independent filmmakers and fans of public media to join us as signatories by: 

1) commenting on the Open Letter

2) emailing us at PBSNeedsIndies@kartemquin.com

3) or tweet #PBSNeedsIndies to @Kartemquin on Twitter

or 4) all of the above

*******************************************************
Addendum from Docs In Progress: For those of us in the Washington DC/Baltimore area, we have already experienced the impact of scheduling of POV and Independent Lens which have not been carried by WETA, WHUT, or MPT on the national carriage schedule for quite some time, with programs often being programmed several days or even weeks behind the national schedule and, on some of these stations, not in primetime. 

We know that this region has a strong interest in documentary programming based on the number of documentaries being screened around town at any time and the engagement we see at many of our Docs In Progress public programs.  In addition to the recommendations made by Kartemquin, we encourage you to reach out to your local PBS affiliate to request that POV and Independent Lens be screened in primetime at the same time as the national schedule.  Contacts for the three regional affiliates are included below.

WETA – Channel 26
703-998-2600 or http://www.weta.org/contact

WHUT (Howard University Television) – Channel 32
202-806-3200 or http://www.whut.org/whut/?page_id=28

MPT (Maryland Public Television) - Channel 22/67
410-581-4097 or comments@mpt.org

Leave a comment

12 Tweetable Crowdfunding Tips

Posted on April 1, 2012
Email

Some crowdfunding quick tips from Docs In Progress Treasurer Kiley Kraskouskas of Thinking Forward Media and Docs In Progress Executive Director Erica Ginsberg.

#1
Launch a crowdfunding campaign when you have time to focus on it.  You need to devote a lot of time and effort to the campaign.

#2
Test your campaign with a few trusted friends before launching. Trust their honest reaction.

#3
Don’t bite off more than you can chew financially or timewise with perks.

#4
Be democratic by offering perks at all price levels: $5 to $1,000. Most folks give $25-50, but don’t rule out small or big backers.

#5
Match your perks to the themes in your film.

#6
Line up early-in funders to help build momentum. As soon as you get to 10% of campaign goal, you are 5 times more likely to reach goal.

#7
This is not just about fundraising, but about building your audience, so engage as many people as possible.

#8
Update your campaign regularly.  Use a video pitch if possible.

#9
Don’t hide behind buzz words. Just be yourself. Ultimately backers are supporting you and want to know you. Authenticity goes a long way.

#10
E-mail. E-mail. E-mail. Best way to reach friends and family is via direct and personal emails.

# 11
Thank backers in a timely manner. Tweet shout-outs. Send a personal e-mail. Go old school with a memorable handwritten thank you note.

#12
Crowdfundraise at different stages of your project.  Be specific about how backers funds will help move the project forward.

Leave a comment

Are you caught up with the technology at the expense of emotion?

Posted on February 8, 2012
Email

Docs In Progress welcomes guest bloggers from time to time who  provide perspectives on different aspects of documentary filmmaking.  Today we are pleased to feature Andrew Zinnes, co-author of the The Documentary Film Makers Handbook and producer of The Documentary Summit, a traveling two day professional conference for documentary filmmakers which will be coming to Washington DC on March 10-11.  Since one of the topics which will be discussed at the summit will be the balance between technical values and storytelling, we asked Andrew to offer his two cents on the matter.

If there’s one form of media that’s benefited from technology, it’s documentary filmmaking. I remember back in about 1999, about when I started working in documentary, that the first real prosumer cameras came out like the VX-1000; all of a sudden, filmmakers could get decent images and sound without having to fork out tons of cash on Super 16mm cameras and Nagra decks.

And pretty much at the same time, Final Cut Pro came out and now filmmakers didn’t have to lean over Steenbecks or burn their fingers on hot splicers. You didn’t have to worry about making a wrong decision in either shooting or editing because you could just keep rolling as tape stock was cheap and with a simple click of the mouse, a botched cut disappeared.

Since then things have only gotten smaller, faster, cheaper and to some sense – more complicated. DSLR cameras look fantastic, but what codec are you shooting? What frame rate? Does the audio not quite match up because of poor slating or a slight error in what setting you chose?

And then there’s post. Do we have to transcode and compress this footage? If so, using what? Apple Prores? To H.264? To MPEG? Do we deliver in SD or HD? What about Final Cut X? I love it. I hate it. I’m going to Premiere. I’m going to Avid! Do I need a Twitter feed? Don’t even get me started on the aspect ratios.

Now of course, some of these things have always been around in one form or another – delivery format issues never seem to go away. But the problem is that so many times filmmakers get bogged down in the technical, that they forget that these are merely tools.

Yes, a good carpenter knows how to use his hammer properly, but a craftsman knows how to give a house character. The story, the characters, the plot, the theme and the drama must never be sublimated by the technical for losing the human emotion of a project is the difference between machine and man. Or more precisely the difference between a film from which audiences feel emotionally detached and one in which they are engaged.

This isn’t to say that knowing the technical isn’t important. You could find yourself in a world of hurt if you don’t know what your post workflow is going to be before you start. But that’s why you hire editors, DPs or post supervisors so you can ask these questions. Or just call a post house and ask for a quick bit of advice and stick to what will work best for your situation and budget.

The technical side is mechanical. What isn’t involves getting the right lead character for your doc. If they can’t be open and honest with you, if they are uncomfortable in front of the camera, if they’re just plain boring – then your whole movie will tank.

Likewise, when you do find that right person or people to follow, there had better be some obstacles for them to overcome that challenge their beliefs or impede their progress to the point where they want to give up. It’s in those moments where you will see their true character. As Cameron Crowe wrote in Absolutely Famous, “The only true currency in this world is what people share with each other when they feel uncool.”

When you are at those moments, it’s unimportant that you are shooting on a Red Epic or a Canon 7D. No one will care if you edit on Premiere or Final Cut X or Avid. All that matters is that you tell your DP to linger on people’s faces in close up when they are getting emotional. All that matters is to get the details of the space so we know what kind of art, cars, toys and whatever they like.

All we will care about is how your editor decided to stay on someone’s face a little longer in order to see into the soul of your characters and could do so because your DP and sound person were thinking ahead. When you place these moments within scenes strung together with a good three-act structure, your story will have drama, tension and pure unbridled emotion.

What do you think?  Weigh in in the comments. 

And if you are interested in attending the Documentary Summit when it comes to The Documentary Center at the George Washington University in Washington DC March 10-11, you can take advantage of their earlybird rate of $99 through this Saturday, February 11.  After then, the price jumps to $149.  The Summit will feature industry professionals speaking about the creative side of storytelling as well as the state of the industry from a distribution, marketing and funding perspective.  More information at  www.documentarysummit.com

2 Comments

12 Things You Should Look for in a Fiscal Sponsor (10-12)

Posted on January 16, 2012
Email

We’ve counted down 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9.  Now here are the final Top 12 considerations when researching potential fiscal sponsors…

#10 – How do they manage individual donations?
Hmmm, since the main purpose of fiscal sponsorship is to provide a way for filmmakers to receive donations for their projects, you probably want to know how that all works not only for grants, but also for individual donations.  Can the Fiscal Sponsor accept donations online or only in the mail?  Can they accept credit cards as well as checks (and do they pass on any merchant account fees to you if they do)?  Can they accept small donations as well as large?  What about crowdfunding campaigns through Kickstarter or IndieGogo?  And, once the funds are received, then what?  How do they inform you new donations have been received?  As they come in?  Once a month?  Once a quarter?  Only upon request?  When and how do you have access to the funds?  Who sends donor acknowledgments?  Don’t know this?  Ask before you apply.

#11 – What are the reporting requirements?
You’ve been reading this blog countdown long enough to know that fiscal sponsors have a legal obligation in their role as fiscal sponsor to be accountable for all funds raised.  Since a funder may ask the fiscal sponsor about a particular project, the sponsor needs to be kept up-to-date about the project.  This doesn’t necessarily mean having to submit every funding application through the fiscal sponsor’s review, but it does mean having to provide regular reports on how a project and your fundraising efforts have evolved.  You should know in advance how often reports are required and what are the ramifications for not submitting status reports (in some cases, it could be holding funds or ending the fiscal sponsorship relationship).  Just as with the application process, this is not to create a bureaucratic hassle for the filmmaker.  Keeping on top of a film’s status is ultimately to the benefit of the filmmaker.

and this brings us to the last, but not least, consideration

#12 – Is there an out?
What if you want to end a relationship with a fiscal sponsor?  You might need another sponsor for a geographic or thematic requirement for a grant.  You might be not undertaking the film for any number of reasons.  Or there may just be something that doesn’t make for a good relationship with your fiscal sponsor (in spite of your thorough research).  You want to make sure you know what the process is for terminating the fiscal sponsorship agreement.  Is there a certain amount of time you have to give notice?  Are there any added fees for terminating the contract?  What is the process for disbursing any remaining funds in your account?  Most fiscal sponsorship agreements should have clear terms for how the agreement can be terminated.  Make sure you know how to say “no more” before you say “yes.”

And not to end on a sour note, I hope that whatever fiscal sponsor you find will be the best possible fit for your film.

These recommendations were adapted from a presentation Erica Ginsberg has given at Docs In Progress and The Foundation Center.  They are certainly not the only considerations.  If you have others to share based on your experience as a fiscal sponsor or filmmaker fiscal sponsoree, please feel free to add them in the Comments section.

Leave a comment

12 Things You Should Look for in a Fiscal Sponsor (7-9)

Posted on January 12, 2012
Email

You’ve gotten through reasons 1-3 and 4-6.  Now it’s important to consider the actual process of applying for fiscal sponsorship.

#7 – What do they need for the application?
You wouldn’t submit a generic resume for a job you really wanted.  So make sure you know exactly what the fiscal sponsor needs for the application and why.  Do they need to see some footage?  A proposal?  A budget?  A fundraising plan?  Do they specify you need to fill out their online application or you can send an attachment?  Are you sticking to whatever word or page limits are noted?  If you are wondering why a fiscal sponsor might need all this information, then you are probably not ready for a fiscal sponsor because they are often simply seeking a shorter version of what you would be submitting to potential funders anyway.  Remember, the fiscal sponsor is effectively representing your project as a sub-grantor for any funds you raise so there is very good reason they need to be sure that you have actually thought about fundraising.  It’s not to make you do more work.  It’s actually to make sure you are on track to get the most out of your fiscal sponsorship relationship.

#8 – What is their process for reviewing your application?
Another seemingly obvious question, but one which I can speak to from personal experience.  Since a lot of folks still associate Docs In Progress with yours truly (Erica Ginsberg), they think that since I know them and their project, they are a shoe-in to get fiscal sponsorship.  Nope.  Our applications are reviewed by a committee made up of staff and board members who may not know anything about the project or the filmmaker and have to review the applications against carefully-determined criteria.  Some fiscal sponsors may have a review committee which is completely independent of staff or board and may only meet once or twice a year.  Others may have a system where they can consider applications on a rolling basis.

which begs another consideration

#9 – What is the turnaround time for getting fiscal sponsorship?
Yes, we know your situation.  You are a one man or one woman band who has been trying to balance your labor of love film with other means of income and only just realized that an important funding application deadline is coming up next week so you need to find a fiscal sponsor FAST!  While some fiscal sponsors can expedite the process of reviewing films, most professional fiscal sponsors have a process for applications and want to ensure that they have had adequate time to review a fiscal sponsorship application.  You just want to know how long?  Do they review applications on a rolling basis or only a few times a year?  How long should you expect from the time you submit an application to the time you get the official word you are in the program?  Will they make exceptions for you because you are so special or do they have special reason to follow a seemingly more bureaucratic process?  Know before you apply.

OK, the last three things you should look for are next.

Leave a comment