[WINNEBAGO MAN director Ben Steinbauer pitches at the 2009 MeetMarket at Sheffield Doc/Fest. Photo from the Sheffield Flickr stream by Jacqui Bellamy.]
One of the things that made Sheffield stand out a few years ago was their deviation from the traditional pitching forum concept and a move toward a more personalized, one-on-one exchange between filmmakers and potential funders. They called it the MeetMarket.
The concept was brought to Sheffield by Festival Director Heather Croall, a creation from her time at the Australian International Documentary Conference. Since then, the MeetMarket concept - having decision makers prepare in advance by watching clips of films and reading proposals, followed by meetings with filmmakers on projects they have interest in - has begun to spread to other festivals, leading many to wonder if the days of the IDFA-style pitch forum are behind us (or should be, in any case). Amongst the MeetMarket success stories: THE ENGLISH SURGEON, KINGS OF PASTRY, THE SOUND OF MUMBAI, ONLY WHEN I DANCE and this year's festival favorite, GIVE UP TOMORROW.
We exchanged some questions and answers with MeetMarket Director Charlie Phillips recently - talking about the current state of festival pitching concepts as well as the MeetMarket's European focus.
All these wonderful things: When you were first talking about having this kind of industry, pitching element, how important was it to you to not do a traditional pitching forum? And how has it changed since it's inception?
Charlie Phillips: I can't take all the credit for the format of it because Heather invented it when she was at the AIDC in Australia, and then brought it to the UK in 2006 for her first Doc/Fest. But I can certainly say that since I organised my first MeetMarket in 2008, we've intensified the personal and bespoke attention we give to everyone. I know that in '06 and '07 there were a lot of educated guesses going into the matchmaking, whereas from '08 onwards, it's been more 'true' matchmaking in the sense of spending all year gathering information on the needs of buyers and documentary-makers, seeing what they're doing, and what they need, and then using that long-term intelligence as well a short-term wishes for meetings to create something that's really reacting to specific personal needs and not some general idea of what the industry needs or what will play well on a stage.
ATWT: Did you feel like the forum concept was broken?
CP: It wasn't so much that there was a feeling of the pitching forum being broken, more that every festival and its dog was hosting a public forum, and they needed to be complimented by meetings that actually got business done and allowed for candid conversations. You'll notice at any public forum how many times buyers will react to a pitch by saying "well, we're meeting later to talk about this" or "we met yesterday and we talked in detail about this" and it just seems like you might as well cut out that showcasing of stagey reactions and go straight to the personal meetings instead. That's not to say that every public pitch only has 'pretend' reactions but there is a lot of disingenuousness in reactions around the table, and that comes from a fatigue about feeling like you should be there rather than it actually being useful. I know that earlier in the decade before MeetMarket existed in its current form, that feeling was even more acute. Now that we're offering these personal matchmade meetings, I think it's actually empowered the big public forums, which now themselves feel more relaxed, smaller and more relevant.
CP: It's important that any forum serves the industry and generates business and connections rather than existing for its own sake, and I think this format really works for that. Perhaps especially so because we're now talking about complex deals to get films made, involving many different partners across many borders with varying amounts of money coming in at different stages, for different platforms, for different territories. This isn't the age of massive BBC or ARTE investment that means a project gets funded from one person's response. So many deals need to be negotiated in parts and put together like a jigsaw - you can't do that without a series of short sharp meetings we think.
ATWT: One thing that I found interesting when I observed the MeetMarket in 2009 was the level at which the "decision makers" were aware of and interested in the projects that they were meeting about. How difficult was it for you to get those industry folks onboard the concept that they'd have to do the prep work to actually know the projects in advance?
CP: Even more buyers are proactively involved than in 2009 - having done it for a few years, they totally get the system and the need for preparatory reviewing of projects. It's to their benefit after all - the more they check if projects are right for them, the more useful the meetings will be, and the more they can feel confident in investing. I think they quite like being given this menu card of amazing projects to pick from that have a mark of quality, because it's a change from the deluge of projects without mediation that constitutes their inbox . Especially so for breaking out of their domestic market - it's actually quite hard for a commissioner or funder in a given territory to keep their finger on the pulse of what's in production worldwide so we mediate that for them and they like it.
But yes, certainly in 08, and definitely in 07 and 06 I hear from Heather, there was a certain amount of incredulity to overcome - our guarantees that it doesn't take that long to review projects and that they really were great ones, needed some time to be allowed to prove itself. But I think they get it now, and anyway, we try and be supportive in suggesting to buyers which projects fit their mandate or genre, or in reminding them of something they said ages ago about a certain subject they were looking for. We try and act as their memory and stimulate their creative juices to get flowing.
ATWT: Looking at the list of projects the last few years, it seems like there's a European focus in terms of the participants. Is that purposeful? Do American filmmakers have an extra hurdle being on this side of the ocean?
CP: In terms of the Euro focus, the proportion of projects from Europe is about 80% and has been constant that way since 08. It's part purpose and part necessity. In terms of the necessity, a large amount of our funding is tied to supporting the European market so we need to make sure that we're sustaining that. But beyond that, the selection numbers just about match the proportions of our attendees and so the industry we serve, and it would be unfair to disproportionately favour anyone who doesn't represent our delegate base. If the proportions of our delegates shifted further towards out-of-Europe we'd need to look at that but at the moment I think we're hitting the right bases. In fact, looking at the proportions within the 500 MeetMarket applications, we actually over-represent Americans slightly in comparison to the numbers that apply, and that's mainly because those Americans that do apply tend to be the very best and it's hard to turn them down.
It's a real balance - we only take 65 projects and we get more submissions than pretty much any other pitching event in the world, so we think very carefully about every single project selected. We don't base selection on quotas, it's 95% based on quality, but we do have to step back after an initial selection and think about the geographical representation in there.
There's also an issue here with the kinds of projects that are often doing the rounds in the US and the ones in Europe - they can be really different, and that's mainly an advantage because we get a good range, but we do also need to look at which decision makers are coming and assess whether any given project will appeal to enough of them. That's not to say that either Europe or America do or don't do that any more than the other, but I guess I'm just making the point that for any territory, there's a 'house style' - especially for more commercial TV projects - that doesn't always travel.
We also want to compliment other forums - so we know that IFP for example has a great way of selecting projects that serve the US market, and we don't want to be a clone of any other market, so we do look at what's being selected around the world and react to that too.
Comments