Is London’s Production Scene “A Free for All Mess”?
Back in 1998, when Olivia Hirschberg joined the industry through a production company called Pink Films run by Bash Robertson and Karen Cunningham, all directors were rostered - that was pretty much a rule. “If you didn’t have a production company as a home, you weren’t good enough,” says Olivia. “Freelancers were seen as the unwanted, untalented directors at the time. Agency creatives and producers had their set of favourite production companies and directors, and they’d award their jobs often based on their belief that a director could do it.” Tailor-made showreels were scarcely requested. Instead, decisions were “made on trust and goodwill”.
Things today on London's production scene, and beyond, have changed dramatically. The pool of independent and freelance directors available on the market has never been larger and more diverse, and will continue to expand. Directors are “switching sides”, but also more and more traditional production companies are ‘loaning out’ directors from their rosters to in-house production companies. “Now, over half of London’s directors are available for freelance hire,” says Olivia.
So what pitfalls come with loaning out these directors from the traditional production companies, versus agents such as Johnny Foreigner, where Olivia is managing director? How did the pandemic further ripple the landscape and are things still a mess today? Should hierarchical structures remain respectable or should it all be scrapped in favour of a more robust, dynamic scene? How does this affect budgets? LBB’s Zoe Antonov and Olivia spoke to find out.
LBB> When did you start to see significant changes in the way directors operate and move through the industry and why do you think that change began taking hold?
Olivia> It was in the summer of 2017, all of a sudden agencies were giving birth to in-house production companies. Initially they were more like internal production departments, where it would make sense that a brand like a supermarket or a newspaper would need to turn a brief into a TVC within five days, and the internal production department helped facilitate that process. They all had one in-house director who’d be a jack of all trades and would be able to deliver low-quality and fast turnaround films to meet this new need. But then as brands started seeing the positives in an in-house production arm, they briefed out bigger, juicier and creatively more interesting jobs to these internal companies.
With that, the need for a different calibre of director grew and everyone was looking to find freelance directors. Thankfully, Johnny Foreigner was already on the stage acting as an agent for UK directors, but repping them abroad to foreign production companies. As my phone started ringing off the hook that summer, I realised that I was really well placed to catch this new tidal wave and change the company’s business model.
I ditched my international clients, focussed on London and repped my directors to these new in-house production companies, or any production entity, really, whose business model relied on freelance and not rostered directors. Thankfully the calibre of freelance directors really grew in parallel as many directors went off roster or changed their production company agreement to non-exclusivity. This then allowed me to represent really decent talent – the rest is history!
LBB> And what effect did the covid-19 pandemic have on these processes? How did your career change through that too?
Olivia> Well, there was an enormous downturn in the jobs that were commissioned, but at the same time, directors who were still exclusive or otherwise rostered saw the benefits of going freelance and widening their channels of exposure to not rely on just the one company to bring them work. With that, a lot more freelance directors emerged which was great for my roster, but it also grew our pool of competition which made it harder to secure a job for my guys.
LBB> After the pandemic, what does the climate look like in London (and beyond) right now?
Olivia> It became a mess… a free-for-all mess. Everyone is scrambling for work and no one is respecting the old hierarchical structure we all used to adhere to. Now, production companies are hitting up clients, post houses are producing for agencies, clients are producing in-house, even service companies abroad are now hitting up London agencies. It’s gone up, down, sideways and crossways - everyone is stepping on each other’s toes and bypassing the middleman just to save a buck.
It does mean that agents like Johnny Foreigner benefit as in whichever equation, you’ll need a director, but it’s a shame to see that the old British gentlemanly way of going about business has turned somewhat chaotic.
LBB> As you've said, plenty of production companies are 'loaning out' their directors - what are the various pros and cons coming from this and why do you believe directors are still opting out for such deals?
Olivia> Directors don’t really care who, why or where the job comes from, they just want to work and build their showreels. Production companies have begun to loan out their directors (much to the APA’s dismay) as they’ve realised that the growth of the in-house production company is something they can’t stop. So many have decided to go with it instead of fighting it and, in an effort to keep their directors happy by delivering a job whichever way, they have opened their rosters to the in-house sector and get a small loan-out fee themselves, plus then a new film on the directors’ showreel they can tout about town. And the director is kept off their backs for a while… Better than a kick in the head, right?
But this is something that we as agents (mainly Johnny Foreigner, The Visionaries, OB42 and Dark Energy) find difficult to consolidate and here’s why: amongst us we’ve made an effort to standardise our offering, contracts and fees so that there’s an even playing field. We meet regularly to agree on various challenges and are fully aware of one another’s rosters so that we never offer up a director who might be unofficially signed elsewhere. With the onset of production companies offering up their directors as loan-outs, the producers are often faced with the awkward situation of viewing the same reel multiple times (who do they go via?) or receiving conflicting information on fees (making for uncomfortable conversations) or even having to deal with differing percentages of the commission (how do they justify this to the cost-controller?). We have found that given all these issues, producers would first call on us agents to find them a director and then only go via the production company if they had to.
LBB> What would the difference be for a director to sign with a traditional production company, or go through talent agents right now? And what are we seeing more of now?
Olivia> This isn’t really a question of us against them and who a director might be better off with. Both of us offer pros and cons, that's for sure. But my stance is that a director would be best off if they signed with an agent for the in-house work and with a production company (on a non-exclusive basis of course) for the work that comes out of the broadcast department of the agency. These two avenues are in their nature never conflicting (one needs just the director and the other needs the director plus the production platform), so a director would have all bases covered if they managed their representation in this very simple format.
LBB> What has your personal response been to the rippled climate in London and how do you want to see it change?
Olivia> The teutonic nature in me wants structure, the mothering nature in me wants to give directors the exposure they deserve, and the little girl in me wants to have fun whilst I am teutonically mothering.
LBB> What are some challenges to bringing back the balance? And do we see it happening in the near future?
Olivia> Johnny Foreigner will develop its offering in the near future, to align with my hopes and aspirations for our industry. I don’t want to say too much at this point, but those who I’ve spoken to about it are all very excited and feel that the company in its future form could well add to the creation of (or the return to) some structure. Watch this space…
LBB> What do you see as the most exciting aspect of this whole big shift and especially what do you think it says about the wider industry and its structure?
Olivia> Creativity can only be born out of open mindedness, and change is an important factor in this equation. We all need to embrace the change the industry is going through and see how we can contribute in positive ways rather than resist and fight for something that just doesn’t work anymore. It’s a personal challenge for each and every one of us, and certainly not easy for those who have suffered under the change through bankruptcy or similar. In short, I feel this phasing gives us all a real opportunity to see what we can contribute to keep our very creative industry creative, and that’s the exciting part.
