|
 |
 
|
|
|
 Understanding the PBS Greenlight Process: Getting PBS to Yes by Jackie Conciatore 
The appointment of Pat Mitchell as PBS president in February 2000 had many indies singing "Hallelujah." Here was a television executive who said she was a producer at heart, who on her first day at PBS read Patric Hedlund's article, "PBS: Following the Breadcrumbs" in The Independent, and saw it as a map for improving PBS's greenlight process. Here too was a fellow traveler-a successful producer who once submitted a proposal to PBS and never heard back. PBS under Mitchell set out to become more producer-friendly. It created a new greenlight system. Its programming staff became more visible in the producer community, seeking input about planned projects and encouraging people to pitch ideas. Despite these efforts, however, some of the longstanding complaints about PBS linger. Many people still feel locked out. Others are scratching their heads because programs they felt sure would get a national airdate, programs vetted by the Independent Television Service (ITVS), did not. They wonder if one-offs (single programs as opposed to series) are a thing of the past on the crowded primetime schedule. They wonder if independent producers-and the public-are losing the most logical and important venue for the original, risk-taking work that is the hallmark of independent production. New sensibility Many producers commend PBS for being more attuned to independents. From day one, Mitchell said she wanted the company to work with a more diverse set of partners, including indies and younger talent. And a "Declaration of Interdependence" that she introduced to stations during PBS's annual meeting in June included as Article VIII: "We shall work passionately with a diverse set of partners to build the reserve of social capital in our communities." "Pat Mitchell brought a brave new sensibility to PBS, with far more respect for independent producers," says Breadcrumb author Hedlund. That sensibility translated into some practical improvements, namely the effort to evaluate thousands of proposals and programs in a more comprehensible and timely manner. Changes include: Tracking system: PBS instituted this system so producers at any time can determine their place in the review process. "We also guarantee that they will get a response," says Cheryl Jones, senior director of program development and independent film. "Nothing will disappear into the netherworld. Producers will definitely get written notification of the disposition of their proposal or tape." "PBS is certainly doing a better job than they were doing," says Douglas Chang, director of programming at KCET, formerly with independent showcase series P.O.V. "Producers always felt like they were being held off and not getting concrete answers. They would hear, 'Well, we're sort of interested' and would wade through that process and not know who to talk to, or who had their project at any given moment. Now at least it's fairly clear who you're going to hear from, who your contacts are, and what they expect you to submit." Timeliness: PBS had earned a bad reputation for its excruciatingly long review periods. Now its stated goal is to respond to submissions in six to eight weeks. Some recent applicants say there are still months-long waits, but PBS says generally it's been able to set review dates and keep them. "It can take a while to get a final answer," says co-chief programming executive Jacoba Atlas. Often, the committee suspends a verdict while producers provide additional information such as a more detailed financial plan, she says. Regional Representatives/Greenlight Committee: PBS also set up regional reps to give far-flung producers more convenient access. The reps are part of a greenlight committee that meets every Thursday. The committee members review proposals and tapes in advance, and read each other's comments on a shared database. Co-chief programming exec John Wilson says the Thursday sessions, always lively, are the best part of his week. "We're actually doing our jobs instead of debating policy or problems," he says. The goodwill PBS engendered with its nod to geographical diversity may be diminished by its recent cost-cutting decision to close the Midwest office, which was staffed by Alyce Myatt, and to put Florida-based Gustavo Sagastume in charge of its pledge programming. Myatt will move to Virginia and work on children's programming. This leaves only Atlas in L.A. as a regional representative of the greenlight committee. (The committee also includes Senior Vice President for Internet and Broadband Services Cindy Johanson, based in Alexandria.) But Atlas says the change shouldn't adversely affect PBS's outreach to independent producers. Myatt and Sagastume will continue their work with independents as they take on the new responsibilities, she says. "[They] are still very much part of the greenlight process and will continue to seek out films from all sorts of sources, including the independent community. Alyce in fact has been leading discussion with independents and ITVS to see how PBS can be more responsive-although it should be understood that more responsive doesn't necessarily mean saying 'yes' more often." Content priorities Some independent producers say the National Program Service (NPS) is more and more exclusive. A big part of the problem is the lack of available hours on the schedule. In addition, PBS prefers to direct material, especially one-offs, to existing strands with name recognition, such as Frontline. This can conflict with the desire of many independents to present individual, signature work over which they have full editorial control. In considering PBS programming decisions, it's helpful if discouraging to appreciate the level of competition for very few primetime slots. Considering the real estate available, PBS is deluged with submissions. It gets close to 3,000 proposals per year, representing about 10,000 hours of potential TV time. There are 846 hours available in the primetime schedule in the September to June season. Take away the 500 hours committed to existing strands, and you have a total of 346 primetime hours available for new material. "There is no question that there is a lot of very worthy programming that we sometimes have to turn down," says Jones. What then does PBS accept, and why? PBS intends its website as the first place to look for its content priorities (as well as proposal guidelines and contact info). At www.pbs.org/producers you will see that currently PBS calls for observational pieces as well as science and historical docs, but discourages submissions in travel, adventure and natural history. Wilson says the website is meant to be a timely information source for producers, with regular updates. It was last updated a couple of months ago, he says. After September 11, content priorities became "hyper-focused in the near term," Wilson says. "I think one of the most important things we can do is to keep programming on the air that's connected to the times we're living in." PBS has expanded Frontline's lineup from 20 to 30 episodes. It is also developing plans for a new public affairs series to be hosted by Bill Moyers. When it comes to local material, PBS generally encourages local distribution. But it will consider films grounded in local stories if they have wide relevance, Atlas says. For example, PBS has accepted for the NPS a limited series about San Francisco public defenders, by independent Pam Yates. But there will be disagreement about what constitutes narrow local or regional relevance. PBS said A DAY'S WORK, A DAY'S PAY, Kathy Leichter and Jonathan Skurnik's New York-based documentary about community responses to welfare reform was too local, but Leichter argues that a film about "poor people speaking out" is universal. The film is going to be offered by ITVS to stations around the country. Some say market considerations and Congressional oversight cause PBS to eschew controversial material and "dissenting" documentaries. "I am hearing there isn't much room for social issue documentaries and a lot of the stuff independent producers I know are doing," says Leichter. "I think PBS is moving more in the direction of series and programming that isn't critical, isn't political." Wilson and Atlas say recent offerings should counter this perception. "We certainly wouldn't have run Moyers' trade secrets if we were worried about our stature in the corporate community or Congress," says Wilson. PBS will turn down shows, he adds, if they delve into controversial material without evidence to back up the judgments made. Says Atlas: "Just because a documentarian is passionate about a story, doesn't mean he or she has produced a solid piece of work. We have defended a lot of things. We're not afraid to do that." She cites the recent NOVA series Evolution as an example. One-offs: to be or not to be? Perhaps the most prevalent question about PBS's content priorities is whether or not the network wants one-offs. "I don't think single shows are what they're after these days," says Beth Harrington, an independent producer whose documentary about the history of women in rock and roll, WELCOME TO THE CLUB, was pitched to PBS through ITVS but received only PBS Plus distribution. NPS is PBS's primetime and children's program schedule. It's called the "hard feed," but stations don't have to air programs at the time PBS sets unless the shows are part of the "common carriage" schedule. PBS Plus is a program service that does not schedule program dates or times. With no guarantee of widespread carriage and the consequent promotion and outreach difficulties, PBS Plus distribution, says Harrington, is like the "Miss Congeniality" award-though she feels it does give access to a larger audience than theatrical release or the festival circuit would. Atlas says Harrington's program wasn't selected because rock and roll programs don't do well with the public television audience. "I don't know why," she says. "[Ken Burns's] Jazz of course did, but American roots music, which is terrific, is struggling to find an audience. So we generally say no to rock and roll documentaries." PBS says it still runs one-offs, but prefers to direct them to existing venues such as P.O.V. or Frontline, which have name recognition and don't have to earn a new audience. The problem with one-offs is that they're hard to promote, says Atlas. With promotional dollars (all dollars) tight, PBS wants to maximize its spending. "It's not like we don't want to [carry one-offs] and we do do it. It's just you see a good program come on and nobody knows it's there." PBS points to new producing opportunities in series. There are more Frontline hours. The new Life 360 is meant to be a venue for new talent, and P.O.V. is being expanded. Also in the works is a new umbrella series of short dramas, says Atlas. The ambivalence about one-offs is system-wide, says Gordon Quinn of Kartemquin Films. His new work, THE NEW AMERICANS, is a six-part documentary that follows selected immigrant families through their daily lives in the U.S. "Here's an integrated series we think can bring viewers back week after week.... [And yet] I hear from [station] programmers, 'If you come to us with a series, that's a tremendous amount of time in the schedule that we can't find.' There are very mixed messages out there about what the system wants." Atlas says PBS intends THE NEW AMERICANS to be part of the NPS schedule. "While it's true some programmers don't always love limited series, the NPS certainly plans to continue with this format, which works well for our viewers when the programs presented are compelling," she says. About Independent Lens The recent hard-won expansion of common carriage theoretically gave PBS more hours for independent productions. Many are hoping to see added slots for individual work-but some are skeptical. "I have a pessimistic response to the expansion of common carriage," says Hedlund. "It sucks away prime time programming hours from projects initiated by producers. Most of these common carriage blocks are given to marquee productions such as NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, Masterpiece Theatre... I believe the net effect will be that far fewer independent producers will see their programs given national exposure through PBS." The three-year-old Independent Lens, which predates Mitchell, is one showcase for independent work. But because the series lacks a regular broadcast presence, some consider it a poor venue. Jon Else, whose OPEN OUTCRY, a documentary about the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, was featured on Independent Lens was not pleased with the experience. "It's a mistake to call it a series," he says. "It has no air date, no consistency and virtually no viewership." His previous Independent Lens feature, SING FASTER, had fairly good carriage, but stations typically aired it at midnight or after. The show won a filmmaker's trophy at Sundance and a national Emmy for outstanding cultural programming. "As far as I can tell, nobody saw it because it was broadcast on different dates and different months." Independent Lens is better than no distribution at all, some say. "It's probably a good new venue," says Quinn. "But the thing that's really important is, given the contribution independents make to public television, that we not be kept in the independent ghetto." Atlas defends the series. "Independent Lens is not part of the NPS, which means programmers are free to find the very best placement where this program will get the biggest viewership. Many programmers say they know their market best and our system is designed to give them that flexibility." PBS plans to "nurture and expand" Independent Lens. "We've gotten P.O.V. on a more solid track, now we'll turn our attention to Independent Lens." Solutions Some producers say there's a disconnect between PBS's words and actions. "I think what is frustrating is for public television to court us as independents and to claim it is welcoming when in fact it is welcoming to just a very few independents," says Else. "Block-buster series that fit into existing strands, that's one sort of independent. Single programs that take some storytelling risk, that's a different kind of independent, and there's really not much room for that on public television. "I don't live under the illusion that ABC is looking for my films. I do live under the illusion that PBS is looking for my films, and I'm not sure that's true." Else recently wrote Mitchell a letter detailing some of his grievances. He specifically asked that PBS help producers regain control of their films and offer them elsewhere if PBS doesn't grant NPS distribution. He also requested that PBS be "more candid" about one-offs, admitting up front that if a show doesn't fit into an existing series it "almost certainly is not going to be put in prime time." He said Mitchell wrote him a lengthy response that he found encouraging. Atlas says PBS is certainly interested in Else's work. "But that doesn't mean that whatever he produces will get on the national schedule. Everyone gets a 'no' at times, it shouldn't be interpreted as a closed door." "At the end of the day," she says, "no matter how we try to express criteria, there will be some subjective decisions being made. And filmmakers whose films are rejected will no doubt feel we made a lame-brained decision." Hedlund for her part encourages producers to realize that there are many entry points to the public television system. "One of the most important misunderstandings that hobble producers is they don't know how to set up a triage system: If I get a 'no' here, then I'll go here, if I get a 'no' here, then I'll go here." PBS is not the only option. Other distributors include the National Educational Telecommunications Association (NETA) and American Public Television (APT). It's a lot of work, but diligence can pay off, she says. "Being an independent producer requires tireless persistence, but we love what we do. Now, more than ever, independent voices are critical for public insight into important issues." - Jackie Conciatore is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C. |
|
|
 
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
ITVS: NEWS | NOW SHOWING | FUNDING FOR PRODUCERS | RECENTLY FUNDED PROGRAMS Contact us at itvs@itvs.org |
