Last month WPP began a move to keep production increasingly in-house, with the note that, “Our goal is to avoid traditional commercial triple bidding by proving the value of a centralised partnership by positioning WPP Production as the default, trusted partner.”
The APA’s view was, “This is a serious threat to the free market in commercials production, and to the independent production, editing and post companies within it, but only if clients don’t see through it. I think they will. Professionalism means putting clients’ interests ahead of your own. WPP has effectively announced it’s doing the opposite.”
This is concerning to all commercial and film production companies outside WPP. TinyGiant is one of them. The US production company’s partner and executive producer shared her company’s views with The Stable:
What was your initial reaction to the news that WPP is encouraging production to be kept in-house, including its guidance around triple bidding?
Sara Eolin: The guidance to have triple bidding happen between three WPP companies is pretty astonishing. It’s disingenuous in that it defies the core reasoning for a triple bidding which is gathering three independent viewpoints to compete for a job on both creative ideation as well as cost/value.
From your perspective as a production company, what do you think is at stake when clients are encouraged to use internal production rather than genuinely competitive external bids? When you narrow your possible pool of talent, are you finding the best talent?
Sara Eolin: As a production company, we’re used to putting up one to two directors for a project and the agency producer sorts through hundreds of reels to make a short list that goes to the creatives. It’s extremely competitive and you have to put forward really amazing talent along with a fantastic company of producers who are ready to move heaven and earth to make something they can be proud of as artists. Does that same vast amount of choice exist internally? Are the production teams equally as motivated? Production companies are motivated to cultivate the career trajectory of a director and fulfill their vision, often going above and beyond the scope of work to impress the client and agency to establish a relationship which leads to more work. Is that same passion and fire in a company that doesn’t have this motivation?
The triple-bid process is intended to give clients a choice between different production companies, creative approaches and costs. What do you think is lost when that competition takes place entirely within one organisation?
There are two reasons for a triple bid. One reason is to find three genuinely different points of view and the other is to compare cost. It’s not always about the lowest cost— it can often be about the best value which comes from different points of view on how to execute the brief.
When clients are “encouraged” (… I feel encouraged is a disingenuous term as I don’t believe it’s clear that this is disclosed to them as a choice) to use internal production, the diversity of those points of view can be diminished and the competitive cost/value proposition has no motivation. The key question is transparency. When the agency producer puts forth the three bidders, is it disclosed that they’re all owned by the holding company? Is there proof that their costs are lower than those of outside vendors? If not, I struggle to understand how this helps the clients and doesn’t just help WPP keep production dollars under their umbrella.
What could a move towards more centralised production mean for creative talent and for the wider commercial production ecosystem?
Sara Eolin: I’m not against in-house production. There’s certainly a place for it. Agencies are just that – an agent for their client to work in their best interest. If there is work that is contracted with their clients that’s deemed as work that will be done within their own four-walls – so be it. Disclose it and define what that scope of work is.
The problem lies when a client requests a triple bid but it’s only executed in this thin sliver of the holding company’s own ecosystem. Use your ecosystem when it makes sense, and go outside when it doesn’t. Have the client choose which projects those are. There’s room for both to thrive.
From your experience, does competition between independent companies play an important role in delivering value for clients? And what do you think clients should be considering when assessing the true value of a production partner?
Sara Eolin: A production partner is more than just a director. It’s the producers who have relationships with key crew and resources. It’s the producers who “have a guy” for everything and can make things look easy when it’s actually years of lived experience. It’s producers who know a DoP that won an Oscar and doesn’t do commercials but will because they trust the producer and director. It’s knowing how to turn nos into yeses with locations. It’s knowing how to make random props quickly. It’s keeping a set running smoothly, efficiently, and staying on track. There are an infinite number of things that can go wrong during a production, and a good company can ward them off. But finally, it is the directors of whom the company surrounds, protects, and emulates their vision. They’re the conductor of this finely tuned orchestra of players who have mutual respect and long-standing professional relationships. That’s true value.
How important is it for agencies and production companies to continue working together, and what do you think a healthy relationship between the two should look like?
Sara Eolin: Agencies and production companies are natural partners with shared values and missions. It’s all about the work. Work has always been the motivator – make the best, more memorable work. I fear in-house production wasn’t created to get better work, it was to hold onto revenue. When the motivation is no longer about the work, the work will suffer. When the work suffers, sales suffer. When sales suffer, the client suffers. That’s a whole chain of suffering that could be avoided. Production doesn’t have the huge margins that holding companies seem to think it has. They see a bottom line of what’s spent on production and see dollar signs. Margins on a job may be 10-15%, and in the first few years it’s 0% as you build infrastructure.
Looking ahead, what would you like clients and agencies to understand about the role independent production companies play in making the best work possible?
Through all of this, I hope clients see the motivation of production companies versus the motivation of holding company owned production companies. Independent commercial production is there to make art as commerce. It’s creating stories and connections to brands through artistic means. At Tinygiant, it’s supporting directors in their commercial aspirations, as well as feature films. It’s making connections with crew and industry partners. It’s all based on relationships. This is a very human business and your reputation is everything. Every job is your calling card. You have to be perfect and prove yourself over time. When you’re swimming in competition with hundreds, capitalism does it thing – you have to be the best and strive for that. When you’re in a sea of a few, and people are told they have to work with you, I doubt you are striving in the same way.
Is there anything you’d like to add?
Sara Eolin: I genuinely love this industry. I love the people that it attracts – the ADHD dreamers and self-starters. It’s unlike any business in all the best ways. What makes it work is the balance. The clients. The agency. The production company. Clients and agencies work tirelessly on the positioning, strategy, and creative development. They work for months, even years perfecting it. Why would you then want to compromise the final work? So much thought and time and care to then compromise at the 1-yard line.
Leave A Reply