What a start to the Rose d'Or Festival week: Urs W. Studer, president of the city of Lucerne and Hollywood beauty Isabel Lucas will declare the 51st Rose d'Or Festival officially open, alongside Festival President Marco Castellaneta and Festival Director Markus Helbling on Sunday 6 May. From 6 to 10 May Lucerne will be full of events both for the international entertainment television industry and the wider public.
On Sunday evening at the KKL Lucerne the Blick and TELE will present the Swiss Television Awards in the following categories: Broadcast, Film, Innovation, and Star. In addition, each year one personality of the TV industry is honoured with the Lifetime Achievement Award. The gala show will be attended by a host of Swiss celebrities and is sure to start the Rose d'Or Festival off with a bang. The winners will be announced at 10 pm, but one winner is already known: Michelle Hunziker, in the category Star, and who will be present.

The Rose d’Or Forum will take place from 7 to 10 May and provides a platform for exchange for international TV professionals (programme attached). Markus Schaechter, former Director General of ZDF and chairman of the Rose d'Or Strategy Committee will welcome the international guests from the world of TV, media and communications.
More Rose d’Or events will be open to the public this year than ever before, including concerts from Alain Clark (May 7, Grand Casino Luzerne) and the 21st Century Symphony Orchestra (May 9, KKL) and two Comedy Nights at the Hotel Schweizerhof Luzerne with Kaya Yanar and the Montreux Comedy Club appearing on May 8 (Zeugheersaal) and Rob Spence on May 10 (Zeugheersaal).

On Monday 7 May the Festival Hotel Schweizerhof Lucerne opens its doors. From 1pm the Festival Committee will also be on site to greet the press, and the Welcome Cocktail will take place in the Festival Bar at the Hotel Schweizerhof at 7pm. The cocktail will also mark the opening of an exhibition of photography by Michel Comte.

On 6 May 2012 the 51st Rose d'Or Festival will open in Lucerne. We are looking forward to an outstanding forum and a glamorous Awards Night with top stars from Australia, USA, UK and Germany. Joining us at the KKL will be Stefan Raab – German entertainer, television presenter and producer, known from such shows as “TV Total”, “Schlag Den Raab” and the “Eurovision Song Contest” –, “Top Gear’s” Jeremy Clarkson and TV legend Larry Hagman aka villain JR Ewing, while silver-screen beauty Isabel Lucas will light up the red carpet. Hosting the Awards Night this year will be Barbara Schöneberger. Barbara is a presenter, actress and singer and has hosted a number of gala shows on German TV including the “Echo” and the “Deutscher Filmpreis”.

Keri Lewis Brown

It is sad to hear that Demi Moore is ending her marriage to Ashton Kutcher. At least they lasted a few years, unlike Kim Kardashian who only managed 72 days.  Apparently 90 per cent of celebrity marriages end in divorce, compared with 54 per cent of us normal folk. But the fact remains in showbusiness that two is better than one. Brad and Angelina, Posh and Becks, Katy Perry and Russell Brand attract more attention together than on their own. Yes, we all love a happy couple.

It seems we also enjoy watching couples getting together. Dating shows went quiet for a few years but now the genre is hotter than ever. FremantleMedia’s cheeky studio dating show, TAKE ME OUT, first aired in the UK in January 2010. It became a cult hit and series three is currently recording for broadcast early next year. The UK’s Channel 5 recently had success with a revival of the Warner Bros hit THE BACHELOR in which rugby star Gavin Henson selected a high-pitched glamour model as the love of his life. It is possibly the case that they are no longer together but it was a great series. These shows are light-hearted fun and nobody seriously expects the couples to stay together. But there is a new trend for formats which take the dating process a little more seriously.

The top show on air in Israel at the moment is the reality dating format THREE, which takes a very thorough approach to finding the right guy.  It is produced by Kastina Productions for Keshet. Three single women search for love by auditioning hundreds of men and eliminating them down over three months of dating. Viewers follow their journeys together as they start new romances and face conflict over the same men. The audience gets to know the characters over the course of the series rather than the quick fix of a self-contained episode.

Next year, in the UK, several new dating formats will have a scientific approach to finding love. BBC3 is in development with a show called THE YEAR OF MAKING LOVE in which singletons will be given the chance to find love through a “groundbreaking dating experiment”. Dating experts will match applicants with other singles based on their scientific compatibility. The aim is to create 500 compatible couples based on “complex algorithms that cross reference potential partners” and the couples will be introduced during the TV event taking place in January 2012. The show will follow some of the couples to find out if these scientific methods are an effective way to find love. Let’s hope Demi and Kim are watching.

Keri Lewis Brown was educated at the University of York, where she read English and Related Literature. As Head of International Sales for Action Time in the 1990s, she led the team which spearheaded the rapid expansion of international format sales, making her one of the first to identify and explore the potential of global programming. In 1999 Keri founded her own research consultancy K7Media, an independent company providing detailed advice and market intelligence to television producers and broadcasters worldwide. As the business has developed, she has been able to pursue her particular interest in social media and the role social networking can play in sharing information and entertainment.

_{January 05, 2012}

Lyne Denault

Ever since I can remember, I was always a fan of television. It never ceases to amaze me how, each year, just like fashion, we see a new crop of shows being talked about and creating a buzz in the industry.

In the last twelve years as head of a lifestyle channel for women in French Canada, I have watched, reviewed, commissioned and bought thousands of hours in this genre. I have seen its evolution and in the last ten years lifestyle programmes have definitely come out of the closet.

When I was a teenager, that was «only» 3O years ago, lifestyle programmes were confined to daytime TV…they were magazine style programmes with lifestyle segments incorporated into them. I also remember a couple of cooking shows, a couple of decorating shows shot in studio and I remember this guy teaching how to paint landscapes. His name was Bob Ross. One studio, one camera zooming in and out every 5 minutes. The format was slooooooow paced to make sure that we, the viewers, were keeping up with his painting techniques.

That was in the mid 1980’s. When I think about it, it’s hard to believe that this is what made me dream of working in the television business!

Bob Ross produced 10 years of The Joy of Painting, eventually he retired only to be replaced by the same breed of TV hosts for quite a while. At its apogee, those «how to» programmes had a goddess named Martha Stewart.

Even if Martha had a very substantial amount of followers, that type of programming was «only good» for daytime programming.

But what happened to lifestyle programmes that made them so popular all of a sudden?

In my opinion, in the last decade a fantastic rendezvous occurred in the universe of television: "planet how to" merged with another stellar mass named entertainment. Lifestyle programming was given a face-lift...it became popular and, sometimes, even entertaining enough for primetime tv! Look at all the successful shows, Trading Spaces, Extreme Makeover : Home Edition, Supernanny, Wife Swap, What Not To Wear, Master Chef, Come Dine With Me and the list goes on. These shows were so successful in their local markets that they were sold as formats all around the world!

Today’s lifestyle programmes have stepped away from the strict «how to» format and incorporated an «entertainment element» into their storyline. The best lifestyle programmes have, in my opinion, a good balance between the need-to-know and the nice-to-know as well as a very good story to tell, and, last but not least, there is a take-away for the viewers. Viewers have to be inspired and ideally be able to replicate what they just saw. It has to be useful for their life.

Another way I define lifestyle programmes is «reality TV with a purpose». But then again, who am I to define this genre? Television has a way of evolving so fast that it’s hard to keep up with it.

But one thing is for sure, lifestyle programming is a hot property, just look at all the successful Lifestyle TV channels around the globe dedicated to the genre!

For that reason alone, adding the lifestyle category to the Rose d’Or Festival was inevitable and a must. I am looking forward to seeing all the lifestyle programmes submitted from around the globe and can’t wait to see where this genre will take us next.

Lyne Denault

Lyne Denault has over 25 years of experience in the television industry. For the last 13 years Denault has held the position of Programming Vice President at Canal Vie, the most popular service and lifestyle channel with Quebecan women. Canal Vie is a subsidiary of Astral, the largest distributor of specialty and pay-television in Canada. Denault also worked for ten years at the music channel MusiquePlus, another Astral property. There she worked successively as director, producer and programming Vice President. She has also spent two years producing variety shows at a private channel. During her career, Lyne Denault has been nominated six times for a Gemini Award, honouring the best French-language television productions in Canada. 

_{November 18, 2011}

by Martin Trickey

I recently spent a fantastic few days at a transmedia conference Power to the Pixel talking to producers from across the globe about their new transmedia projects. I was going to write it 'transmedia' in inverted commas but Jeff Gomez  (whose company Starlight Runner Entertainment is behind the online worlds of Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia, Tron, Avatar and Transformers) said it was great that people had stopped 'doing the inverted commas thing' with the word transmedia. Noted.
 
Some of the ideas were overly complicated, with unnecessary online add-ons to perfectly good TV and film ideas. They had got carried away with possibilities and confused ‘can’ with ‘should’. As Mike Jones says in his entertaining blog Transmedia Storytelling is Bullshit: «Not every story needs a twitter feed for God’s Sake!». But that being said there were also some brilliant ideas, ones that used digital platforms in appropriate, compelling and engaging ways. I think we still need to look to this new narrative world if we possibly can.

Michel Reilhac, the Executive Director at ARTE, has said that transmedia has not had its Big Brother moment; a huge global hit that changes the way the industry works. Pretty much since Big Brother the BBC has attempted to find that moment, creating many award-winning and ground-breaking new forms from Doctor Who to The Dark House on Radio 4, and more recently, The Virtual Revolution and The Code.
 
But alongside these successes sit many 'noble experiments' that did not necessarily fulfill their potential. The mixture of success and willingness to fail is why we have, at times, been a world leader in this field. It is also encouraging to see a number of other European broadcasters moving into this arena setting up transmedia departments and ventures with a view to being able to engage the ever-growing audience who inhabits the online space looking for alternative entertainment experiences.
 
But the world has changed. We are all under much greater financial pressure, and I am often told we need to focus on our core output. I believe that if our core output is telling great stories, it's worth going back to Mike Jones:
«Television did not change storytelling. Radio did not change storytelling, so too the Internet and even Video Games have NOT changed storytelling. The grammar, the mechanics, the delivery means may alter but the notion of Story has not and does not.»
 
So I would encourage us all, as we head towards tri-media working, to think about the opportunities, creative and commercial, that new platforms offer, and make sure that we can still find new ways of telling stories – and note that some may and some may not need a twitter feed.

Further reading:

• Why film makers hate transmedia
• The BBC's alt reality game Jamie Kane
• Swedish cross-media production The Truth About Marika

Martin Trickey worked from 2000 to 2004 as an Executive Development Producer and then spent several years in the BBC’s entertainment vaults, commissioning award-winning online entertainment and comedy. After a three-year break as Head of Digital at Teachers TV, he returned to the BBC in 2007 to served as Multiplatform Commissioning Executive for drama, comedy and entertainment. As one of the gatekeepers for the broadcaster’s web-based comedy output, he developed an excellent overview of the kind of humourous content that works online, and who’s producing the best examples of it. Trickey was recently appointed Head of Cross-Platform Production.

^{October 20, 2011}

by Bernhard Sonnleitner

Reality is often mundane, monotonous and un-exciting. This is a problem, especially if you are in the business of generating TV ratings in German living rooms with reports on the lives of celebrities, Desperate Housewives, rich teenagers in Essex, Italian-Americans on the coast or recipients of social benefits. What can the production company do? They help things along, stage stories, define plots. This is not news to anyone. These programmes are after all, not «real» documentaries, but entertainment. In Germany, however, the question is asked again and again: can you do this and still present the show as if the action is happening spontaneously and at random? Can a reality show interfere with the reality it portrays? Isn’t the audience being misled?

In the U.S., the stories are always more or less determined by the perfect casting. The composition of the cast usually determines in advance which stories will emerge. And the participants of the show know what role they play in the ensemble. In short: you are not afraid to play a deliberate role just because you are in a reality show. Perhaps that is why there is no real distinction in the United States between Reality and Scripted Reality. Whether you are watching Survivor or Real Housewives of ..., the conflicts and storylines over a season can be calculated simply by the cast and composition. The absence of a narrator in reality formats also shows that U.S. viewers will not be happy to find documentary-style filming in their entertainment. Entertainment is fun, and documentation is public boradcasting service.

In the UK, Structure Reality is the watch word. Characters, places and stories are real, but are heavily fictionalised through compressed narrative, camera work and editing. In addition, the stories are usually aired within seven days of filming (The Only Way Is Essex, Made In Chelsea).The quasi-live social network status updates and films of the characters lend a new, young twist to the genre.

In Germany, public opinion on the subject is much stronger. Can something that has come from the desks of TV writers be told in a documentary style? In the end, it is mainly the topics that were talked 10 years ago on talk shows («I live in the dump,» «I'm fat», «I'm fat and I live in the dump»), which are now being staged as "scripted reality". We take amateur actors who play not themselves, but a charactarisation of themselves. The stories and dialogues are more or less improvised. The narrator gives the impression that this is really a documentary. The topics are diverse and scripte: investigators looking for the runaway student, commissioners solving crime, families in crisis. These shows make use of documentary techniques and often give the viewer the feeling that they are in the midst of an Ob-Doc. In fact it is fiction in another narrative form. Similary to how 10 years ago, The Office hi-jacked the elements of observational documentation for comedic effect, the former talk-show topicsare dragged from the studio and left to play out the story. The outrage in Germany, that these shows are not reality, is really artificial and exaggerated. You want reality? Watch the weather channel.

Bernhard Sonnleitner, born in 1971, completed a Masters in Political Science at the University of Passau and University of Muskingum in Ohio (USA). In 1998 he joined ProSiebenMedia AG as a research editor. In 2004 he joined the Format Research Department and has observed the global TV market from this position ever since. In 2009 he became Head of the Format Research Team for English Language programming.

_{September 2, 2011}

by Jacqui Hlongwane & Lerato Moruti

When South Africa made its miraculous transition from an apartheid state to a democratic dispensation in 1994, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) was charged with the task of transforming the SABC from a State Broadcaster to a Public Broadcasting Service.

As with other broadcasters around the world, the SABC over the years has invested billions of Rand in the creation of content. Television sets need to be continuously fed every second of the day, and with multiple channels and media platforms mushrooming on a daily basis, coupled with our imminent transition from analogue to Digital, even more content is required to feed these channels and platforms.

The SABC is the leading broadcaster in Africa with 3 television channels and 19 radio stations and boasts an impressive television archive spanning  a period of over 36 years. These rich archives depict and document South Africa’s diverse history, culture, languages and heritage. In most cases, after one or two broadcasts, these programmes and the raw footage sit in storage, never to be exploited again. 

It is in this context that the Reversioning and Repurposing unit of the SABC was born in 2000.

Reversioning refers to the transformation of an existing programme into different versions so that it can be enjoyed by people who speak different languages as well as people with sensory disabilities (e.g. the blind and hard of hearing). This is realised through subtitling, dubbing, sign language and audio description. Every Public broadcaster is mandated to reach the widest possible audience and in South Africa in particular where there are 11 official languages and people with various disabilities; reversioning our content has proved to be the most cost effective manner to widen access. Repurposing on the other hand is concept-driven and utilises archive material in order to make new programmes. 

The Unit’s reversioned programmes range from newly subtitled locally produced soaps to dubbed religious programming, not to mention children’s animated programmes.  Noteworthy repurposed documentaries include Imbokodo, a documentary series that focused on the women’s march to the Union Building in 1956 to protest against the extension of passes to women by the Apartheid regime, Flying On The Wings Of Destiny,  a documentary that marked the re-naming of Jan Smuts Airport to O. R. Tambo International airport in honour of the icon of the anti-apartheid struggle and leader of the African National Congress, Mr Oliver Tambo and KNR (Kids News room) which was the first news programme for children in South Africa.

The strategy was a unique selling point for the unit and distinguished its offering from other genres and content houses. Through the use of Audio Visual Translation (AVT) tools such as subtitling, dubbing, and in the near future signing and audio description, the R&R unit will continue to ensure that the SABC increases and expands the access of its content to people with sensory disabilities as well as those who speak different languages, thus bridging the communication divide.  Repurposing allows the unit to exploit the SABC’s rich archives by creating stories that commemorate the past and celebrate our common history and heritage while crafting a common vision for South Africa.

Lerato Moruti; Manager: Reversioning and Repurposing (left in the picture)
Lerato’s life vision is to play an active and meaningful role in contributing to societies that are caring, understanding and loving.  She believes that every sound or visual created has an impact on the human psyche, and that this stimulation creates a lasting impression on an individual. Her first question when evaluating content is «what are you trying to say or communicate to your viewers with this piece of information?». Moruti’s television career highlights include her role as assistant producer/director for the UNICEF Children in Broadcasting simulcast on Radio and Bop TV in 1995 and 1996, being part of the team that launched Channel O on DSTV, being one of the two Commissioning Editors who set up a Children’s Unit at the SABC’s Content Hub and editorially managing SABC’s first animation project for children (a co-production between South Africa and Canada). Lerato Moruti believes «that our power lies in acting out our purest thoughts to achieve greater good.  If we can achieve this we will begin to heal our planet.»

Jacqui Hlongwane; Head of Genre: Reversioning and Repurposing (right in the picture)
Over the years, Jacqui has come to understand and appreciate the power of the media and that if used effectively and responsibly it has the ability to educate, change attitudes and positively influence people’s behaviour. Dynamic, creative and innovative person that she is, Hlongwane has succeeded in initiating programmes and projects that contribute to the notions of nation building and citizenship. These include a news and current affairs television programme for children (Kids News) as well as the Lights, Camera, Action programme which gives children the opportunity to turn their stories into short films.  In 2004, Jacqui Hlongwane was appointed Head of Reversioning and Repurposing at the SABC. Her role involves the use of archives in producing content as well as dubbing and subtitling programmes to increase their viewership. Over the years Jacqui has sat on a number of jury and selection panels, both local and international.

_{July 25 2011}

Aurelio Valcárcel

Today I will speak from my experience as a television producer, and specifically as a director of telenovelas since the early 1980s.

As a commercial product, the telenovela is associated with a creative industry involving writers, producers, directors, actors, IT and communication professionals. While it is a team effort, the role of the writer is vital in connecting the audience with the central thread of the story. This is achieved only through the skillful management of human emotions and the creative support of new digital technology.

Most experts define the telenovela genre as fictional melodrama, sometimes based on real events. Usually broadcast in primetime five days a week, a series will typically comprise 180 to 200 episodes aired over six to eight months, varying according to the producing country.

The telenovela is so much more than this. It is a psychological projection of human ideals that audiences aspire to, and that is portrayed by the actors,.
The first telenovelas were typically adaptations of famous plays. Later many were adaptations of great works of Latin American literature from Mario Vargas Llosa (Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter), Mario Benedetti (Thank You For The Fire), Sergio Ramírez (Divine Punishment), Juan Rulfo (The Golden Rooster) and Gabriel García Marquéz (The Evil Hour), among others.
Nurtured by Mexican and Argentinian melodrama movies of the 1940s and 1950s, telenovelas became as well an export product due to the high quality, diversity and freshness of its subjects. Particularly the emphasis placed on the complexity of human emotions which distinguishes the telenovela from English language Soap Operas as much as the difference in schedule and series length.
The broadcasting and format rights for regional adaptations are sold to countries all over the world, which brings significant economic benefits. The main exporters of telenovelas are Mexico, USA (hispanic market), Brazil and Colombia.

These days the audience for telenovelas is international, as they are part of the globalized world, where millions of people from different, ethnies, cultures and customs sigh and cry in front of their televisions, feeling connected to the stories that touch their innermost emotions. And here lies what I call the real charm of the telenovela – its ability to arouse our emotions and feelings through the magic of words and the creativity of digital technology.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the telenovela as a genre has become much more than mere entertainment for housewives. It has evolved into a product of huge economic importance and of great value, not just due to the advertising revenue that is generated, but also due to its position as a platform for cultural intervention where customs and new social values can be created.

 
Aurelio Valcárcel, Executive Vice President of Telemundo Studios Miami, started his career in the early 1990s in Bogota, Colombia. Now, with more than 20 years of experience as Director and Producer of TV shows and telenovelas, he is absolutely convinced that this is the world he always wanted to be in. He began working for Telemundo as an Executive Producer in 2003. When he moved to Miami, his first telenovela was Amor Descarado, followed by Prisionera, Decisiones, Anita No Te Rajes, Dame Chocolate, El Cuerpo del Deseo, Tierra de Pasiones, El Rostro de Analia, Pecados Ajenos, El Fantasma de Elena, ¿Dónde está Elisa?, and his current productions airing in primetime on Telemundo in the United States; Mi Corazón insiste and La Casa de al Lado. Valcárcel’s work proves his talent and his understanding of high quality production giving audiences the unique content they want to see.

^{July 14, 2011}

Horace Newcomb

Imagine this – sixteen people sit at a conference table. They are media professionals, media scholars, media critics, executives in government service, performers, public relations and media sales executives. For the past few weeks, individually in their homes with DVD players and meeting on two occasions as a group, they have been considering examples of radio, television and web productions gleaned from more than 1,000 submissions. Now they are coming to the end of almost a week of intense discussions. Almost 100 items remain on their «list of the best».  They know this list must end up with no more than thirty to forty items. These are the few that will receive the George Foster Peabody Award for Excellence in Electronic Media. And the description is not imaginary. This is the Peabody Process that is experienced annually by the Peabody Board, the rotating group of sixteen who make the final decisions for the awards.  The Peabody is the oldest award for electronic media in the world. Chartered in the late 1930s as a joint venture linking the National Association of Broadcasters and the University of Georgia College of Journalism and Mass Communication, the first awards were presented in 1941 for radio productions created in 1940. In the seventy years since, no more than thirty-eight awards have ever been presented in a single year.  

Peabody Awards are not given in categories. There is no «best drama», «best news report», or «best documentary». For the 1,000 or more submissions each year, every entry competes with every other entry. In New York each year at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel the recipients are presented with a Peabody Award and all are considered equal. A news report from a small local station may step to the stage following an HBO mini-series produced with a massive budget. The news report may have changed lives in its community while the mini-series entertained and enlightened millions. An independent radio report on global warming from Canada may take its place beside a documentary on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization from a Hong Kong station. A two minute public service announcement may receive a Peabody following a marvelous comedy from Britain such as The Office, and later the U.S. production of The Office will also receive the award.

All these are determined in intense face-to-face discussion and debate – and argument – among the Peabody Board. But in the end, every award is determined by a unanimous vote. Consensus in determining excellence is the goal. I am privileged to direct this process. After more than forty years of writing about television in academic journals, newspapers and magazines, after teaching generations of students who are now media professionals in Hollywood and in local production houses, who are media scholars at universities around the world, I have one of the best jobs I can imagine. Each year when I step to the podium to introduce the awards presentation ceremony I am reminded of how important the electronic media are in our lives, societies and cultures. I am able to «speak back» to industry leaders in the room. And I can cite the excellence of the Peabody Award recipients to challenge them to do better. It’s always a great day.

Horace Newcomb is the Director of the George Foster Peabody Awards. He holds the Lambdin Kay Chair for the Peabody Awards in the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia. Newcomb is the author of TV: The Most Popular Art (Doubleday/Anchor, 1974), co-author of The Producer's Medium (Oxford University Press, 1983) and editor of seven editions of Television: The Critical View (Oxford University Press, 1976-2006).  He is the editor of The Museum of Broadcast Communications Encyclopedia of Television, a four volume reference work containing entries on major people, programs, and topics related to television in the U.S., the U. K., Canada, Australia and other countries and regions throughout the world. He has lectured widely in Europe and Asia on the current state of television and culture.

_{July 1^st 2011}

Allan Novak

I’ve been invited to add my Canadian voice to this corner of the TV content blogosphere so I invite you now to turn off the hockey game, pour yourself a nice glass of maple syrup, and settle into the most comfortable chair in your teepee or igloo to read my essential truths about pitching or partnering in Canada.

1. Canada has a broken star system so pitching celebrity-based shows is a waste of time. There are many reasons for this but the biggest one is the non-stop stream of Hollywood stars saturating our airwaves has made our own homegrown stars appear paler and poorer. Most of the best stars move to LA and after that we love and respect them, except we can’t afford to work with them anymore. We will fly them back after 20-30 years and give them achievement awards because they will do that for free.
   
   
2. Canadians see themselves as decent and fair so keep your formats in line with those values.  A show that depends on deception, treachery, pain, violence or greed will be a harder sell to a Canadian broadcaster. Don’t get me wrong, audiences still enjoy that kind of content, but it's better done by Americans so we can feel superior and criticise them at the  same time as we watch and enjoy the show. That’s the Canadian way.
   
   
3. Canada has some of the best «soft money» subsidies in the world but not all shows are eligible. Because of the legacy of how these subsidies came to be, certain genres have been declared ineligible. So if you pitch a game show or a talk/panel show to a Canadian, be prepared for a worried sigh and a wrinkled brow, because neither of these genres is eligible for tax credits or subsidies. I think this is part of the reason for our broken star system as it means our celebrities have fewer places to be their wonderful selves… But it seems no one really cares enough to fix that hole in the system.
   
   
4. The structure of our subsidy system means producers regularly re-edit and re-format TV series to satisfy bureaucratic guidelines. For example because there are bigger documentary subsidies than lifestyle ones, a makeover, food, real estate or design show will often get saddled  with more experts giving deeper opinions and analysis so as to be legitimately classified as documentary. It’s strange, but it’s worth it to finance the show.
   
   
5. We love Europeans so you can use that to your advantage. Our national insecurity means we have extra respect and admiration for people that come from countries with cool accents and smaller, more high tech appliances. We think you dress better although we’re not sure if the men are gay or just fashionable - but we like both so it’s fine either way.
   
   
6.  If you’re thinking about Canadian drama, think cross-platform. The largest of the government funds, the Canadian Media Fund, currently requires that any show accessing it have a «rich and substantial» cross-platform strategy. You want to co-produce the next great Canadian drama? Having a Facebook game attached seems to help trigger the millions of subsidy dollars.
   
   
7. Casting reality TV in Canada is hard. Every broadcaster wants noisy, larger than life unfiltered people and for the most part, that’s not who Canadians are. Our simple solution is that we look across the nearby US border and cast from their rich pool of unfiltered, noisy citizens.  We like to give these colourful Americans makeovers, redecorate their houses and fix their broken restaurants. We just don’t mention the city we’re in… Ever... Unless it's New York or LA.

Got the picture? Canadians are probably the best people in the world to partner with as long as you understand our rules. Of course if you want to find a group of people that none of this applies to, visit Montreal, Quebec. Protected by a tall language wall, a joie de vivre culture and nurtured by the same generous Canadian subsidies, they have a proud legacy of celebrity driven TV, movies, magazines, talk and game shows that make English language producers feel (even more) inferior. Of course, with their unique accented French, distributing their content to other territories is much harder so it comes at a high dollar cost. Vive la difference, eh!

   www.allscreenent.com
Allan Novak is a creator and media executive with a passion for bringing innovative and entertaining ideas to life.
Over the past few decades he has been a key contributor to many of the top comedy, drama, children's, documentary, factual and reality TV series in Canada. He is an award-winning editor, director, writer and producer who has created seven original TV series, developed and sold big budget formats and collaborated closely with the likes of Codco, Kids in the Hall, Mike Myers and Ken Finkleman.
In 2011, after two years as VP Factual and Reality for Temple Street Productions, Allan is combining his national and international TV experiences together with his long-time passion for trans-media in the new AllScreen Entertainment Inc., a modern entertainment company that will create and produce great shows across platforms and across borders.
Along with partner Barri Cohen, an award-winning show runner and producer, AllScreen will develop and create original and memorable factual and scripted entertainment.

Paul Boross, The Pitch Doctor

I've been pitching within the TV and media business for 25 years, and one thing I've learned above all is that audiences enjoy nothing more than a good laugh. Fortunately for me, I spent 12 years performing at the Comedy Store in London and while I can't say that every audience at 3 A.M. on a Friday night got the joke right away, what I can say is that my intention was always to entertain first and educate second.

Even Walt Disney said, «I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.»

But is the use of humour in a pitch to a group of hardened media executives more important than simply giving them a good time?

Well, in my opinion, yes, it is.

Firstly, we have to ask the question, «Why do people laugh?» Experts have explored this question for millennia, and we still have no idea. In fact, several politicians I’ve met can be heard to ask, «Why are they laughing at me?» as they ponder this great mystery.

Some experts say that laughing is a social bonding ritual. That would certainly be a very useful thing in a training seminar, coaching relationship or TV pitch. In fact, it's something that I work hard to incorporate in my corporate and public seminars, because learning a new skill can be a little stressful. I often find that the people I train enjoy themselves so much that they realise they've forgotten to be nervous!

Some experts say that laughing is a way of releasing tension. Certainly, many jokes do build tension as they... Releasing tension is also a very useful thing to be able to do in a business situation. Scientists have shown that people who are able to relieve stress through the use of humour are healthier overall and cope better with stressful situations.
Build tension as they what? It's frustrating, isn't it? Many jokes build tension in order to then relieve it with the punch-line. The relief is the good feeling of getting the joke, of joining in with the audience and of releasing tension.

Often, I've seen people who pitch use jokes as ice-breakers at the start of a pitch, and I have to tell you that they rarely work as the pitcher intended. In a business situation, the biggest problem with an ice-breaker is that it breaks rapport, because the subject of the joke can be very different to the subject of the pitch.

The audience begins to get in tune with the pitcher, thinking, «Hey! A comedy show!» and when the pitcher says the immortal words, «But seriously...» the audience comes back to Earth with a bump and rapport is lost. Half way through the pitch, the audience is thinking, «I wish he'd get back to the jokes». The same thing happens when you begin a business meeting by talking about golf or your last holiday. The client thinks you're there to socialise, not to help them make a business decision.

So if I'm suggesting that you don't tell jokes, because they're potentially off-topic and difficult to judge, how do you get the audience to laugh?

Well, I would say that every pitch has the potential for you to be light-hearted and to see the interaction, not as a struggle but as a dance. Enjoy the audience, enjoy the interaction and set the tone as being seriously good fun right from the start. You can pitch subjects that are controversial, thought provoking and even moving, and you can contrast these with the lighter side, because, surely, no matter how serious the subject of your pitch, you want to move the audience in a positive and uplifting direction, yes?
Much of what I've said here is of course my personal and professional opinion, and while I have spent a lifetime making people laugh, I'm not claiming to be any more of an expert than anyone else.

So, if you want a second opinion, here it is: You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

Paul Boross — aka The Pitch Doctor — specialises in the «art and science» of corporate communication. Drawing on a career that has taken him from primetime TV, music and stand-up comedy to production, development, consultancy and motivational psychology, Boross works regularly with such power players as the BBC, Google and MTV, training executives in communication, presentation and pitching. His frontline experience of performance — his credits include a 12-year stint at London’s legendary Comedy Store and presenting primetime BBC TV shows — coupled with a strong commercial grounding enable him to deliver effective and focused skills to clients from a range of industries, from media to medicine. His latest book, The Pitching Bible, is rising fast up the Amazon charts.

   http://www.thepitchdoctor.tv/

                                  http://thepitchingbible.com/

Gregory Bonsignore

At some point in the last decade or so, television programmers – whose entire livelihood is based around viewers not changing the channel – realised that if they glue the first bit of one programme onto the last bit of the previous one, they can hook a few more people into staying tuned to their station for another hour. This however created a problem – what to do with the advertising time that used to go there?

They had already cut the programmes down a few minutes an hour to make way for more commercials, and didn't want the ad breaks long enough to let viewers remotes wander. So instead of broadening the length of the other commercial breaks, or dreaming up a more sophisticated advertising conduit than a 30-second fast-forwardable woman holding a paper towel and swearing how great it works to clean up after her fat husband and slovenly children... They threw another ad break into the narrative itself. This has unfortunately manifested in most hour-long writers' rooms as a sixth white board being screw-gunned into the wall, with «Act SIX» scrawled at the top in dry-erase. 

Now we start with a Cold Open, blowing half the budget on some 21 Jump Street-esque car explosion to pique your interest, and end with an all-denouement Act 6 where people drink beers on rooftops so we can crane the camera to the skyline for the credits... Or see their kids sleeping so we don't forget these detectives are people too... Or watch the patient whose life they just saved sleeping in the arms of their mother or wife, nodding tacitly to their colleague that, despite everything, it was a good day.

But, in the middle, there are now five acts. Not from any storytelling need, but from desperation to hold onto viewers with ADD-attention spans, networks and writers are taking their dramatic structural cue from the number of commercial breaks ham-fisted in. Ending every act with a dramatic reveal or cliffhanger – ushering in a generation of Lost-style storytelling that brings a curtain down every 5-7 minutes, begging you to ponder the grander ramifications of what you've just witnessed. And this need to turn the story on a dime, every few minutes – like a goldfish in a small bowl – has degraded television storytelling. A new style that travels less in watching characters grow and more interested in eliciting a cheap «What?!» or «Whoa!!!» from it's audience to keep them hooked through the next lady with paper towels.

Greeks never used acts in their plays, Shakespeare's acts were inserted arbitrarily by later editors, HBO series are often written without act breaks, and Mad Men's commercials are placed post-hoc. It seems that sophisticated stories needn't bring that curtain down and draw quite so much attention to their own workings. The solution apparent appears to lie, not in removing the commercial break, as much as trusting in the show and in the audience – that they will want to return after the paper towels – because it's compelling episodic storytelling.

I will now ponder this over a beer, on the rooftop with my colleagues, overlooking the skyline.

Gregory Bonsignore wrote and directed a number of film shorts and short plays and worked on many Broadway/Off-Broadway shows. In London, he was the Head Writer for BBC’s Grierson Awards, and in the US he worked for BBC and wrote for CBC and ABC. Now he is writing on the Fox series Lie To Me.

Paul Johnson

MIPTV and MIPCOM that is the question!  Our business is so intense these days that the industry needs face-to-face meetings to progress with any idea or business opportunity, so two shows a year is just not enough.

As a former Director of MIPTV and MIPCOM our main aim at Reed Midem was to ensure client satisfaction across the board.  Our first priority was getting the buyers who were actively acquiring programmes to get themselves to Cannes twice a year.  They did in record numbers - close to 4500 by the time I left in 2008.  Which means, one in three people you see in Cannes at MIPTV or MIPCOM is a buyer! 

Exhibitors were just as important because the buyers came to see what new shows were around.  Balancing these two assets while developing a coherent new message at each market (reinforced through the conference programme or events) that our clients could use to increase and further leverage their IP was the magic we tried to attain each April and October.

The industry is getting tougher and producers have to work 10 times harder than they did 10 years ago to get the financing they need for any TV show. Here's what I did as a producer to make the most of my time at MIPTV:

1. Registered and attended MIPDOC and had my latest TV series placed in their digital library.  This can now be screened by all MIPWORLD registered users for one whole year after the market.

2. Was lucky enough to present our Innovators That Changed The World TV series along with the directors during the MIPDOC conference programme to an audience of over 220 in the Carlton Ballroom.

3. Made use of the MIPDOC "meet the TV commissioners" platform for two hours on Sunday morning (every producer got six minutes with each) to see as many new investors as we could.  This was a great initiative and should be extended for all genres of programming as it is like gold dust for producers and extremely helpful (and exhausting!) for commissioners to see the top product on offer.

4. Many of our MIPTV meetings were generated by our MIPDOC investment and the fact that we had a direct list of all buyers who wanted to acquire our TV series from the digital library

5. Had some excellent meetings during the market that resulted in further co-production partnerships.

A market or festival's only raison d'être is to create an atmosphere of business growth for each participant whatever their field.  Whether it is through awards that increase the commercial values of a TV series, or one-to-one meetings with key financial partners or buyers;  the markets and festivals today should be focused on the commercial success of their participants and nothing else.

However, I don't think that commercial success only comes from the hard sell.  It can equally come from a quiet, low-key cultural trip in which all participants come together in a relaxed atmosphere.  It can mean juries and awards.  It can mean a great match-making session in various forms (meals, speed-dating, drinks and forums) and it also means a focus on the best content of the world.  Celebrities can always add value.  Always.  Never underestimate how much they can drive sales in any surrounding.

The Rose d'Or is an important festival for the TV industry because winners in the past have always had huge success post-Awards Ceremony with their formats and series across the world.  The Lucerne setting is perfectly relaxed for business and a welcome break from the Cannes “non-stop go go! Keep it moving!” and “When's my next appointment oh my God I'm already late!” madness.  Don't get me wrong, I love Cannes at MIPTV, MIPCOM and the Film Festival, but it's nice to have a break in Lucerne!  It also allows you to really engage people with enough time to cement long term partnerships.




Paul Johnson set up Tuvalu Entertainment in 2010, having previously served as Global Head of Marketing and Brand Partnerships at Endemol for little over a year, from January 2009 to March 2010. Before joining Endemol, he was Reed Midem’s Director of MIPTV and MIPCom in Paris.

Susanna Pollack

I am packing for MIPTV.

OK, I admit, I started packing 7 days ago.  I have laid out several outfits on my guest room bed, complete with corresponding shoes and handbags, sunscreen and ant-acid. What else can you expect when preparing for one of the biggest media conferences in the world.  One that takes place in Cannes, France - I have a reputation to uphold, I tell you.

When thinking about how I am going to make the most of my time with some of the most influential buyers of content from around the world – for me, it all starts with whether I am going to go for the killer 4 inch Prada heels or acquiesce to the more pragmatic side of my well being and wear my podiatrist recommended Aerosole flats.  Since I don’t own any Aerosoleshoes, the decision is already made.  Form over function it is. 

Which leaves me to ponder what the most effective sales strategy is when entering a market where the biggest studios showcase their new content with slick brochures and sexy trailers that have been tested by focus groups and brand consultants.   How can the independent producer compete? Do I really need to spend thousands on a four page fold out concept document and useless plastic giveaways to showcase my new show or will an earnest pitch explaining the complexity (or simplicity) of the story and how the accessibility of the characters will appeal to the targeteddemographic prevail?

The fact is that great ideas come from creators from anywhere.  They can come from producers whose budgets are limited to the travel expense it takes to get them to Cannes and the printer friendly one-sheets that are produced for pitches.  As long as the idea is unique and presented with sincere passion. I really believe that it is those gems that make a broadcaster sit up and take notice.

So, while I enjoy the opportunity to strut down the Croisette wearing something I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing in the office, that doesn’t mean that I can sell an idea better than the next guy. It’s the integrity of the idea that counts.

However, being the fashionista I am, I will probably fill up my two suitcases with spring, summer and fall wardrobes (who knows what the weather will be like next week) and prepare my mindset to be open to everybody I meet.   And the great ideas and shows I will learn about between multiple glasses of rose.

See you in Cannes!




Susanna Pollack has been in the media and partnerships business for over 15 years, serving in a variety of roles for the international production community across multi-platform IP development, program financing, TV distribution and coproductions, content acquisitions, channel development, and corporate partnerships. Based in New York, Susanna currently works as a consultant for a range of clients including Sandbox Summit@MIT, SocialSamba, TEDxEast, Kidscreen, and Massiverse. Previously, Susanna was at BBC Worldwide America for 13 years, most recently as SVP, CBeebies Channel Development, working across both linear and digital platforms, overseeing the creative direction of all CBeebies branded initiatives in the U.S. market. She has also had a significant role in the development and financing of many BBC and UK independent drama, comedy and children’s programs by securing coproduction deals with US networks. She started her career in feature film and live theatric production.

Mikko Silvennoinen

I am a commissioner. I shop for tv-formats and local productions. I get pitched many ideas every day as well as during festivals, sometimes even hundreds per day - and I usually say no to 99,9% of tv-show ideas pitched to me. Saying no is my job. I know it is the second best answer, but sometimes the other person doesn’t know that.

What’s the big deal about saying no? Why do I sometimes feel I should even apologise for saying no? Saying no may disappoint the other person, and that’s simply not fun. Sometimes saying no can even make the other person angry. Also, I often hope to work with that person in the future and saying no in the wrong way could jeopardize that.

It is easier to say no to producers and format creators who are experienced. They are often just used to hearing no a lot, but they are also more likely to understand my reasoning. They know that even a good idea might get turned down today, but tomorrow I might call back to ask about it. Green-lighting is often about timing and the best ideas never age.

I believe I should say no as soon as possible and be as direct as possible. This approach may seem brutal, but I do it to establish a stronger relationship with the other person. By saying no I educate the other person on my needs. If I can explain why I say no and they are listening, in the next meeting they may have something perfect for me.

Generally, I just do not like working with people who get their feelings hurt when I say no. I know my jargon (slots, schedules, seasons, channel brands, budgets, etc) may sound like excuses, but if I just don’t believe in the idea even for no concrete reason, I will say that too. My gut feeling is my only friend in making big decisions.

There are three types of format creators who won’t take no for an answer:

1. “I only have one great idea but it is the best idea!”
These format creators only push one idea they love. They will not hear a no. They really believe in that one format so much, that it has become personal to them. I do not like to work with people that only push one single idea every time I meet them. You are more likely to succeed, if you push several ideas because one of them might hit home. Or at least, we will have something to talk about when we meet.

2. “I have a great idea, but I will not share it with you.”
Usually these are producers I haven’t met before. They believe their format is so unique that they can only share it with me face to face. Unfortunately I must value my time and will not meet anyone if they cannot convince me that the idea is interesting first. I do not steal ideas, but I believe the best ideas are meant to be shared. All ideas get better when more people can discuss them.

3. “Actually my idea is whatever you want it to be”
These producers will change their idea after they hear a no and my feedback. They are too desperate and will change their idea around just to please you. I do not trust producers who will not defend their ideas to me. Best ideas are not compromises. They must be argued and debated.

So, I say no a lot. It saves everybody’s time and energy to get a clear no from me. Yes, sometimes I am also wrong in saying no. If the producer truly believes in the idea, they will pitch it to me again even after I’ve said no. And I respect that and I am allowed to change my mind.

By the way, I just love saying yes. It is so much fun! And I never say yes alone, because it is a huge decision that involves my entire team at the channel. Saying yes happens so rarely, that I usually try to spread the joy around by asking an executive from my team to make that phone call to a producer. I say no alone. We say yes together.

Mikko Silvennoinen is TV programme director at Estonian TV3. Aged just 18, he began his career as a host of the Finnish music programme Jyrki. Later, he graduated from California State University in Communications Studies and Broadcast Journalism.
Silvennoinen both edited and hosted the show 4POP, a weekly programme of pop culture from 2003 to 2004. He produced the popular Hauskat Kotivideot and hosted Kuka, Mitä, Häh?

Omri Marcus

Being a TV executive is one of the scariest positions in the world –somewhere between being the janitor at a porno theater and working quality control at a cat food factory. Every day hoards of creatives knock on the TV exec’s door, each and every one of them convinced they have the show that will change the face of TV forever. For these creatives, a failed show will be simply erased from their resumé; for the TV executive a failure might erase the development budget or even their position.

The creative will come with the all the enthusiasm in the world and give a speech that has been given a dozen times before with all the classic arguments:

• The show that conquered the world (or in other words: the show that aired in two states, only one of which is at the UN)
• The show doubled the ratings for its slot (meaning: it was broadcast at 2AM and the creative and his wife watched it)
• The show that became the talk of the country (yes, everybody talked about what a stupid idea this is)
• Brought new audiences to the channel (It was broadcast in Antarctica to an audience of penguins)
• Already optioned by 100 countries (not to be mistaken with actually produced. A programme can be optioned to the Vatican, Wonderland or planet Mars)

The revenge of the TV executive is to follow the same routine with everyone. It doesn’t really matter if the idea presented is terrible, small or the next American Idol - the routine is the same. First – say something nice like:

• I like it (meaning «I don’t get it»)
• It's fresh (meaning «I haven’t heard any similar ideas in the last week»)
• It's original (meaning «I couldn’t find anything good to say»)

If the creative says the show is a one-off - the executive will ask if it can be done as a series, if it's a series the executive will think for a minute and then say - you guessed it - wouldn’t it work better as a one-off?

If it’s a late-night pitch the executive would like to know if it could be done in prime-time. If it's prime-time – can we make it a late-night show?

The executive will then say that the network really needs fresh new stuff and claim that he loves the show. He will ask for a short time to discuss it with those above them (meaning: don’t take that stupid show to my competitor on the off-chance they will see something I missed).

On the way out, right before the end of the meeting – suddenly divine inspiration will come to the TV executive, lighting that light bulb of genius above his head and he’ll ask «oh, one last thing – can we do this with celebrities?»




Omri Marcus is a Creative Director and Comedy Writer based in Tel Aviv, Israel, currently working as an Exclusive Development Partner at Red Arrow Entertainment Group.
Regular Contributor to Huffington Post and Gawker.tv , he searches relentlessly for bizarre TV shows to publish in his blog As Seen on TV.