Spec Scout

[jcgary]

Originally Posted by Steven L.

Hey Tom,

I'll have my reps sort it out after the Holidays. I really don't want that spec being covered or ranked on your website. It wasn't even something to go out into the market, but a writer's sample that slipped to a dozen companies which introduced me to the town. Basically, you guys reviewed and covered a first draft that isn't supposed to be read outside of a close circle of screenwriting colleagues and a select group of targeted execs that my reps sent it to.

Which is why this should be an opt-in website, not an opt-out one.

[Bitter Script Reader]

Originally Posted by jcgary

Which is why this should be an opt-in website, not an opt-out one.

I'm seeing disturbing echoes between this and ScriptShadow. Though that might be unfair as Carson doesn't charge for access to his reviews.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Steven L.

Hey Tom,

I'll have my reps sort it out after the Holidays. I really don't want that spec being covered or ranked on your website. It wasn't even something to go out into the market, but a writer's sample that slipped to a dozen companies which introduced me to the town. Basically, you guys reviewed and covered a first draft that isn't supposed to be read outside of a close circle of screenwriting colleagues and a select group of targeted execs that my reps sent it to.

I'll PM you, Steven -- I hope you'll let us take care of it now. I'm not sure how we would have captured your script if it didn't end up getting tracked on one or more of the big tracking boards, and it seems weird to me that an agent or manager would send out a first draft you weren't happy with as a sample. Regardless, the situation you describe is the exact sort of exception we're willing to make.

[LateNightWriter]

I'm seeing disturbing echoes between this and ScriptShadow. Though that might
be unfair as Carson doesn't charge for access to his reviews.

My sentiments exactly. As I understand it: Without my (or my rep's) will or permission, a website gets a hold of my script and has its "professional readers" rate and post coverage on a public website. And the only way for me, a writer, to view what's been posted and rated is to pay a fee. Does anyone else find something egregiously wrong with this picture?

IMO, before posting any kind of coverage or rating a script, the writer should not only be informed, but asked permission.

Late Night Writer

[jcgary]

Originally Posted by Bitter Script Reader

I'm seeing disturbing echoes between this and ScriptShadow. Though that might be unfair as Carson doesn't charge for access to his reviews.

What's that sound? I think it might be the levees breaking.

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Regardless, the situation you describe is the exact sort of exception we're willing to make.

But I thought:

We're definitely going to implement an opt-out policy, whereby writers and/or their reps can request their scores and the readers' comments be suppressed.

So are you "willing" to make "exceptions" in certain cases, or are you implementing a full-scale opt-out policy for any and all writers who wish their material not reviewed by your readers?

Because one of these things is not like the other.

[ATB]

What's the point of this service again?

Sincerely,

Confused.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by jcgary

What's that sound? I think it might be the levees breaking.



But I thought:



So are you "willing" to make "exceptions" in certain cases, or are you implementing a full-scale opt-out policy for any and all writers who wish their material not reviewed by your readers?

Because one of these things is not like the other.

There's no contradiction, John. 24 hours ago, in part in response to the conversation on this thread, my partners and I decided a) to implement an opt-out policy, and b) to suppress scores below a certain threshold. We're doing that because it's the right thing to do.

It is, however, going take a few days for our developers to make the above changes, and the fact that a) so far this entire conversation has taken place on a weekend, and b) that weekend happens to be the one before Christmas, is going to make it take a few days longer than any of us would like. We also need to work through the details of the above policy changes so we can have consistency going forward, but we should have those nailed down by the end of the day after Christmas.

In the meantime, our existing policy is affecting poor Steven, whose first draft somehow made it into the wild, where we apparently came upon it in the course of our normal tracking activities. If what he said is true (and I have no reason to think it's not, I just don't know what script we're talking about yet), then his script got sucked into the spec market far earlier than he or his reps planned, and for us to have covered it adds insult to injury. Not pro-writer, you might say.

[jscoggins]

...just to be clear, unless you are paying to be read by this service, or have reps who have sent your script out wide and it somehow ended up on the site, you won't be on the site, correct?

Correct. We're not grabbing first drafts off of people's hard drives and holding them up for the world to see (or for ransom, for that matter). We're only covering stuff that's already been distributed widely to the town, or the paid submissions that are good enough to qualify. In response to the other post that included the phrase "who knows what draft," it's the draft that the reps are sending to producers and development execs.

This isn't a game of "gotcha." We're oriented around the spec market, which is to say, tracking scripts that are being marketed to producers and buyers. Our take is that once a script enters that realm, it's being read and covered widely in a semi-public setting already. We're covering those scripts and making the coverage available in a similarly semi-public setting for a monthly fee. So far, our coverage lags the market by about a month, so we think it's unreasonable to suggest our site undermines a script's chances of selling. If we weren't concerned about consistency and providing clean data for our scoring system, we might have done this by aggregating coverage from other sources. But we are, so we're doing the coverage ourselves.

[jscoggins]

And the only way for me, a writer, to view what's been posted and rated is to pay a fee.

No, this is wrong. Writers cannot pay to view the coverage of scripts we've covered for free.

Up to this point, our policy has been not to send coverage to writers directly at all, for pay or otherwise, but reps who have access to the library may download the coverage and share it with you. As I said previously, we may change this policy in light of the opt-out policy we've promised to implement in the coming days -- we should have an update by the end of the day on Wednesday, after Christmas.

[michaelb]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Sorry, MB, thought I had answered via my response to FSF.

"Phenomenal" is an admittedly less than precise adjective. Let me be more specific: A score in the 80's means all three readers rated the script a "Recommend" or better. It's a pretty high bar -- there aren't all that many that have hit that mark so far.

Yes, I agree that it's logical to expect that of those, a pretty small percentage will be sans agent, since good material tends to attract champions. But there are exceptions, notably scripts repped by exceptional managers like yourself. (I know that's going to come off as me kissing your ass, but I mean it literally.)

Of Spec Scout's Top 10 of 2012 list, only 2 of those scripts didn't have agents, and those 2 had reputable managers. FWIW, only 2 didn't have managers, and those 2 had reputable agents. The rest had both.

In other news, my partners and I have continued this discussion offline. We're definitely going to implement an opt-out policy, whereby writers and/or their reps can request their scores and the readers' comments be suppressed. It'll take a week or two to implement that, but it'll be in the works by Monday. We're also going to automatically suppress scores and comments on spec market scripts that don't score above a certain threshold. We're still discussing what that threshold should be, but it's going to happen, concurrently with the implementation of the opt-out policy.

Hopefully, the combination of those two changes will minimize that thing I was concerned about -- that projects without scores will automatically be seen as significantly deficient in some way (which they shouldn't be, per my earlier post about the scoring system).

Thanks again for everyone's input. It's been very helpful.

Thanks, Jason. I guess a better question is, can a rep have a policy of never having coverage posted on the site? Can a manger such as myself, say, unless you ask me, do not post coverage?

Best,

MB