Here are some talking points for this weekend’s holiday parties. Jason Scoggins, a partner at the literary management and production company Protocol, has compiled what he readily admits is a “terribly unscientific” but which I find very interesting compilation of the 2009 feature film spec script market based on information culled from public and non-public sources. The numbers do not include pitch sales or the film rights to underlying material. He found that:
• 436 spec scripts came out in 2009, of which 72 sold (17%).
• 373 specs went out wide in 2009, of which 19 sold (5%). Of those 19, only 3 sold after April 30th, out of 178 attempts during the period (1.7%).
• As for spec sals by genre, comedies led with 32% of sales, thrillers 29%, action adventures 21%, while dramas and sci-fi/fantasies tied with 10%.
• Universal and Warner Bros bought the most specs among the major buyers (6 each). But Warner Bros bought only 1 spec script in the second half of the year. Paramount & Sony tied with 5 each not counting ony’s Screen Gems which bought another 3. DreamWorks had 4. 20th Century Fox had 3, but adding all its three banners, Fox bought 6 specs. Lionsgate purchased 3. New Line didn’t buy any specs in 2009.
• Relativity and Intrepid bought the most specs among the other buyers (3 each).
• In the spec market scrum among agencies, CAA made 14 spec script sales out of 34 attempts, or 41%), followed by UTA’s 10 sales out of 30 attempts, or 33%, and ICM’s 10 sales out of 33 attempts, or 30%. WME didn’t form until May 2009, but when you take the numbers for all three of its component companies — Endeavor, William Morris, and WME — the combined agency would have been a dominant #1 in total scripts sold, with 18 sales out of 47 attempts, or 38%)
• Benderspink among management companies had the most spec sales (5 sales out of 11 attempts, or 45%). Kaplan/Perrone had 4 sales out of 12 attempts, or 33%. Principato-Young made 3 sales out of 8 attempts, or 38%, while Circle Of Confusion did 3 sales out of 15 attempts, or 20%.
Scoggins also found several interesting patterns:
1. The wide spec basically died on April 30, 2009. For the first four months of 2009, 8.2% of the specs that went wide to the town ended up selling (16 out of 195). Not a great percentage, but probably to be expected, all things considered. From May through the end of the year, however, sales of wide specs fell off a cliff: 3 out of 178 wide specs sold during that period, or 1.7%.2. Somewhat surprisingly, specs sold consistently throughout the year on a percentage basis. The Spring selling season is roughly twice as long as the Fall season: this year, there were 21 weeks in the Spring (from the end of Sundance to theweek before Independence Day) versus 10 weeks in the Fall (from the week after Labor Day to the week before Thanksgiving). So all things being equal, there should have been twice as many scripts and sales in the first half of the year versus the second. But not everything was equal in the latter part of 2009: there was significant studio head turnover, plus three studios put a moratorium on development spending. Spring sales were front-loaded into the first four months of the period (41 out of the 50 sales for the first half of the year), yet roughly the same percentage of scripts on the market sold in the first half of the year (16.7%) as the second (16.2%).
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
• 436 spec scripts came out in 2009, of which 72 sold (17%).






@ WGA Writer with Business Sense: I’m a director – it makes me crazy to see posts like yours because, I’m the guy with the channels to the money – but I don’t have the project/script that’s got me jumping outta my chair with excitement, to take into the rooms I have the keys to. But here we sit – divided by a system, not the studio system though …
Director with business sense: an tantilizing as post appears, it smacks of the Deadline comment page equivalent of the Nigerian prince with millions of dollars only waiting for a generous soul. I got scripts falling out of my laptop pal. The WGA registered 50K+ scripts this year, and does every year. Your post is like saying “I was I could just test drive that Ferrari but my Gucci loafer is caught under the clutch pedal of my 911.” AKA a high class problem. All bitterness aside (too late admittedly), any time you want a project to jump you out of your seat, you come knocking on my car door, the one I’ll sleeping in this time next year.
Jesus, dude, you got scripts falling out of your laptop? Maybe they don’t sell because you can’t proof read worth a damn.
of course, you could just post your contact info and I assure you that you’ll get flooded with material and be forced to sift through the mess just like the rest of us… money or not, it is difficult to find a good project. everyone thinks their script is a masterpiece. good luck…
@Director with business sense:I agree completely with Writer/Producer with Content discontent: You can’t find ONE script in the entire town that gets you “jumping out of your chair?” Hm. Sounds like you either have ridiculous standards, are a frustrated writer, yourself, or your agent/manager needs to figure out a better way to get you quality scripts, since they are surely circulating.
Thanks to scoggins for the clarification, and to the posters who are describing their personal experiences getting stuff sold in this market. I’d love to hear more of these stories from the tiny percentage who did sell this year: how did you do it? My own story is that I work steadily, but not for the majors. My agent is negotiating a deal right now (yes, over the holidays) with a major LA production company and a financier overseas. Much of my work has been coming from overseas in the last few years, (none of which, by the way, is reported to InBaseline, and of course IMDb won’t post anything unreported in the trades anymore). I think agents have had to rethink what it means for their writers to work for a non-major. There’s more hustle now to get jobs outside the typical system, which suits me fine. Money is money to me, a job’s a job. Who wouldn’t want to make a couple of hundred grand in this economy (even though it would be reported as an embarrassingly ‘low six figures’ in the trades)? I feel lucky and grateful, and, frankly, relieved that focus has been taken, to some extent, off of the studios.
Studios are still punishing writers for the strike – it opened their eyes to the multitudes of specs they’d already bought but never made, as well as the successful franchises and pictures every studio has locked away in its vaults yet to be exploited. Why spend lavishly on a new, un-tested property when you’re already flush with tons of stories that maybe got the shaft in a wayward development process? If you’re a top-level exec forced by your overlords to cut costs, what better/faster way than to trim the fat from the spec-purchase/development part of your operation? Especially if you’ve got nearly a hundred years’ worth of films in the can itching to be re-made and entire floors of scripts that were purchased but never made?
Well, WGA Writer who will be sleeping in his car next year, with that attitude (not to mention your apathetic interest in spelling and grammar), I hope your 1992 BMW is comfortable.
Why would anyone actually take this info seriously based on some ass clown at a management company that is barely known in town? These numbers are way off and don’t count packages, pitches, books, articles, etc…
Still doesn’t change my overall perspective on the business. I might just be a simple custodian in beverly who types furiously on a 3GS but I expect the 17% and lower rate of acceptance. Just have to keep your game tight, or write something so formulatic or write for TV. I chose the Latter and to keep my game tight. Who knows if my crazed ideas will get anywhere, or if I will run the custodial staff of a boondoggle school district, I have try something.
As someone said before, the truth is, of the 436 that went out, (at least) 1/2 of them simply aren’t very good. I’m not going to knock on anyone’s talent, as everyone works hard, tries hard, and bad scripts come from all places. There are even very good writers in the world that write bad scripts, and then force their agents to go out with them. This happens from the big 4 all the way down. It’s not like we all haven’t read crap that comes from CAA.
An interesting parallel can be made to film festivals. More and more people are out there making films digitally, editing them on their home computers, and sending them through withoutabox.com to every festival they can find. So the numbers get inflated. More films, less % of them get chosen. Festivals love it, as it makes them seem more particular.
While the numbers really seem bleak on a surface level, I wouldn’t get too down on the system. Do your best to be original and remember that you are your best representation. Agents (and managers) are, eh. They do what they can (you hope), but sometimes it’s just not up to what you as the creator wants. And I say this from a place of knowledge, as I used to be a rep.
And being a former representative, there was never a more annoying call than a client calling in and saying, “just checking in to see what’s going on with my career.” I worked hard, but clients are rarely satisfied. I always encouraged them to get out there and help me do my job and sell themselves. Now, before someone starts crucifying me for having been a bad rep, let me say that I’m now on the flip side as a director/writer, and I take my own advice to heart and do everything I can to work with my reps in selling myself, not just expecting them to do it for me. It’s a hard world out there, and you have to fire on all cylinders to get something done. And for the skeptics of my “you have to sell yourself” mantra? It’s worked. Two movies written and directed in 5 years – one of which I called my reps and said, “I met this exec on my own at a party, we had some meetings with various people, and you’re going to get a call about a deal.” Not giant blockbuster hits, but I can’t complain.
At the end of the day, you can’t sit back and ask others to do the heavy lifting. Reps will appreciate your efforts – you hope.
It is so interesting to read the genuinely intelligent comments on this thread. I sometimes chide myself for wasting time commenting on this blog, and then I learn so much in response to what I’ve said.
To the unemployed executive: The ration of useful and talented executives to total pompous waste product executives is probably identical to the ratio of brilliantly talented hardworking writers to whining untalented lazy writers. I have been blessed to work with great executives who made my work better and total idiots who made me want to commit murder.
I even know former development execs who went on to become award winning writers, and it may surprise you to know that those are my favorites. However, I do think there should be a non-studio model where people with track records (and I would include not just obvious A-listers but also people who have had success in TV but want to do film, authors who’ve written best sellers who want to write and direct their own films etc.) can hook up with other artists (like the director who wrote here) and get funding in place to make good movies that aren’t 100 million dollar tent poles.
I’m sorry to say to you that I don’t think studio executives are the only people who are capable of deciding what should and shouldn’t be made. I think a model where a group of artists is willing to work at reduced salaries, with REAL back end participation, would probably produce as good of a ratio of hits to flops as a system where executives decide what to fund. I’ve no proof for that, because you can’t prove a negative, my model doesn’t exist yet.
To the Director with access to VC $$$: I’m a working writer who has had both TV and film projects that actually got made. I’ve got a number of spec scripts I’m holding back from the marketplace at this time because I don’t want to burn good material on development execs who are not authorized to buy. What I’m wishing for is a way for you and I to reach each other directly (both metaphorically and actually). You and I both know that if we don’t happen to be at the same agency (and that agency isn’t creative about introducing clients to each other) you will never read my material, and we will never meet. Maybe you wouldn’t like me, because what I really want to do is direct, but for now I bet I’d be happy to have you direct my work, especially if you let me observe you on the set.
Who will create this access among artists? I’m less interested in having first-timers be part of this model, unless you’ve got something to show that actually got made (a great novel that was published, a film you made that got some acclaim, a web series everyone said was amazing, etc.)
When will we all stop acting like Cinderella, sitting around our dingy hearths waiting for the studio princes to bring us our frigging uncomfortable glass shoes?
When I look at what Nikki has single-handedly created here, I want working artists to do the same thing, but it would require realizing that it’s not a zero-sum equation game. That greater access of working artists to each other’s talent to put together projects on an ongoing basis outside of the studio system would ultimately benefit us all. We would have to genuinely realize that someone else from this talent pool getting a film to greenlight would not be our loss, but that their success would clear the way for our success, as more and more good movies got funded and made through this talent pool.
It could be commercially viable because it wouldn’t be one-off projects, and by creating slates of product the risk could be managed more effectively (but of course not eliminated, as filmmaking will always be a high-risk investment).
To Michael Wasserman: First of all thank you for sharing your story, and congratulations. Secondly, thank you for your courage in posting your actual name, and I’m sorry that you felt you had to self-deprecatingly run down your own talent in order to do so. I’m all for a clean 50/50 split, and I think the reason smart money is wary of anything to do with filmed entertainment is that Hollywood accounting is synonymous with fraud. Of course the ways that studios construct film investment is one step away from a Bernie Madoff construct, and of course those hedge funds don’t want to be treated like rubes, so as the fear factor increases, they run screaming from us, even as viewership in ALL filmed entertainment is at an all-time high.
Our business has great profit potential, but investors regard us as con artists.
You’re now my role model. As a creative entrepreneur and a generous non-zero sum equation thinker as I’ve described above. Thank you.
I’m more than willing to bet on my own talent, and though I’ve gotten money for it, I’ve certainly gotten no joy from creating work I loved (and got paid for) that was buried alive in the incredible waste pile of studio development. It’s why I started risking my own time and money working outside the studio system.
But who will step forward and create this infrastructure of artist access that meets independent funding? Of course distribution is key, but the studio stranglehold on that piece of the puzzle is falling apart even as we speak, as a number of commenters have noted here.
Maybe I’m just not thinking creatively enough. Maybe the means to create this system of access is within my own grasp, it just hasn’t come together for me yet.
But I do get this great upheaval represents great opportunity for those who are willing to risk. For good or ill, that describes me.
To the last poster and anyone talking about coming up with a new ‘system’. This is all fine and well, but where reality sits in is when you have your new system with it’s new and artistic product and that product finally has to overcome the inertia of audience interest. You would certainly have to find a ‘Paranormal Activity’ or something on the level of a District 9 (but done for about 1/100th the cost) and have that be your first release… you have to sugarcoat the pill of the eventual navel-gazing dreck I’m guessing most of these ‘new system’ companies would love to put out. It’s the same thing with the festivals… there are no more Pi’s, Primers, Clerks, or El Mariachi’s coming out of them… WHERE ARE THE INDIE GENRE FILMS? There are way too many indie filmmakers/writers who believe they have something to say without first figuring out whether they can simply entertain an audience and keep them interested. Comedy, horror, and scifi are almost completely utilitarian in nature and thus prove the most about a filmmaker’s ability to connect with an audience. Horror and comedy especially… because the audience is either scared/laughing or they’re not. I believe that there IS room for a system that puts out films in a lower budget range if they can find a new marketing/distribution angle, and with the extremely low cost of shooting in HD and doing post on a laptop (including titles, FX, etc.), I still cannot believe a Roger Corman/AIP-like model has not emerged. Where the problem exists is that even Roger Corman ‘accidentally’ hired a Scorsese, a Coppola, or a Bogdonavich who figured out how to elevate the schlock they were given to direct, even if just a little bit and use it as an ‘in’ or a proving ground for their talent. For some reason, I don’t see that happening now… if such a company were to emerge, the films would either be of the IFC/Sundance variety (i.e. – unwatchably pretentious to a normal audience) or they’d be of the straight-to-dvd/totally exploitive garbage variety. There seems to be nobody willing to find that middle ground and try to use the exploitation check boxes (gotta have some nudity, gore, toilet humor, zombies, guns, or aliens running around) while also allowing the makers a little creative freedom. Then you use the few genre successes you have to go and do something a little more dramatic and challenging. But I still believe that struggling writers and directors just do not realize how incredibly difficult it is to get an audience interested in seeing something. And I always hear this argument about films like District 9 and The Hangover (weren’t both financed independently? I know Blomkamp’s next film definitely is, anyway) proving a smaller model does exist, but then the people arguing for such a model would use it to make their tragic story of innocence lost or something… meanwhile, District 9 is an extremely violent film about ALIENS and The Hangover is an R-rated frat-boy type comedy. There’s some kind of disconnect on the indie/festival level between what they’re seeing become successful on a low budget and the kinds of films they think should be programmed/made. It’s like entering the frigging Twilight Zone.
MAYBE THESE BIG HOLLYWOOD PRODUCERS, AND AGENTS SHOULD TO TALK TO A NUMBER OF NEW WRITER’S AROUND THE WORD LIKE MY SELF AT TORCH LIGHT FILMS
WE HAVE 13 SCRIPT FROM THE CHALES MASON STORY TO A SPACE FANSTANY EPIC AND A FILM ABOUT THE YATI ,NOT BE DONE FOR A LONG TIME
THE HAMILTON JOURNALS A MONDEN DAY ROBIN HOOD ADVENTURE STORY FOR ALL THE FAMILY, IF THE PRODUCERS ARE LOOK FOR GREAT STORY PLEASE GET BACK TO TORCHLIGHT THANKS DIRECTOR
FAMILY
You’re kidding, right?
WGA Writer with Business Sense: Bravo! I couldn’t agree more. Imagine a site/web-platform where non-studio oriented scripts could be showcased and given a fighting chance of reaching people with real access to independent finance and real interest in producing such films – wonderful! Artists could meet artists outside of the agency system (though undoubtedly 10 percenteries would find a way in the back door in attempt to curtail their imminent demise, as would executive suits desperate to avoid missing that jewel of the nile)
Of course the biggest obstacle would be managing a democratic selection process of the material/membership and smart gatekeeping to ensure quality was kept of a ‘cinematically oriented’ standard. I guess a board of unbiased adjudicators or something (!? yeah, good luck with that) who could appraise relevant material to be listed and members who could access it. Tough to imagine how something like that could avoid the obvious pitfalls .. but I agree it would be brilliant and it’s absolutely within our reach. I know there are a number of web based screenplay listings but .. seriously, the loglines are enough to make my assistant consider going halves on a murder charge with her boss. And reliance on agents to actually be proactive enough to introduce people like you and I (unless there was a guaranteed spin up in it for them) is so 1995, we’d be foolish to not consider shaking things up at this juncture. The big guys are toppling, no question and, as they do, it’s our time to rise.
I’ll be there flying a small flag of determined defiance while they’re clasping to their tattered frays of entitlement and defeat.
Dear Aforementioned Director,
I am optimistic that this will be the decade that artists in Hollywood, who are, after all, the true means of production in our business, will end their dependence on gatekeepers of all kinds and begin to raise their own capital and be in control over their own means of distribution. Chaotic times make for great opportunity for those who are willing to risk. I’m grateful that I’m not an agent or an attorney or an executive in a media conglomerate. I’m grateful that I have the power to instigate change because, in the end, movies start with the artists. I’m confident that we will find a way to take the power of our hard work and talent and create a new business model that allows us to keep more of the rewards from the risks we have always taken (facing the blank page, walking onto a set).
I think artists would certainly do no worse than executives in deciding which projects to greenlight, and we have ceded our power to others for far too long. There is no perfect system, but there surely can be a better system.
I refuse to sit and wait for a glass shoe, metaphorical or otherwise. And I’d hate to see you and your assistant in the pokey just because of crap scripts and even worse loglines.
Here’s to a new decade and a new business model. Cheers!
P.S. To Aforementioned Director:
To be clear, the process I’m describing wouldn’t have to be “democratic” it would simply provide artist to artist access, and investor to artist access. We’d still be dealing with the marketplace and all its vicissitudes. We would be providing artists of some acknowledged track record or recent acclaim access to one another, minus middlemen, and we’d be providing investors who want to participate in our high risk ventures access to the actual means of production (artists) again, without middlemen (or middle women).
I was pondering, why does VC money willingly head toward bio-tech, knowing that they might lose every penny, and avoid entertainment?
Because VC money understands the concept of losing everything, but when they regard our current business models they see us as con artists. It’s one thing to risk everything and lose, it’s another to feel “taken.” Being “taken” has the same balance sheet result, but you feel way worse.
“Hollywood Accounting” is an epithet that even the least educated understand to be a rip-off, so no wonder the most sophisticated avoid the business that spawned it.
We can change that. We can create honest business models where money is invested directly with the artists who will actually make the film. We can make sure that marketing and distribution are done wisely and that revenues and expenses are accounted for honestly. We won’t always make a profit, it’s a high risk venture after all. However, sometimes our films will make a profit, and that will make us vastly different than movie studios, whose individual projects never make a profit, even as the conglomerates that own those film properties make profits and their executives make enormous bonuses.
We can do a better job than that. It’s a very low bar.
WGA Writer – I’ve had this on my mind for a few days and I think it would be terrific if you and I could connect for a chat. Rather than post my email address, I’ve sent Nikki my contact info – if you do the same, we should be able to connect and see if we can hatch a plan.
What about setting up a monthly networking event?
Aforementioned Director (Almost abbreviated it to A.D. but didn’t want to insult),
I will do the same. I hope Nikki will be kind enough to pass the info…
Aforementioned Director,
I get that Nikki is very busy running this site single handed, and it may not be fair to ask her to pass along info or vet whether either of us is a serial killer etc. etc.
So, if you care to, email me at a new address I’ve created WGAwriterwithBsense@gmail.com
I’m sure you can make it apparent to me that you’re not a psychopath (neurotic is both fine and expected, and you should expect the same from me) and then we can speak.