The Producers Guild of America (PGA) is pleased to announce that Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Columbia Pictures and Screen Gems, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Universal Pictures have officially signed on to implement the Producers’ Mark certification: “p.g.a.” Establishing the “Produced by” credit certification is a significant industry achievement as it protects the integrity of one of the most challenging and enduring roles in feature film production. Once a producer’s work on a film is vetted and certified through the PGA’s arbitration process, their “Produced by” credit and name will be followed by the distinctive mark: “p.g.a.”
As of now, the Producers’ Mark certification program does not include television or new media productions.
“This is a remarkable moment in the entertainment industry, and a historic step forward in our twelve year-long campaign at the Producers Guild to protect producers and the ‘Produced by’ credit,” said PGA President Mark Gordon. “Simply put, the Producers’ Mark certification changes the process of how we credit producers on a film by appropriately acknowledging producers for the actual work they have done.”
Gordon continued, “I applaud our industry partners at Universal, Sony, and Fox for working with us to create this groundbreaking agreement. I would also like to thank DreamWorks Animation, The Weinstein Company and our sister guilds – DGA, SAG-AFTRA and WGA – who have supported this from the beginning. Finally, I want to thank Vance Van Petten for his leadership on this important endeavor, and offer a heartfelt congratulations to my former Producers Guild Co-President and now President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Hawk Koch, who has worked tirelessly on furthering the Producers’ Mark certification.”
Hawk Koch, President of the Academy said, “I am as proud of this achievement as anything else I’ve done in my career. This certification is an enormous step and moves us so far forward in protecting the rights of real producers. I am excited, grateful and thankful to everyone who has played a role in this historic accomplishment.”
Vance Van Petten, National Executive Director of the PGA said, “The great news is that the industry is already familiar with the certification process because it is based on the industry-standard Producers Code of Credits that studios and filmmakers use all the time during the awards process to vet the film’s producers. The Producers Guild’s professional staff are experts in the certification process, and we look forward to working with producers and studios alike to ensure that the process is both smooth and swift.”
Van Petten continued, “This solution is a constructive one for all of us. Producers will receive onscreen verification of their work while companies will be free to recognize other individuals with the ‘Produced by’ credit as they deem appropriate.”
As a way of bolstering the PGA’s decade-long campaign to combat the proliferation of the Produced by credit, in October 2010 more than 150 notable producers publicly endorsed the Producers’ Mark idea including: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Clint Eastwood, Kathleen Kennedy, Graham King, John Lasseter, David Heyman, Douglas Wick, Lucy Fisher, Scott Rudin, and Steven Spielberg.
The Producers’ Mark certifies authenticity, not membership. A producer does not have to be a member of the PGA to be eligible to receive the certification. The Producers’ Mark consists of the acronym of the Producers Guild of America, in lowercase letters separated by periods: p.g.a. However, the Producers’ Mark is, specifically, a certification mark. It simply indicates that the producing credit it follows meets the standards of the PGA: That the credited producer performed a majority of the producing duties on the film.
The Producers’ Mark is given only to producers who request it and who have been certified through the PGA’s arbitration process.
The process for acquiring a certified p.g.a. mark is comparable to the arbitration process implemented by the PGA during awards season, only with a quicker turnaround time. Studios will provide a Notice of Producing Credits to the PGA upon the commencement of post-production. The certification is modeled on the guidelines established by the Producers Code of Credits (PCOC) that was initiated in 2004 and is accepted industry wide.



p.g.a or not…many films, both large and small, will continue to have between 10-20 credited producers. This is pretty darn embarrassing in a community where many people above and below the line actually work for a living and deserve the credit they receive.
Ridiculous.
I am a PGA member but think this is all nonsense, and many of those declaring and trumpeting its necessity and value would never qualify if any serious measure was truly undertaken.
DPs, directors and writers make a big deal over their credits because they undertake their work directly, in person, without substitution. For example, in the case of the DP (ASC) and director they are on the set every day to get their credit.
It is ridiculous that marquee producers (look at the studio-producing board of the PGA) would support the idea of truly determining the individuals who do the actual, direct work of producing a film because, in a real analysis, it would instead be their staff, executives and/or other proxies would be the ones to receive the credits. None of these marquee producers are on the set each and every day. For the most part, they have the all-encompassing albeit necessary studio apparatus where everything the business affairs, production staff and other support systems do many of the tasks essential to getting the film produced, things a true independent producer calls “producing.”
So, when the language related to issuing a PGA certified “Produced By” credit includes the language, “…such individual was exclusive to the Picture, without substitution, from commencement of pre-production through the completion of principal photography, directly participating in all meaningful creative and business decisions…” or some similar test, this is when this discussion and exercise will become something more than some exercise in vanity, enter the realm of true “certification.”
I say this as the important language is “without substitution” meaning not delegated to his/her story editor, VP, Executive In Charge of production and/or other proxy doing it for them. A director does his own work. A DP does his (thus, ASC mark), and “exclusive” meaning not “working” on 5+ other movies, occasionally checking in, going the date the EPK is being shot.
Trust me, if this was the litmus test, it would all become far less appealing to the “producers” in question. Given this, these people should not be walking around, clamoring for a “PGA” or specifically recognized credit.
Finally, the concept of qualifying or quantifying which work one person does vs. another, in the getting a movie financing, made and delivered is a most dubious proposition. First off, you can’t tell me that the person who works tirelessly to cobble together the financing is any less valuable or less of a “producer” that the person who develops the script, selects key creative personnel and oversees physical production. If one is truly trying to draw that distinction, then I’m afraid the only people to pass the test may be line producers, but definitely not studio based producers who are handed a spec from an agent and an actor from another.
Studio producers love the idea that issuing of producing credits is gate-keepered as then that and the others can control the choke-point of getting material. The majority of people would benefit from an open system, where the IP controlling producer of any script/picture, controls the allocation and determinations in discussion here.
As Joel SIlver has been quoted as saying producing credits are just another form of commerce. And I would agree, a commerce that is necessary to both get movies made and ultimately should be sculpted, monitored and controlled by the IP controlling producer. If you as a real producer don’t want your financier to lord getting a producing credit over you as a cost of financing, just say no. That is not on the table. Make the management decision. A producer doesn’t need to defer to a governing body or process.
So. Again I’ll just say: ridiculous. Lets all get back to the work. Lets focus on making good films.
You are so right. I belong to the PGA and besides the screenings and academy DVDs I can’t figure out how they help the cause for what I do as a Feature Post Producer. They won’t even call me that, they insist I am a “supervisor” and they are all largely absent from the process.
Producers these days largely pop up occasionally at a preview or comment on the music so they can check the box they collaborated in those areas for when it comes time to argue who goes up the accept the Oscar.
Rarely is a feature producer working on one project, on my last show we had these producing partners who abandoned our first time director as he was getting steamrolled by the studio over his cut. One went to Michigan and the other to Eastern Europe to do their other projects that overlapped. They let the editor take the blame, he got sacked.
Producers are supposed to work tirelessly in the background to support the creatives and the PGA is acting like its members don’t get enough attention. Whaaaaa!
The credits administrators at the studios must be crying over this. So messy for them.