What do you look for in a coverage service?

This probably summarises my thoughts:

http://www.actfourscreenplays.com/coverage.html

Good luck, though!

Mac

I'd look for affordability, quality, and NON-scam-iness-ess.

Coverage and Coffee said:

Notes vs. Coverage is a valid point and I'm sure many people have stances on (Again, this is for research, so the more perspective you guys have on this, the better). It looks like Daniel's basic package is $350. Would this be a deterrent for you or do you feel that this would be more worth your money?

Click to expand...

As a spec writer I don't have much need for or interest in coverage.

What I look for is good analysis ... in terms of my genre, in terms of my story, in terms of my use of the form, and in terms of whether I have been sufficiently theatrical and taken maximum advantage of cinematic conventions, principles, and traditions.

Obviously, story will consume most of such an analysis, because it breaks down into so many constituent parts ... how I've drawn the characters and their arcs and the story's dramatic structure and intensities, its setups and payoffs, reveals, emotional "moments," rhythm and pacing and changes in tempo, the quality of the dialogue, and so on. To include the notion of whether I've brought something new to the table.

I'd pay and have paid $350 for such an analysis, no problem. I'd even pay more if I knew the consultant was abundantly qualified, and have in fact done so.

I'll leave coverage to the prodco or studio readers who may eventually read my script. But first I have to get it to them, and that means my work has to satsify known standards of competence and execution. The only way I can know this has been accomplished is to utilize the services of a good capable consultant.

First things first.

Mac H, great article! It really sums up the difference in notes vs. coverage: what I do when I'm beta reading / critiquing someone's script, vs. what goes on in an actual studio that buys and films scripts. Thanks!

What we'd look for is somebody saying, "I could sell my script, but I got coverage from XXX service and it sold."

Been around the business for a long time, colledtively and none of us can recall ever hearing that.

I look for someone to exchange critiques with rather than paying for someone's opinion. Even when they say recommends get looked at by so-and-so big-wig mucky-muck, the % of those is at most 1%, so basically they have to fall in love with your script. About the same odds that someone at a prodco or an agent will fall in love with it. . .

Coverage and Coffee said:

Always been a reader, never a coverage service... er maker... but I've been given the opportunity to research what coverage service would appeal most to writers for my job.

And, well, being a writer myself, I know of the things I want... like current industry professionals, a reasonable turn around, a satisfaction guarentee, and I want to get my money's worth. But honestly, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've recieved so many inconsistent and watered down coverages in my time, (I try not to give them, of course!) that I wish I could have something more to assure me that the service isn't a waste of my time.

Anyway, help a girl out answer me this: what would your dream coverage service provide? And, if you had a service in the past that you didn't like, what went terribly wrong?

Click to expand...

I have to to say, on some level, the question seems to mis-apprehend to whole purpose of coverage.

Coverage was never intended for any purpose of the writer.

Whether provided by a freelancer or internally, it was always intended to serve the needs of either an agency or a development company or a studio -- to ease the burden on the part of its staff who would otherwise have to read a vast amount of (often) completely inappropriate material.

It's a cover page with a logline and some other kinds of information (high budget/low budget), how it scores on a scale on various things like character, originality, plot, etc. -- then two a two page summary, then, as a rule, half a page of comments.

And the reader opinion -- recommend, consider, pass.

Although these days, they've worked in "weak consider" which is a sort of namby-pamby pass (or, as I like to put it, "Pass, but don't blame me").

What writers have to understand is that what readers do is often tailored to the specific needs of a company and their comments, likewise, can be tailored in that way. What's "wrong" about a script may refer to what is "wrong about the script for us" -- not necessarily what is wrong in some global fashion -- or it may.

In any case, the comments are always going to be very brief. Whether good, middling, or bad, they are not intended to be script analysis.

And what is also very important to understand is that, despite comments to the contrary, all readers are most definitely not going to respond to all scripts in the same way.

When we were dealing with readers back at my old company we had to decide which scripts to send to which reader because we knew that certain readers had certain proclivities -- certain things that they loved and certain things that they hated. So in order to get fair readings on things we knew that we couldn't give certain scripts to certain readers.

And that worked both ways. We had a reader who loved horror -- but not in a critical way -- he was a gourmand, not a gourmet. Any horror script we sent him, however bad, he'd love it and he'd sent it back with a recommend.

The trouble is, when we got a script back with a recommend -- one of us had to sit down and read it, or try to. And it was wasting our time because all of these scripts he was recommending were awful.

So we had to stop sending him horror scripts.

And I also know that scripts of mine have gotten great coverage at certain places and bad coverage at other places. I don't know what that says about my screenplays. I suspect it says much more about the nature of readers at various places.

I think that a lot of writers have come to the conclusion that getting coverage on a screenplay is a sort of inexpensive substitute for the services of a story analyst -- and it's not.

And the fact that a lot of freelance readers, sensing the presence of an additional source of income in a market that doesn't pay very much money, have encouraged this idea, likewise doesn't make it so.

NMS

You're right about the purpose of "coverage" and "notes". However, the term has been taken up by writers, in the same way friends who read to give feedback are sometimes called "betas".

If somebody wants pro input on their script and is willing to pay for it (either outright or as a perk on a contest entry) or exchange for it, they generally call it "coverage". What else should it be called?

Team 2012 said:

You're right about the purpose of "coverage" and "notes". However, the term has been taken up by writers, in the same way friends who read to give feedback are sometimes called "betas".

If somebody wants pro input on their script and is willing to pay for it (either outright or as a perk on a contest entry) or exchange for it, they generally call it "coverage". What else should it be called?

Click to expand...

Well, since such isn't "coverage" it shouldn't be called that.

The correct term is "critique."

But people like to use words they think are "insider words," makes them come off as being cool yunno.

I've had e:mail exchanges that go like this:

Writer: "I hear you do coverage. What do you charge?"

Me: "I don't do coverage."

Writer: "Really? I heard you do."

Me: "I can critique your script for you but that's not coverage. What exactly are you interested in?"

Writer: "Feedbck on my work."

Me: "Okay. That's what I do. Coverage is a whole other animal."

Writer: "I see. So can I send my script to you?"

Me: "Sure."

Team 2012 said:

You're right about the purpose of "coverage" and "notes". However, the term has been taken up by writers, in the same way friends who read to give feedback are sometimes called "betas".

If somebody wants pro input on their script and is willing to pay for it (either outright or as a perk on a contest entry) or exchange for it, they generally call it "coverage". What else should it be called?

Click to expand...

Just because the term has been taken up by writers, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate them to the difference and there's a big difference.

None of the script analysts that I know refer to the their feedback as "coverage" They refer to it as analysis / notes / evaluations / critique. Analysts tend to have professional screenwriting experience or high level development experience, or sometimes both. Readers are often entry or low level employees (many production companies rely on interns to do coverage) they are not involved in the development process, they are the gatekeepers to development. They are not tasked with fixing problems or finding ways to make a script fresher, more commercial, helping bump up a flat second act.

Coverage is usually 2-3 pages. It's often impossible to point out all the problem areas in two or three pages, let alone provide a writer with the information he needs to fix the problem.

In-depth analysis is anywhere from 6 to 25 pages, and sometimes includes page notes that pinpoint specific problems.

Coverage and analysis / critiques are two different animals and its important that writers seeking feedback understand the difference between the two - both the difference in experience level of those providing the feedback and the depth and breadth of the feedback provided.

Coverage and Coffee said:

I'm sorry some people don't like that I used the word "coverage." I'm going to stay with that term, since the analysis will follow a coverage rubric, like that of a studio. If you don't like that type of serivce, that's fine. I'm happy to hear why (inconsistency, scamy, not long enough to provide in depth help, inability to get a script sold because of it, etc etc). But please, let's just say you say tomato I say tomata...

And a I apologize if that sounds whiny. I do appreciate the responses. I have meeting monday morning on this and I'm writing down anything and everything I think may help (I even did note that coverage may be misleading).

Click to expand...

I don't think you owe anybody an apology.

But I do think you need more clarity in describing the kind of service you are exploring as a possible offering. Is it a coverage service or is it a critiqueing service? We've established that "coverage" and "critique" aren't the same things, they are different things done for different purposes by different kinds of people.

You say "I'm going to stay with that term, since the analysis will follow a coverage rubric, like that of a studio," which sounds an awfully lot like it'll be coverage and not critique, or it'll be critique dressed up in the form of coverage, which makes no sense ... because the rubric of coverage would necessarilly be different from the rubric of critique.

Pardon me if I'm confused.

Are your people intending to sell critiques but call them "coverage"?

To my mind that'd be playing to the lowest common denominator and perpetuating the myth that what aspiring writers need is coverage when in fact in nearly all cases what they need/want is critique. Just because aspiring writer's don't know the difference and prefer a "hipper" term doesn't mean your people should play to that. Call a spade a spade and be honest about it, and explain the difference in your promotional material if you have to.

Seems to me if all you want is the recommend/pass style reading, you can get that quality of information here in SYW. If someone can't read through 10 pages of a script here, no way is the whole thing going to make it through the gate at a Prod. Co. And you get some specific feedback here you wouldn't get elsewhere that can target specific weaknesses.

(Though, SYW is no substitute for a comprehensive analysis with notes from someone who actually does script analysis for a living. I have every intention of seeking out an actual critique service once I'm able to afford one.)

Coverage and Coffee said:

I'm sorry some people don't like that I used the word "coverage." I'm going to stay with that term, since the analysis will follow a coverage rubric, like that of a studio. If you don't like that type of serivce, that's fine. I'm happy to hear why (inconsistency, scamy, not long enough to provide in depth help, inability to get a script sold because of it, etc etc). But please, let's just say you say tomato I say tomata...

Click to expand...

It's not an issue of tomato and tomata - as Goodwriter pointed out its an issue of a tomato and a potato.

Studio coverage by its nature, is meant to inform whoever reads the coverage, why the script is being recommended or passed on, it's not designed to help the writer at all. In fact unless your agent has a special relationship with the production company, writers don't even see the coverage their scripts receive. Studio coverage is for internal use only.

Critiques on the other hand, are written for the benefit of the writer - with the purpose of identifying problems for the writer, offering solutions and/or asking writers questions that may lead them to finding solutions on their own.

I think it's very important to be clear on the differences. Because the bottom line is that most aspiring writers, and even many professional ones, will not get what they need to improve the script from "coverage."

Goodwriterguy said:

What I look for is good analysis ... in terms of my genre, in terms of my story, in terms of my use of the form, and in terms of whether I have been sufficiently theatrical and taken maximum advantage of cinematic conventions, principles, and traditions.

Obviously, story will consume most of such an analysis, because it breaks down into so many constituent parts ... how I've drawn the characters and their arcs and the story's dramatic structure and intensities, its setups and payoffs, reveals, emotional "moments," rhythm and pacing and changes in tempo, the quality of the dialogue, and so on. To include the notion of whether I've brought something new to the table.

I'd pay and have paid $350 for such an analysis, no problem. I'd even pay more if I knew the consultant was abundantly qualified, and have in fact done so.

Click to expand...

Goodwriterguy said:

Well, since such isn't "coverage" it shouldn't be called that.

The correct term is "critique."

But people like to use words they think are "insider words," makes them come off as being cool yunno.

I've had e:mail exchanges that go like this:

Writer: "I hear you do coverage. What do you charge?"

Me: "I don't do coverage."

Writer: "Really? I heard you do."

Me: "I can critique your script for you but that's not coverage. What exactly are you interested in?"

Writer: "Feedbck on my work."

Me: "Okay. That's what I do. Coverage is a whole other animal."

Writer: "I see. So can I send my script to you?"

Me: "Sure."

Click to expand...

Goodwriterguy, happy to see you posting here again.

If you are qualified to to sell your critique service (analysis, etc.), why would you pay for a story consultant to critique and analyse your own scripts?

Team 2012 said:

You're right about the purpose of "coverage" and "notes". However, the term has been taken up by writers, in the same way friends who read to give feedback are sometimes called "betas".

If somebody wants pro input on their script and is willing to pay for it (either outright or as a perk on a contest entry) or exchange for it, they generally call it "coverage". What else should it be called?

Click to expand...

Script analysis? Notes?

I mean, the primary aspect of the coverage -- what it really means to "cover" a script, refers to synopsizing it. You need to read something but you don't have time to do it yourself, so you get somebody else -- an assistant, an intern, a paid reader, to do it for you and write a brief synopsis of what the damned thing was and to tell you, briefly, whether it's actually worth your time to read it personally (which it usually isn't).

But that central aspect of coverage -- writing the synopsis, plus most of the stuff you'd find on the cover page, isn't particularly useful to the writer. It's all meant for a producer or an agent.

I mean, this is still a specific term in the pro world that refers very much to a real and very specific thing. If it's morphed into something else in the non-pro world -- that's something that should be discouraged, because that's only going to lead, ultimately, to people in the non-pro world using the term incorrectly as they move (hopefully) into the world of professionals who use the term as it ought to be used amongst professionals.

NMS

jonpiper said:

Goodwriterguy, happy to see you posting here again.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

jonpiper said:

If you are qualified to to sell your critique service (analysis, etc.), why would you pay for a story consultant to critique and analyse your own scripts?

Click to expand...

Because 1) we are usually not the best judge of our own work, and 2) there are better analysts out there than me.

I'm good at helping newbies up to intermediates or the fairly competent but probably couldn't help an established pro much. Those writers use the higher powered consultants around.

It's a matter of depth I think. The more you know the deeper you can go. I don't have a Phd in Film Studies like Bob McKee nor did I teach at UCLA Film School for 15 years the way Aubrey Horton did.

We all have limits, even those guys.

jonpiper said:

If you are qualified to to sell your critique service (analysis, etc.), why would you pay for a story consultant to critique and analyse your own scripts?

Click to expand...

Goodwriterguy said:

Thank you!
Because 1) we are usually not the best judge of our own work, and 2) there are better analysts out there than me.

I'm good at helping newbies up to intermediates or the fairly competent but probably couldn't help an established pro much. Those writers use the higher powered consultants around.

It's a matter of depth I think. The more you know the deeper you can go. I don't have a Phd in Film Studies like Bob McKee nor did I teach at UCLA Film School for 15 years the way Aubrey Horton did.

We all have limits, even those guys.

Click to expand...

Coverage and Coffee, I think you should consider Goodwriterguy's answer to my question when you market your new service. You must tailor the script analysis to the writer who wrote the script.

Are you, yourself, qualified to provide an in depth analysis/critique to a pro level script? Will other members of your team provide critiques to newbies as well as pros?

jonpiper said:

Coverage and Coffee, I think you should consider Goodwriterguy's answer to my question when you market your new service. You must tailor the script analysis to the writer who wrote the script.

Are you, yourself, qualified to provide an in depth analysis/critique to a pro level script? Will other members of your team provide critiques to newbies as well as pros?

Click to expand...

It sort of works out naturally that mid-level consultants like myself end up working with newbies and mid-level writers (for want of a better term); newbies need more instruction than they do critique whereas mid-level writers need more critique than instruction. Newbies and mid-level writers can afford my services, they cannot afford the services of the more capable analysts, which they don't need and who won't work on their material anyway.

So there's a kind of natural affinity or "fit" between the various skill levels of writers and the various skill levels found in the consulting community.

I think you're right in that Coverage and Coffee should probably be designing her service offerings so that there's a clear distinction between coverage and critique and that the critique aspect be geared in some fashion to the differing levels of competence that we find among unsold writers.