DirectCurrent

Funders and producers are working more closely together than ever before. What makes them click? What makes them crash?

As a proud member of the extended public media family (KCET, KQED, ITVS, POV etc. and now running the media strategy firm Active Voice) I’d love to hear what DirectCurrent members think of our research: "The Prenups: Things Filmmakers and Funders Should Talk About Before Tying the Knot."

Personally, I’m very optimistic about silo-busting and increased collaboration. But it’s not always easy, and for journalists particularly, it can be very tricky. We think a more open conversation about content and philanthropy will produce better public media. Who wants to jump in?

www.thePrenups.org

Share

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Some of the misunderstandings may be misled by references to them as "partners" when most producers see them as funders--"silent partners" at best. My experience in PTV and in the work I do now is that people with money to give are focused on THEIR priorities, not a filmmaker's, and they give in order to have their priorities met. So naturally they're dismayed not to be real partners with a real--even equal--say in every aspect of the project,

Reply to This

Good point, Louis. I think defining roles - and language! - is crucial.

Some of the happiest media funders I've worked with have taken a hard look at who’s bringing what to the table. These funders know a ton about their issues, the key players and change-making strategies, and they know they need stories to reach people on a human level. If they can find a producer they trust and share a vision with + offer $ support, connections and resources, they step back and let the story teller get to work.

That’s one recipe for content that is independent, creative AND strategic. Have you seen that kind of silo-busting work?

Reply to This

RSS

About

© 2009   Created by Current.org moderator on Ning.   Create a Ning Network!

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy  |  Terms of Service