What's your feeling on contests and coverage?

I appreciate everyone's resistance and weariness. I posted a thread a while ago, it's still there on the forum somewhere. I asked how everyone defines legit coverage versus feedback. There were a lot of different answers. What's that saying? I'm probably paraphrasing. The only thing two writers can agree on is that no one agrees on anything.

Now that it's been a while and I've had a lot of conversations with a variety of people, I've come full circle with that question. One, the internet has a lot of different definitions. Two, there's risk in everything, no guarantees. Three, CJ, our fearless website owner, has done, and continues to do, an amazing job of gathering and verifying legit resources for emerging screenwriters. Which leads me to number four, there really aren't that many legit resources, sad but true.

Not quite sure Coverage in the traditional sense is even something you can purchase. In the olden days - it was merely what those did in production houses in screening scripts for the bosses. e.g., I recommend this because..... So you kind of got coverage (which you would never really see) if somehow your script made it through the pile. 

Someone selling "coverage" now-a-days really isn't. They are selling an opinion. Unless you can take that opinion and march into a studio's bosses office with it - it ain't really coverage. It's feedback.  I know that is a gross over-simplification. But you get the gest.

Stage32 as an example advertises "Coverage Services". I've tried it once. What I found (just my experience) was that it was pretty insightful feedback, I got some out of the box ideas on how to amp up a script. And I got a "recommend" which was the only useless part of the "coverage" because there is nowhere for me to take that to and see - okay Producer - read this now. I got a Recommend.  Never going to happen. The recommend is only good for my ego and nothing else. 

So they really ought not call it coverage - but they do I guess because everyone now mislabels it.

So what you are really buying is independent feedback. I have a lot of feedback channels from my wife (me muse), to a whole host of friends I have made in this hobby. And although their feedback is incredibly helpful - it is not independent. It can't be. They know me. So, I do think every once in awhile it is valuable to get independent feedback. Just know who you are getting it from - their credentials, etc - that they are reasonably priced and don't confuse it with coverage - even if it comes back structured like that. 

FYI, David, there is some value these days to Stage 32's recommend designation. I just got my first "double recommend," meaning one for the script, one for the writer, and every few months all the writers wiith double recommends have their loglines and brief bios email blasted to around 500 industry execs. I'm not sure how many read requests I'll get, but I'm sure it varies quite a bit from script to script. Another potential value if you use their "premium" service, I think it's called, in which you can choose from their roster the specific exec who will provide the notes, is that the exec may ask to share your script with his/her company, and that's happened to me in this case too, so it's not just a theoretical possibility. I'd imagine a pair of "consider"s would be good enough for the exec to consider sharing a script internally.
 

Eric,
I received this distinction not once, but twice with Stage32. I also was the only writer to receive double recommend from Regina Lee based on the first 10 pages read, which, by the way, is not very cool at all. The first 10 pages and they stop reading no matter how well the script is flowing and/or tickling their funny bones. Way too much formula with some of these readers. But I digress...with all the success with coverage and recommends, and the promise of distributing your name throughout their network, I received not one inquiry and my follow up to the selections went unanswered. I did my research as to who would be the best to cover my work, but regardless of how well I looked in their eyes, nothing came of it. Double recommend or not. High praise or not. End of the trail. Finish. Final. Done! Can I swear here?

But...Script Revolution and CJ...now that's a great combo. Optioned and shoots being scheduled. Very grateful for this platform. Keep writing. Keep posting and fill out your script details in full! Leave nothing out! Press on and master the craft.

Best,
Gary

Thanks for sharing your experience, Gary. I will temper my expectations accordingly. At least the Stage 32 notes have paid off in that they were good notes and the script is headed up the chain in the development exec's company. I know Regina a bit. We went to the same school.

As per CJ ...most competitions I know of don't use the judges for feedback so there's no correlation. All the feedback entries are farmed out to a third-party system that offers it at a wholesale rate. Is the reader then the gatekeeper to the judge? The reader is the one that scores your script and ticks, pass - recommend - award-worthy?   

All the competitions I know of with the exception of Nicholl have no links between their feedback readers and the judges. They are separate people working separate jobs. This is why some people get angry and upset when the tone of the feedback doesn't match the placement. Nicholl are remarkably rigorous and that may be down to the fact they can afford to run at a loss.

The best way I can summarise these "feedback" options would be as follows;

$50 evaluations/feedback - Usually come with a score and feed into some sort of ranking system. Readers are anonymous and tend to be other writers or prodco interns looking for extra cash. Part of the game if you're trying to rank highly. Useful if you're trying to apply context to your scoring and a very broad idea of how they reacted to your material. Doesn't carry any kudos with industry members.

$50-$500 coverage/feedback - Varies a lot in content. Readers are sometimes anonymous and sometimes named with the option to select who reads your work. Can provide more detailed guidance if they aim to give a lot of thoughts over a few pages. Tends to use the PCR system with a score sheet to show strengths and weakeneses and sometimes rates the writer with an additional score. Carries weight with industry members if the reader is a named working pro.

$500-$5,000 consultation/feedback - Usually offered by working studio script consultants or at least should be. Very detailed feedback with explanations, suggestions, craft guidance, and more. They are pretty much rewriting your script for you. Can come with score sheets, recommendations, and connections. Carries weight with industry members if the consultant is respected but the empahsis is on the script, not the writer.

This is why Script Revolution doesn't highlight scripts with low cost feedback scores. It might be useful to the writer but it's of little use to industry members browsing the listings. That said, there are moves to try and collate lots of this kind of feedback to give an overall picture.

As ever, trying to combine opinions to give direction is madness unless you look for clear overlaps and know the reader appreciates your voice.

Hi CJ. I hear you... and agree. My question still remains - (as per my post above yours) would you say readers/scores are the front-line gatekeepers to whether your script gets to Judge. Enter any competition and the reader is the FIRST adjudicator that will determine if your script goes up the ladder or right their "dump" 

I'm not sure what you're asking, Barry. Most bigger competitions have tiers of readers who are more prestigious with each round. Not always the case though as smaller, cheaper, lesser known competitions will have a small inexperienced reader pool to work with. Each tier of judges give their scores and that knocks out a selection of scripts before the next round - hence "advancing".

Nicholl have a much more rigorous system where two readers score a script and, if there's significant disparity, a third reader provides additional scoring.

The point I was originally making is that the readers providing the additional feedback option often aren't the judges. Writers can think that the feedback will explain why they didn't advance but there's no guarantee of that. The feeback reader might love a script while the judging reader might hate it.

CJ. Nichole excluded... there are another 999 competition companies out there - most are good, sure some are poor. Again, I ask the question (non-related to feedback reports)  across the platform. ~ would you say readers/scores are the front-line gatekeepers to whether your script gets to a Judge. Enter any competition and the reader is the FIRST adjudicator that will determine if your script goes up the ladder or right their "dump" 

I disagree. There's actually more like 1,500 out there when I checked and most aren't good at all from an exposure point of view. Most are garbage.

You can keep posting the same sentance but it doesn't make it any more clear what you're asking.

You can keep posting the same sentance but it doesn't make it any more clear what you're asking.

I think what he is asking is do the "readers" screen/filter out scripts before they get to someone who is going to judge the script for completion. i.e., if you can't pass through the reader filter. your script won't be judged for competition purposes.

If that is your question Barry - I believe the short answer is no. I believe it is like this:

All scripts get read and rated according to the competition's scoring system. This is done be a competition Judge(s)

Of all those scripts, some ordered feedback. In some cases the Judges will write the feedback. In some cases it will be farmed out to readers to write the feedback. 

So, no - there is no frontline gatekeeper to filter out scripts before they are judged.

However - there may be an ever-escalating quality of judges in each round.  For example:

Round one Judges may be interns, low-level staff in production companies

Round 2 may be more experienced script readers - etc. 

FYI, David, there is some value these days to Stage 32's recommend designation. I just got my first "double recommend.....

First - congrats on the ratings - that does sound promising. Frankly, the email blast thing sounded gimmicky to me. Note: it could be pure gold - I'm just BS-ing my thoughts here.The point is you can purchase email logline/query blasts from sites like Scott Meyers. They don't really work. The Exec that asked to share your script was his company - now that is promising and more closing aligned with the intent of coverage. 

This is why Script Revolution doesn't highlight scripts with low cost feedback scores. 

CJ I just saw your comment on Stage 32 (to others. I asked whether or not Stage 32 allowed you to link the coverage of your script to your actual script on their site). The short answer is no. However - on this site you can show the coverage rating right next to your script (nice add feature CJ).

What I find really surprising is that you can't do this on Stage32. Heck - you would think they would let you link the entire coverage report to your script as a way of promoting the value of their own product. The report is already on-line on their site - it would be so easy. Going to follow-up with them.

Stage 32 have a good list as far as I know. They do a lot to try and connect writers with industry members. I've spoken to them at length about it even if it was 3am in a London nightclub.

I bought lists when I first started. They were full of low effort "info@***.com" addresses and most personal ones bounced.

The coverage services, from what I've seen, are more about getting a pro to read a script and give it a PCR rating so the writer can run around town with a recommend. More traditional in that respect rather than the newer feedback orientated coverage. I saw one coverage report which was mainly enthusiastic one-liners for each section. 

What I find really surprising is that you can't do this on Stage32. Heck - you would think they would let you link the entire coverage report to your script as a way of promoting the value of their own product. The report is already on-line on their site - it would be so easy. Going to follow-up with them.

I'd be very surprised it if isn't in their development plan somewhere. The thing is, the Stage 32 platform is immense and they've brought in a lot of new stuff rapidly in the past year such as building a virtual festival solution to help with Covid.

Coverage-wise - not sure if SR is any different than anyone else. i.e., I am not sure that submitting a query with I got a recommend from SR does anything for me. Feedback wise - like I said, I thought what I got was a really solid product. 

I have sent them an email on linking the coverage report to your script at your option. Seems like a no-brainer and at the end of the day: If they are proud of the people who provide coverage (I'm assuming they are) and they have Producers et al looking at the scripts there - it would seem to be a natural to link the two things up.  

It would but keep in mind Stage 32 are resistant to being see as a script hosting platform. At least they were a while back when I suggested some improvements. That may have changed. I know they've made some minor tweaks to their loglines section recently.

If you are talking about Stage 32 when it comes to coverage, I wouldn't lead with "I got a Stage 32 recommend", I'd lead with the industry member who gave the recommendation and later explain it was done via Stage 32. 

It would but keep in mind Stage 32 are resistant to being see as a script hosting platform.

You can upload your scripts, loglines and posters on your profile page

I know. All mine are uploaded there and have been for years. They don't however want script hosting to be closely associated with what Stage 32 does. Or at least they didn't back then. It was one of the driving forces behind me creating Script Revolution. I said it wouldn't be too much work to turn what they have into a proper script database and was kinda politely shutdown on the topic. ScriptHop are similar. They don't want to be seen as a marketplace either and recommend this site for doing that. Hope that makes some sense.

"...with all the success with coverage and recommends, and the promise of distributing your name throughout their network, I received not one inquiry"

Gary, thanks for sharing this.  I had a double recommend from Stage 32 last November for my comedy, "Parallel Proposals."  Despite all of their marketing emails claiming that comedies are highly sought after at the moment (encouraging people to pay for pitches), I haven't received one inquiry for my script, either.  Eric, best wishes to you!  It sounds like you have a connection, which is great!

"The feedback reader might love a script while the judging reader might hate it."   

CJ - Yep, this is clearly true in my case.  The script I just mentioned with the double recommend from Stage 32?  I made a couple tweaks suggested by the Reader and then entered it into Stage 32's Comedy Competition in December.  Didn't even make the quarterfinals, lol.  That said, I understand it's a very subjective industry.  My own daughters have completely different senses of humor that I do; I'm astonished at what makes them laugh! 

While I had very good luck with Stage 32 the first time I submitted a script for coverage (you can even read my testimonial on their website!), the second time (for my drama) was a waste of money.  So bad (and well past their "guarantee" of a 72 hour return) that I am hesitant to use their coverage services ever again.  The Reader was kind, but just not helpful.  He wanted MORE exposition (had a problem with the fact that it's revealed on page 2 that a main character is terminally ill) and wanted me to move what amounts to my "hook" to the end of the first act!  I was able to figure out his identity and saw that his claim to fame is a successful horror novel (he is exclusively in the horror genre) that was converted into a screenplay BY TWO OTHER SCREENWRITERS!  His suggestions to me made it very clear he writes novels.  Weak IMDb credits, and my coverage was mostly filled with verbose fluff.  Not the "professional industry reader" I was expecting for a $99 service.  I complained, so I'm probably blackballed.  They never did address the fact that it was late, so their "guarantee" is meaningless, and I can't respect that. I do like their blogs and screenwriting lounge, so it's a good platform overall.  

I know people are iffy about contests, but I want to throw it out there that I've had great luck with BlueCat contest submissions.  Their feedback is free with entry, so if you enter early, it's only $50 (feature) and $35 (short) for 1-2 pages of feedback.  To me, that's completely worth it.  I entered BlueCat with basically the same script that the horror Reader at Stage 32 read and recently made their quarterfinals.  Not sure how they came up with selecting 7.7% of entries for their quarterfinals(???), but I was honored to be one of them.  Their feedback was MUCH more helpful than the five pages from the horror reader.  In fact, I've almost always had very helpful feedback from their readers (whether or not they are judges), and the feedback is returned within weeks--not months.  Just wanted to put that out there for people who may like that option.

Happy writing!

Hope that makes some sense.

CJ - what you said makes sense. What they are doing - doesn't. I loaded my scripts et al because they had a place to load your scripts. It's kind of stupid for them to have that if they don't want to host scripts. Instead, just a simple message from them saying they don't and a place where you could put a link to yours if you wanted. What they are doing versus their objective is inane (assuming their objective still doesn't include hosting scripts). 

Andrea - thanks for sharing your experiences. Other than contest feedback (I have never purchased) - sounds like a familiar road. I think I have purchased all of the dream-maker services with zero success. I have optioned a dozen shorts from the free hosting sites like this and Simply Scripts  For Features, I have optioned 4 different features (none that went through to production)  All of those were directly related to contests. I have had about a dozen or so requests to submit my features for consideration by relatively substantial firms. All but one of those were related to contests. One was related to CJ's site.

Long-winded way of saying, for me this site and SS have been absolutely great for getting my shorts exposed (that doesn't sound right...) and they are FREE. Contests (and the COVERFLY site) have really only been the consistent thing for me in terms of features. 

Yes. Thank you, David... you answered my question spot on!

Not the "professional industry reader" I was expecting for a $99 service.  I complained, so I'm probably blackballed.  They never did address the fact that it was late, so their "guarantee" is meaningless, and I can't respect that. I do like their blogs and screenwriting lounge, so it's a good platform overall.  

Sorry to read this, Andrea. The blogs are indeed great. My experience of the Screenwriting Lounge is mixed. It's gone downhill quite a bit over the past five years or so. They brought in moderators but they seem to do more to defend the bullies than tackle them.

CJ - what you said makes sense. What they are doing - doesn't. I loaded my scripts et al because they had a place to load your scripts. It's kind of stupid for them to have that if they don't want to host scripts. Instead, just a simple message from them saying they don't and a place where you could put a link to yours if you wanted. What they are doing versus their objective is inane (assuming their objective still doesn't include hosting scripts). 

Like I said before, it was years ago when I got any feedback on that side of the site. The logline section of the bio has always felt like a bit of an artifact to me as it's been there from the start but gets little attention. Maybe Stage 32 needed to differentiate itself from InkTip and the Black List more so back then so there was no confusion. Perhaps things have changed since then as they have brought in some basic search functionality. Perhaps I should have asked more about this when I've talked in person. It does seem like very low hanging fruit to bind coverage and competition accolades to profiles at least. That said, it would be subject to some sort of data connection existing between the coverage reports, competition results, and profiles. If that doesn't exist, it's left to staff to verify and add by hand as I have to do here. 

Long-winded way of saying, for me this site and SS have been absolutely great for getting my shorts exposed (that doesn't sound right...) and they are FREE. Contests (and the COVERFLY site) have really only been the consistent thing for me in terms of features. 

It's always good to know what's actually working for people and even better to know what I'm doing is part of it. Hopefully we'll see more people getting success with their features on Script Revolution as its profile rises.

Yes. Thank you, David... you answered my question spot on!

Glad you got there eventually, Barry, LOL! 

Thanks, CJ - All the best, and thanks for a great site!

CJ - on the coverage reports - it was my thought that only THEIR coverage reports could be added/linked. As you know, they don't send you one. They send you the link where you can see it - so it is already in their system. It would just be as simple as, if you have this script on our site, would you like to link the report? No vetting of the report needed since it is their report. I'm not losing sleep over this, it just seems like they are wasting a great promotional opportunity on their part. Anyway - like I said - I have sent them a note. If they respond positively - great. If they don't - no sweat.

Your site is absolutely killer in getting visibility on shorts. I have had 12 options (two paid, 10 free) on the shorts I have listed here, three of which that were actually produced.  And I got all that for free! Although there has been little activity on my features, I look at that as a building process for this site. As writers/producers have success with Shorts on this site, eventually, features will develop more activity.  I can't believe that you grew all of this from an idea just a short time ago to where it is today. Yeah, I have a couple of minor issues with the site (not crazy about the poster emphasis and which contests are emphasized) - but those are quibbles. I would pay to have my scripts hosted here. It's that good of a site. Kudos. It is one of two screenwriting sites I recommend to new writers I come across.