I realize 'fully integrated' is more of a goal than a reality for most of us in this modular environment. But an article on The Location Guide surprised me. Turns out greenlighting decisions don't always flow from concept, demand/market analysis but also from internal operational inefficiencies:
"A key driver behind [financial] pressures is the industry’s continued reliance on fragmented and often outdated financial infrastructure. The report finds that 64% of respondents cite disconnected systems as a major barrier to accurate cash-flow forecasting, while more than 80% still depend on manual processes such as email and spreadsheet-based data entry for core tasks like accounts payable....
... The findings land at a moment of broader recalibration for the global production sector. Following a period of rapid expansion driven by the streaming boom, studios are now operating in a more disciplined commissioning environment, with profitability and efficiency taking precedence over volume."
I am having a little trouble thinking that companies/studios would be so forward looking in adopting new tech like AI-driven post-production while having forgotten their production operation stack somewhere back at the Flinstones' home :)
Is this really happening? And, also, for independent producers, what stack do you currently use for operations?
Article link: https://www.thelocationguide.com/industrynews/rising-costs-hit-film-prod...
2 people like this
Sebastian Tudores I agree with you, I think. This is a vague article based on something that wrapbook says they found. Wrapbook is by far not a leading company in the space. Most independent films will use one of the larger and more trusted payroll services. As far as "integration" it makes sense for a studio which is working on products all the time. But independent film, which wrapbook mostly services, work on a single project maybe once every few years. It makes not sense at all to get involved with these platforms when it's faster to do the accounting yourself in that environment. Also, if you're doing union work, they require you to use an outside payroll service anyway, so you only do the timekeeping on your production and then hand it off to them. Also, who is "the industry" that they are talking about here? Reliance on "fragmented" financial infrastructure is how all entrepreneurial businesses work, and a single film is its own startup. Studios use outdated financial models by definition and any indie producer running to a studio for production funding is at the mercy of that system, but that's not a new thing or a trend. It's the way it's been for three decades now.
1 person likes this
The article was all over the place. Labor is the main driver for rising costs, and labor is about about 80% of a budget. The other side on the coin is studios / production companies are trying to keep costs down. So rising costs, and cost reductions are in conflict. If you're financing, you are not taking risks. Cash flow, money coming in, is hard to predict when the funds arrive. Having come from the studios, and being involved with system-changeovers, is not something that's done on whim. It's a cost, a big one. And not many are aware that when a system change happens, not all your vendors can use it, or interface with it. This results in new programming patches that will be paid for by the studio, so the vendors systems can interface into the new ones. The info Shadow mentioned is spot on: using a payroll service, financial models (which I've worked on) are all part of the process.
Shadow Dragu-Mihai & Lindbergh Hollingsworth yup, I think we agree indeed. But also appreciate your added insight into some of the 'realities' of production. I feel articles like that one happen when providing genuinely helpful info comes into contact with wedging in a pitch for a product or service, which I kinda felt that article was doing.