I have conducted two rounds of pitches. The first time, I purchased 10, doubling up on certain individuals to verify their consistency with feedback. After receiving most of them back (a few feedback reports were more than two weeks late), I adjusted my pitches, focusing on the suggestions provided, and searched for the right people to pitch to for the next round of submissions.
In round 2, I decided to do the same but only bought nine instead of ten. No reason why I ended up going short one; it just happened that way. My feedback this time was very positive, but still, everyone I have received (so far) has a pass. After reviewing all the feedback reports I got back from rounds 1 and 2 (one was so obviously AI-generated that I got a free code for a new submission), it became clear that these pitch sessions are not what they are advertised to be. I say this not because I received all passes, but because of the feedback I received. They all sounded more like help in crafting a good pitch rather than people actively searching for projects. And, by the way, more than one feedback report came across as very AI-like.
Do I believe everyone offering their services is lying about their true reasons for being a part of the pitch sessions? No. But I do think this is an easy way for people to fill out a scorecard and jot down some helpful suggestions (some AI-generated) to make a quick buck. I will not use this service again and hope that those of you who do realize that the chances of your material being requested are very slim, even if you receive a glowing review and all 4s and 5s.
Good Luck Everyone!
1 person likes this
Hello John Anselmo,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback about your pitch session experience. I can certainly appreciate your candor and willingness to engage thoughtfully with the process and provide constructive input about how we can improve.
Your concerns about AI-generated feedback are taken very seriously. We have strict protocols in place - executives are coached specifically not to use AI for generating any written feedback, and when incidents are flagged, we immediately address them by requiring a redo or reassigning to another executive. We're continuously monitoring this issue and appreciate you bringing the one obvious case to our attention so we could provide you with a replacement code. The world is changing but we are making sure all thoughts and feedback shared are human generated. As we tell the execs - we (and the writers) care about what you think - not a machine!
Regarding the nature of the feedback, I want to clarify what these sessions are designed to accomplish. Executives participating are actively looking for materials, but the reality of the industry is that most projects won't be the exact fit any individual executive is seeking at that moment. When that happens, the real value lies in receiving professional feedback that can strengthen your pitch and material for future opportunities. I'm sure you understand this is how the industry works. Even established writers receive passes...and those passes don't reflect on the quality of their work or talent.
3 writers signed with representation and 2 projects got optioned in just the last 3 weeks through pitch sessions so real opportunities are being created through these sessions. These successes often come after writers have refined their pitches through multiple rounds of feedback, just as you did between rounds 1 and 2.
If you'd like any specific recommendations or guidance, please feel free to reach out to me and the team at success@stage32.com.
1 person likes this
@John Anselmo - Thanks for sharing your experience.