Treatments
Treatment writing is a thorny subject at the best of times. What was introduced as an innovation to provide a director with competitive edge has now become the norm. From the day that a virtually unknown director named Tarsem successfully pitched for Levi’s Swimmer with an inches thick book (it included swatches of material for the frocks to be worn by the women at poolside parties etc) the world of treatments has become increasingly sophisticated.
Originally treatments were meant to provide a competitive edge. In 2015 they are a required part of the process, partly because clients rely on them as much as (if not more than?) the agency. And they’ve become huge, cumbersome beasts: 30, 40 even 50 page treatments aren’t uncommon (although, oddly, only the absolute A-Listers seem brave enough to keep treatments to less than 10 pages). And with anything that can secure you millions of pounds/dollars, an entire community has sprung up to service the need. And what of the cost? A treatment can cost ‘nothing’ to produce (the director writes the text and an internal person pulls the images and creates the PDF document), but it also could cost £3k+ (a professional writer, pictures researcher, layout artist, director revisions, agency changes, ECD changes etc etc). Then there’s the whole other level: pre-viz, set models, filmed director interviews, test footage etc. Obviously, the bigger the job then the more comprehensive the treatment (with a rough ‘size of budget to scale of treatment’ ratio being acted out), but treatments are still required on even small scale, online projects with sub £50k budgets can require a £2k treatment.
And do they help or hinder? Of course it’s great to have a comprehensive idea of what the director is about to shoot, but then you can plan so much you squeeze all the fun out of an artistic endeavour. And so many great ads managed to occur before the days of treatments that you can’t help but wonder how exactly they fall under the definition of ‘necessary’. And a 40 page deck for a 30 second spot? Really? Then you’ve committed to so much, you’re not even sure of exactly what you’ve promised and what you haven’t:
Client: ‘And that shot of the chipmunk with the mandolin – where’s that in my finished film?’
Agency: ‘Oh, but that was just in the treatment as a reference…’
Client: ‘But my husband loves chipmunks. Stick it in, there’s a good chap.’
Agency: ‘But a chipmunk wrangler will cost another 5k.’
Client: ‘Oh. I wonder if your biggest rival can afford a chipmunk wrangler…’
etc.
And when it comes to unreasonable bollocks the agency can be just as guilty:‘I’m sending you a script, could we do a meeting / call tomorrow – and a treatment by the end of the week?’ And that’s often the sort of timescale everyone is faced with, so you can imagine the time pressures involved in an effort to present something that’s half decent.
And on top of all that, do the creatives even know or care about what they’re looking at? I recall an interesting treatment I once received for a Nicorette ad (one of the ones with a man dressed as a giant cigarette), which involved the directors explaining to me their desire to use an anamorphic lens in order to achieve the same look as Alien or Aliens. Then we moved onto how they were going to invoke the Kubrick of 2001. Then the whole thing collapsed under the pile of bullshit that had been generated.
Then again, at least it was their own work and ideas. Many’s the time I’ve received a treatment written by a professional writer of such things, leading me to wonder where the director began and the writer ended. Under such circumstances, can you be sure whose vision are you hiring? And does that matter?
In LA – a town where creative/screenwriting is in the DNA of the community – treatment writers are recognised as an asset, not a dirty word. “Who’s your writer?” is a question asked out of genuine interest – not deep suspicion. From what I’ve seen, the treatment writer is thought of as someone the director turns to in an effort to make the project better, in the same way he turns to a DoP or an editor.
And yet in London the opposite is true. I was talking to a producer whose director always writes his own treatments. He recently lost a job and was told by the agency that they’d given the project ‘to the only director we’d shortlisted who’d written their own treatment’. Not only did the agency positively discriminate against treatments written by third parties – they couldn’t distinguish accurately who did and who didn’t rely on a writer to knock the words into shape.
Seems like everyone agrees that picture researchers are a valuable asset. Need a still image of a sad frog standing next to a bicycle? A wistful hipster staring out of a rainy window? Give the photo researcher a call. But the words? No, no, no – they must come straight from the director.
Whatever the right and wrong, it seems odd that the two communities should be so split about the same issue. Is it an LA vs London thing? Or is it something more complex than that…Can you discern the difference? And even if you can, do you care?
i can smell a treatment writer a mile off. and i fucking hate it. if you don’t do the words maybe you should send the treatment writer to the shoot. see what I did there? yeah.
Great subject, glad to see this being discussed. I write treatments in conjunction with Directors every day, and there are big regional discrepancies as you point out.
The thing we’re occasionally asked – using a treatment writer – is it cheating?
Well yes of course it is.
In the same way as using a DOP, Art Director, Sound Designer, Editor, Grader, VFX Artist etc. is also cheating.
Film is a collaborative medium. Like any of the roles above, Ghostwriters work with Directors for the best possible end result. When Directors collaborate with experienced Ghostwriters, this can generate a lot of power.
The best Ghostwriters are used in a ‘fourth creative’ role – adding substantial input to the Director’s vision of a project. It’s really fun and rewarding. Directors come in all shapes and sizes from timid yet brilliant auteurs to fascist dictators.
The Director chooses how they want to work with the Ghostwriter (or any of the roles above). It may be a process of collaboration. Or it may be as a stenographer – in which case a Dictaphone and copy service would make do – eek go away.
So – can a Ghostwriter add to the Director’s vision? Yes, absolutely. Much depends on the personality of the Director. And of course, the Writer too.
Ultimately, some Directors write great treatments themselves. But many don’t. Some are too busy, others don’t have English as first language when it’s needed. And some just want to up their game. Or have writer’s block.
@VinnyWarren – And in turn I can smell a grumpy troll from the other side of the planet. What you say you can smell is a bad treatment writer – send treatment writer to shoot? Sure why not – I directed 100 TVC campaigns and was an Ad Agency CD before I became a treatment writer. I work with some of the best out there as a ghost writer and it’s brilliant. Cheer the f*ck up.
Doesn’t it depend where you’re coming from? Take your post from the other day for example.
If directors see the treatment writer as a way to make the project better, then what they write has more bearing on how the finished ad will look.
If directors see the treatment writer as a way to get the job, then you can’t trust what they write as it may have no bearing on the finished ad.
I’m not a fan of massive treatments. I’d rather the director/production team spent quality time working out the details after they had been awarded the job than try to work everything out in a few days to win the job.
Just enough to get a good idea of their approach to the script and any relevant particular that the director feels is important is enough. And I’d really rather that came from a meeting with the director, and the treatment just becomes a written record of that with a couple of relevant images.
I’ve been quite surprised by the massive treatments that directors have sent us over the last couple of years, it’s like the game moved on without me realising. We don’t ask for the big treatment docs, but they come anyway.
Of course, as you say Ben, maybe clients want something more comprehensive – maybe I’ve just been lucky enough to work with clients who don’t need them? But for us, usually the agency’s point of view of who’s right for the job and a reasonable explanation of why, is good enough (but then again, we haven’t been making million pound ads).
It sounds like another symptom of the need to have double proof, backup and a safety net for those making decisions. What this business (on both sides of client and agency) could do with is, is more people who can tell whether something is good, and have the power/courage of their convictions to go with it, without needing 50 pages of why.
…I’ll do a treatment for you. I’ll write it (please excuse the grade 3 O’Level English), I’ll even bung in some drawings (I sometimes find they’re better than photos for illustrating something original).
BUT, as you all know, any half decent creative team can choose the right director from a short face to face chat and a look at his/her reel.
Treatments cost money whatever way you look at it. At the end of the day it’s money that might be better spent on the production of the finished advert.
If a great treatment writer describes a scene in a way that gives the reader a trouser tent (often backed up with a clip from a multimillion pound Hollywood blockbuster) there’s actually no guarantee that an average director could match that promised vision.
Most treatments aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. especially if they’ve been written by someone other than the director.
I wonder how many teams/agencies/clients have been sold ‘Gone with the Wind’ and have ended up with ‘Dumb and Dumberer’?
…anyway for the speediest treatments in town, send your scripts to mark@coy-com.com NOW!
In your experience, how many treatments are being read in full? If, say, 4 directors bid on a job, does everyone involved read 120+ pages?
For a 30 or 60 second spot?
Unless it involves highly complicated SFX I cannot see the reason to do so.
Shortest (winning) treatment of mine was the re-written script (3 pages for two spots) plus one page explaining the gag. Do I win?
One of the joys of being a freelance creative is that you just write the scripts. Then someone else does the crappy meetings with clients and directors and has to go to the shoot.
As in the film business, the treatment should be shorter than the script.
Treatments are part and parcel of the business. And as any fule no – this business doesn’t go backwards. So we have to assume that treatments (5, 10 or 50 page iterations) are here to stay. For 90 second £££ TVCs and for under-funded ‘it’s just for online’ obsolete-in-a-week ‘content’ projects.
Production companies aren’t choosing to write them to win the gig. Rather – Clients are expecting to see them as part of the decision-making process.
So at what point does someone in an agency say to their client ‘as part of the production budget for your project you need to include (say) £3k for ‘treatments’ which we will then districute to the three pitching directors’….?
To my mind that is an utterly legitimate production cost in 2015.
To Ben’s point – does anyone know whether the current crop of Hollywood A-list feature directors can actually write (as opposed to simply direct)? Is it their writing that gets them hired…?
…he called you a troll Vinny…
@alf, i am actually a troll from your side of the atlantic, temporarily trolling over here in the USA. It’s usually just a commercial. And the idea is pretty tight and defined. So all I’m asking is for the director to write down in his/her words how they intend to do this frankly very simple thing: shoot a wee film. And instead i get acres of florid prose that is very clearly disconnected from the personality I talked to on the phone. I know I’m not the general audience for this malarkey, but I am basing my decision on the decisions of the prospective directors pitching for the job. And when what I’m readin veers into bullshit land my alarm goes off. if you’re too busy/unconcerned to write something for me, something is wrong. I’m sure your treatments are Hemingway-esque Alf. But a lot of what I read is obvious flannel.
@Vinny you’re assuming I’m somewhere I’m not, but I’d like to apologize for my blunt language, it’s frustrating when everyone wants to have a go at you as though you’re the anti-christ. I love what I do and it’s brilliant to be able to see some of the best creative from around the planet on a regular basis and work with multiple personalities. I won’t be put down for it.
Treatments aren’t Hemingway-esque at all, no-one needs flowery bullsh*t – the words should be exactly like the Director speaks them, the best ghostwriters make themselves invisible by doing so.
I agree shorter treatments are better, no one needs 20+ pages.
@Mister Gash I agree clients should pay for the service not production companies who are being squeezed unfairly by agency/client demands.
Is a TVC treatment less legitimate if a Director works with a Writer? How about a Feature film? Or a short? Where do you draw the line?
Howdy Ben, off topic I apologise but this has been bugging me.
Do you think the “idea” matters anymore?
I’m at an agency where we don’t care about the idea, only what’s “cool”. If you look at the iPhone posters, it was basically a beautiful product demo, the same can be said for epic split. Is the “idea” a dying art form. And if so where does it leave us planners? Us strat guys and girls? What about the creatives? The ones I work with just trawl through the Internet finding “cool” stuff.
Hi Yeehaa,
I’ve written about this subject a few times before: if so many great ads don’t have an ‘idea’ (as it’s defined in our industry), why are we spending so much time, money and heartache trying to have one?
Well, I think it might be something to do with language. We may not need ideas (in the conventional sense) but we still need creativity to bring mundane things to life, or to think how a bunch of photos can become a worldwide movement (if you notice, almost all Apple ads are beautiful product demos; the genius lies in making that seem fresh and impactful each time).
I think this is a bigger question regarding the roles we now fulfil and what constitutes a ‘great’ piece of advertising. Questions that will inevitable have subjective answers.
Where does it leave planners? No idea, but planners seem now to be providing value in other ways (futurist brand audits etc.). I hope that works for you…
@alf, where the hell are you? I guess what I’m saying is that if I can’t see the joins and the treatment is a product of form following function, I have no problem. But I’ve seen directors I wanted to work with lose jobs because the treatments they offered were just too gushing and lacking a distinct POV. it was not my intent to denigrate your craft. apologies.
I think Alf should ghost write a post for Ben
Here’s the thing. A director still just wants to have that brief, unpretentious chat they used to have with the creatives. But now they have that quick phone call with a treatment writer, and the treatment writer turns it into the massive 15-30pg doc that agencies and their clients now think they need to award a job. So in a way, you should think of us less like writers, and more like translators of a director’s lucid, simple crystalline visual ideas, into the language of modern advertising horse shit.
Directors have to pitch more and more jobs, and do more and more work on every pitch, and they have a smaller and smaller chance of winning every time. And they’re doing it all for free!! So it’s not surprising that sometimes they just ask somebody else to write it, if they trust somebody to speak in their tone, and they do a phone briefing to explain all their actual visual ideas first.
@Vinny we should have a beer together I’m sure we’d get on. We know your work well and one of our writers has worked with you a few times previously in another guise. I’m a Brit based in NZ which is a business advantage being chronologically ahead of the rest of the world, and clock-opposite to UK/Eur/SA. The company I work with has writers/ visual researcher/designers in several time zones and we operate a round the world, round the clock model. Our ‘HQ’shifts between London and Wellington NZ twice daily.
Which leads me to @Ben in your article you say: And when it comes to unreasonable bollocks the agency can be just as guilty:”I’m sending you a script, could we do a meeting / call tomorrow – and a treatment by the end of the week?’ And that’s often the sort of timescale everyone is faced with, so you can imagine the time pressures involved in an effort to present something that’s half decent.”
That’s a luxury. We’re lucky if we get 36hrs, about 50% of the work we do is under 24hrs so instant response is needed. It can come from anywhere at any time.
@Vinny you identify 2 immediate problems with treatments: 1. Too gushy and 2. lacking a unique POV. Both are serious issues. Too gushy is obvious. That’s crap writing. Lacking a POV is the big problem and this is why you see ‘flowery’ treatments.
What’s true is this: you Agency Creatives have likely worked for weeks or months getting a concept accepted by clients. The journey has likely been tough, and you’re looking to the Director to bring it to fruition. And you get some overblown, waffley sh*t with vague allusions to Wes Anderson or Terence Malick and a bit of guff around casting which at best is a copy paste of a copy paste from previous bullsh*t.
The one fatal flaw in almost every Director’s pitch is lack of structure. Directors need to define their unique vision – they must have one – and how this strengthens the core idea. How will this sell more product/ win over audiences / win them awards / wow you Agency guys, who have done the hard yards??
Everything in the treatment hinges around structure – how this will make the audience feel the desired result you Creatives want – what you’ve likely fought so hard for. A Director is a person hired to craft precise reactions in an audience and selected by you specifically to do so, as demonstrated on their show reel. You need to see it on the page.
@Nicholas no one needs 15-30 pages of writing. And it’s not “modern advertising horse shit”. While I’m with Dave Trott when it comes to Cannes/awards et al, advertising defines culture, it can be uplifting, brilliant, inspirational and more. There are many excellent, highly personable and intelligent people working in this industry so can we keep it positive? We’re all traveling through time together so let’s make these hours shine.
Finally @Lamby, Ben hasn’t invited me 🙂 but if you want to see what it’s like being a ghostwriter in Advertising and the creative industry, Creative Digest asked me to write this piece last week:
http://www.creativedigest.co.uk/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-career-as-a-ghostwriter/
Alf, you can ghostpost whenever you like.
But we don’t use asterisks in words like bullshit.
Or fuck, cunt or pissflaps.
😉
Fascinating post. Thank you Ben. And for all those in agencies faced with the Herculean task of wading through yet another overblown 50 page opus…here’s the thing – you could put a stop to it tomorrow. Simply say ‘no treatments more than (say) 6 pages’.
No-one on my side of the fence is going to argue the toss with you for a single second. That I promise you.
*winkie face not made out of punctuation*
Time was, the agency had a point of view.
I can remember when every agency on every project would have an initial conference call (or a meeting, or a beer – remember that?) followed by a written treatment – nothing too elaborate but enough to come to an understanding – and then possibly another conference call, one that the director and production company would be delighted to take as it signaled strong interest on the part of the agency.
Then, the agency would make a recommendation to the client regarding the choice of director. Remember THAT?
Unless the numbers were out of line or perhaps the client had had a bad experience with the director in the past, or on even rarer occasions, the client didn’t spark to the director’s treatment, it was about a 90% probability that the recommended director would be awarded the project.
Nowadays; out of fear, intimidation or gutlessness, agencies more often than not ship off all the budgets and all the treatments to the clients (and their cost consultants) and leave the decision to them, to be made in a vacuum.
From the point of view of the production company, the process has become a crapshoot.
Forget about the initial call, forget about chemistry, forget about an agency’s point of view – they leave it in the hands of their clients (and their cost consultants).
So all that is left is a link of the director’s reel, typically edited by the agency, and a treatment.
As much as anything, this has contributed to the arms race of treatment production. You’ve gotta have em because the other guys have em.