[tof] Re: Strand O thoughts

Wed Apr 27 18:52:02 EST 2005

Interesting to read the various ideas and responses to this policy decision
from the AFC. There is merit in so much of what everyone has said.

We are all fighting over the same pot of money and it is important to not
say one form (documentary) is more vital or valuable than another
(interactive).

It seems that Strand O has been problematic for the AFC for sometime. Maybe
for survival reasons we as an industry have been steered toward making
programs that suit broadcaster needs. Fewer and fewer people are making
programs which challenge the language of documentary. This to me seemed the
original intention behind Strand O Guidelines.

Would it be possible to simply divert the funding earmarked for Strand O
into documentary production Strand N and include in the guidelines the
possibility of funding 1 (or more) program(s) at a higher level. After all
most Strand O projects still seek additional funding ie (Jade Babe's budget
was higher than the Strand O elements).This then opens up room for people to
think beyond the square but does not lock the money into a 'strand O type
project' if nothing suitable is submitted. It can potentially make more
funds available for documentary production and the guidelines should be open
enough to include interactivity.

I personally think there is a difference between the FFC's Innovation fund
and AFC's Strand O. I would expect the FFC is hoping for a project that is
going to succeed in the marketplace. I would have thought the AFC's agenda
is different. It is more about career & professional devt and in the case of
Strand O it was about providing experienced practitioners with the
opportunity to pursue a personal project without the constraints of the
marketplace.

I hope we can keep the guidelines of both agencies as different as possible
because if they blur then sooner or later one will go.

I would recommend that SADC ask to discuss with the AFC asap.

Sally Ingleton

> Hi Jen, I think what you are saying here is in fact the reasoning
> behind the AFC's proposal to shift money from Strand O to a new
> documentary interactive production fund, i.e., because there currently
> is no finance for interactive documentary production. Why can't
> interactive on-line documentary be financed by FFC 'innovation' and
> Strand O? Indeed why not? Has anyone tried, is it excluded? And yes,
> please, lets not fall into factions divided by documentary platforms.
> (Q: When is a platform a dividing line? A: When its a wedge.) JH
> 
> 
> On 27/04/2005, at 2:49 PM, tof at lists.culture2.org wrote:
> 
>> On 27/4/05 11:56 AM, "tof at lists.culture2.org" <tof at lists.culture2.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>  We need to try and prevent the tension that artificially divides 'us'
>> and
>> technically defined forms. It's clear we need more money for
>> documentary
>> full stop.
>> 
>> Why can't strand 'O' maintain its current guidelines with
>> interactivity just
>> being accepted as something some applicants will include and others
>> will
>> not, and the same with the FFC innovation fund?
>> 
>>  John's point about us all being digital practitioners is already true.
>> Trevor Graham made Mabo with Rob Wellington. Wasn't Nell a documentary
>> producer before she became an on-line documentary producer? I think
>> creative
>> thinking in interactivity should be encouraged. It's damn frustrating
>> that
>> there is insufficient funding.
>> Everyone knows the industry is moving towards a changing mix of
>> documentary
>> forms which are more audience involving with an increasing number of
>> delivery platforms  and distribution methods. There is a fast
>> increasing
>> demand for content, without a concurrent increase in funding. This
>> must mean
>> it's a producers' market n'est pas? Demand is outstripping supply so
>> where
>> is the report we are expecting from Peter Higgs?
>> 
>> Jen H
>>> Industry consultations with the guilds are currently underway on the
>>> proposed changes to AFC guidelines .
>>> 
>>> FFC's 'innovation fund' is in practice not Strand O, although it was
>>> initiated from a similar critique of current financing.
>>> And if the FFC increases the budgets of their magic 'innovation fund',
>>> as has been proposed and generally supported, then there may well be
>>> less of these, that is less than 5.
>>> 
>>> Where once there were 'two doors'  one door called 'Strand O' there
>>> would be instead only one, called 'FFC Innovation', but there remain
>>> other AFC mechanisms, and additional production finance in
>>> 'Documentary
>>> Interactive'.
>>> 
>>> David's point about "digital practitioners" not being represented in
>>> interesting. In some ways everyone is a digital practitioner these
>>> days, and increasingly people working in documentary are also working
>>> in what was once called 'new media' (eg most recently Daryl Dellora,
>>> Sue Maslin, 'William Bligh'). I wonder if the constituency of ASDA is
>>> reflecting this?
>>> 
>>> Has anyone heard if our SADC has analyzed  this Strand O vrs.
>>> interactive documentary production financing question?
>>> JH
>>> 
>>> On 26/04/2005, at 9:10 PM, tof at lists.culture2.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Steve. Worth nothing too that the FFC budgets are lower
>>>> -
>>>> 150
>>>> rather than 250 - which constrains the kind of innovation, as Tom Z.
>>>> has
>>>> pointed out implicitly.
>>>> 
>>>> Part of the debate is about critical mass. Arguably the AFC strand
>>>> allocation is too low to fund enough to make it an attractive target,
>>>> given
>>>> there are no other sources of finance. All eggs, one basket.
>>>> 
>>>> But then, what is the actual amount for the new Interactive digital
>>>> program?
>>>> Is there enough in that to create a critical mass, given I presume
>>>> the
>>>> shortage of top up funds?
>>>> 
>>>> It is important stuff that needs the input of our craft associations.
>>>> Which,
>>>> incidentally, will reveal the lack of a voice for the digital
>>>> practitioners,
>>>> who have been sadly robbed in the last few years.
>>>> 
>>>> - david t.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 26/4/05 5:26 PM, "tof at lists.culture2.org" <tof at lists.culture2.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Part of the stated Strand O purpose is: "Provides advanced
>>>>> professional development opportunities for established
>>>>> practitioners...". As far as I know this is not a criterion or aim
>>>>> in
>>>>> the FFC Innovation Fund. The AFC's brief to assist with professional
>>>>> and career development in documentary makes it unique among the
>>>>> funding bodies and an important alternative to the still dominant
>>>>> broadcaster driven model.  One might also ask why  documentary film
>>>>> funding should be reduced in order to support online projects, which
>>>>> tend to have a different audience and purpose? I know Strand O has
>>>>> been problematic in various ways but could I respectfully suggest
>>>>> that the AFC consult via ASDA and SPAA before making any decision
>>>>> about the fate of Strand O? Perhaps Richard Harris could request
>>>>> such.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steve T.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm concerned that strand O money is to be siphoned off to this new
>>>>>> Documentary Interactive Digital Production Program. I know there is
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> argument that FFC Innovation Fund may have replaced the need for
>>>>>> Strand O,
>>>>>> however I am not convinced that the same criteria of innovation (in
>>>>>> the way
>>>>>> the AFC understand them)  are actually used to select FFC projects.
>>>>>> A film
>>>>>> like Jade Babe would never have been funded by the FFC.  There is
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> a different argument which can be put that strand O should be
>>>>>> re-allocated
>>>>>> towards strand N (Documentary Production).  This makes some sense
>>>>>> given that
>>>>>> there are many worthy first time projects that never get up because
>>>>>> funds in
>>>>>> this strand are so scarce.  I think we should argue that an
>>>>>> Documentary
>>>>>> Interactive Digital Production Program be allocated funds from
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> resources within the AFC - especially given that all the extra AFC
>>>>>> funds
>>>>>> allocated in the last Federal budget went to drama, and not a cent
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> documentary.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do people think? AFC wants feedback this week.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tom Z
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See below AFC draft guidelines:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Strand O
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Some outstanding interactive documentaries by skilful documentary
>>>>>> practitioners have been produced by two one-off initiatives - the
>>>>>> AFC/ABC
>>>>>> Documentaries Online and the recent Broadband Production
>>>>>> Initiative.
>>>>>> Funding for these one-off initiatives is now finished.  It is vital
>>>>>> the AFC
>>>>>> continue to support creative work exploring technological
>>>>>> innovation
>>>>>> in this
>>>>>> rapidly evolving field.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Funds from Strand O will be redirected next year toward a new
>>>>>> Documentary
>>>>>> Interactive Digital Production program, to be announced in the new
>>>>>> financial
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> tof mailing list
>>>>>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>>>>>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tof mailing list
>>>>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>>>>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tof mailing list
>>>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>>>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tof mailing list
>>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tof mailing list
>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tof mailing list
> tof at lists.culture2.org
> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof