Category Archives: Producing

Smart Money vs. Dumb Money


One of my web start-up clients recently extolled the virtues of smart money over dumb money.

My client asserted that smart money is the best way to grow a start-up. In addition to capital, smart money may provide infrastructure, personnel and the input of boards of directors and advisers. These boards provide additional expertise and guidance. Moreover the optics or perception of their association with the start-up increases the venture’s curb appeal and chances for success.

Dumb money, he cautioned, isn’t pejorative; it merely describes a cash investment with little or no oversight of the actual use of the funds other than initial approval of certain elements, cash flow and the overall budget.

To be fair, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Smart and dumb money deals are structured in different ways to address different risks and expected returns of very different investors. Nevertheless, I was struck by the disparate thinking of movie producers and start-up entrepreneurs; film financiers and venture capitalists in their capital preferences.

My start up client preferred working with smart money from VC investors because he could leverage greater resources into the growth of his company than he could with the same amount of dumb money.

I explained that smart money is anathema to movie people unless it comes with distribution and even then, they’re never thrilled with an investor armed with approval rights over talent, budget and distribution. Dumb money shuts up and stays out of the way.

That said, we both agreed that if an investor offers up smart money, dumb money or any other kind of money, take it (provided it’s legal).

The Oscars, Reposted.


Since this year’s Academy Awards are on Sunday, I’m reposting my August 28, 2007 post, “Credit Where Credit Is Due: Is There Enough Room On Awards Night For More Producers?” for Dealfatigue readers.

Two pictures in contention – “Michael Clayton” and “Juno” – each have four credited producers but according to the Academy’s website, only three producers on each of these pictures are eligible to accept the Best Picture award. So if either of these pictures picks up the award for Best Picture, apparently one producer won’t be getting an Oscar but the other three will. This, despite the fact that the Motion Picture Academy’s rules allow for the inclusion of an additional producer under “extraordinary circumstances.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

After five producers received Best Picture Oscars for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, the Motion Picture Academy placed a three producer per Oscar limit on any film under contention. The Academy also required the honored three to be fully functioning producers on the pictures; studio execs, personal managers and lawyers (oh, well) need not apply.

Subsequent to enactment, certain producers who were credited on “Crash,” “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Departed” but eliminated for award contention by this rule made some compelling objections against it. As a result, the Academy is relaxing its requirements, albeit slightly, to allow for the inclusion of one additional producer under certain rare and extraordinary circumstances. Each of the producers must be credited as “producer,” thereby excluding any individuals with executive producer or associate producer credits.

Meanwhile, the Television Academy is tightening its eligibility requirements in an effort to “crackdown on producer credit inflation” by capping the number of individual producers who can receive an Emmy for a comedy series at 11 and a drama series at 10. But even with these higher numbers, exceptions seem to be proliferating with “Gray’s Anatomy” and “House” each having grandfathered eligibility for 13 producer nominations.

Note that neither of these rules limit the number of producer credits accorded to any motion picture or television program. They just limit the number of producers eligible for award nominations. Nevertheless, the academies are right to be concerned with credit dilution. These awards are intended to acknowledge the creative efforts of those responsible for the works in contention. They are also a great way to increase box office gross. As I have said elsewhere in this blog, credits are “the coin of the realm” in the industry and diluting any credit reduces their value just like real currency. However, it is wrong-headed to set arbitrary caps on the number of producers eligible for an award as a means of addressing this capricious credit problem. Mandating that all award eligible producers render meaningful, creative services is a far more equitable way to go.

Until the academies modify their position, reps will need to be creative to increase their clients’ chances. Although the Motion Picture Academy asserts that it is “not bound by any contract or agreement relating to the sharing or giving of credit and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for award consideration,” I have been involved in several negotiations where reps for producers (myself included) negotiated producer credit order “for all purposes, including award consideration.” Without a more logical approach, it is inevitable that the contractual intent of the parties to producer agreements versus the subjective consideration of the academies will be tested in the near future.