STATEMENT – The underbelly of television commissioning
So SBS is releasing a ‘new’ documentary about John Friedrich, titled Australia’s Greatest Conman? Does that sound familiar? Well, it certainly does to us.
We could assert SBS allegedly used, without our knowledge, and any communication with us whatsoever, the comprehensive material we submitted to them for a presale. Yet, is this merely an extraordinary ‘coincidence’?
Our company, which has a proven track record of producing documentaries, magazines and specials for SBS – both in-house and independently – submitted a project for presale commissioning to SBS, working title John Friedrich: Catch Me if you Can. Not once, not twice but at least three times, to various SBS commissioning editors, the last one still working at SBS. This last extensive submission consisted of the following:
• 55 pages developed script, featuring many involved with this story, some very close to John Friedrich
• A series of video samples on DVD, featuring numerous interviews conducted, some in Germany
• Notification of extensive stock footage material and hundreds of photographs available
• German co-producer attached to the project
To clarify, our proposed documentary was not a quick idea penned on the back of an envelope; it was a meticulously researched script, developed over years, and significantly funded by a major Australian government film agency with a German co-producer attached and ourselves, investing in various ways. We also secured a potential pre-sale from a German network on the condition that we would secure a presale from Australia. It made a lot of sense to approach SBS given our history with them and the multicultural nature of the project.
The outcome of these submissions was for SBS to pass on the project, each time, in a letter stating: ‘Unfortunately, it is not a commissioning priority to us’.
Up until that point, nothing untoward. This response, while disappointing, is common in our industry; the cake is not big, particularly in Australia. About 80% of the successful documentary projects we have produced in the past, received initial negative responses. We really just move on and try again. On this particular subject matter, time is not a critical factor, as we are talking about something which happened in the late eighties, early nineties.
HOWEVER…
We recently discover that this ‘new’ documentary has now suddenly become a commissioning priority to SBS, has been produced in-house with a fairly newly formed SBS unit, and not as an independent producer project. We also started to notice a few things that raised questions in our mind; is there a causal connection between our work and this ‘new’ documentary? It seems to use the same “expression” as our original detailed submissions, like similarity of language, characters, or, for example, a German character appearing in the trailer we interviewed during a German shoot, a video sample part in our last application. Only we knew about this person, as his identity was not common knowledge.
So we posed several fair, reasonable and important questions to SBS, two of which follow as examples:
1) Was our comprehensive script and accompanying video material, that was submitted in confidence to SBS, used in the development and research for the ‘new’ in-house documentary?
We were told all ‘our submissions were destroyed yet may remain archived somewhere (?) but would not have reached this new unit when independently developing the ‘new’ documentary’. Independently? In-house? Though this new unit supposedly worked independently, if archived, who’s to say someone at SBS didn’t access our material? And who is to say, it hasn’t been ‘stumbled upon’ previously?
2) Was the commissioning editor – who had knowledge of every comprehensive detail of our project, and still works at SBS, commissioning content for SBS – participating in this ‘new’ documentary?
We were told the commissioning editor has not been involved in the production of this ‘new’ documentary at any stage or in any manner or talked to anyone about it. If that is true, he actually should have, to make them aware of our submission. What about what was talked about in corridors during initial research and development stage? Which leads to the question: does knowledge of key story points and characters and places, etc… not provide significant advantages during initial research and development? Surely when you know what, who and where to look, is the job not half done for you (or three quarters in this instance)?
These concerns raise critical issues regarding due process, diligence, fairness, and respect. This could set a pretty alarming precedent. If a network receives comprehensive documentary submissions, sits on these for a while and then reinvents them ‘magically’ a few years later, in-house (for a fraction of the cost, dare we say), we all, as independent documentary producers, face an alarming future where the commissioning process undermines any fair outcomes.
Ultimately, we must ask: does this meet the pub test? We believe it does not. It is crucial for emerging producers and filmmakers to be aware of such practices, as it impacts their futures. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Writing this has not been easy. This entire situation has effectively destroyed our ability to pursue this film for television as originally intended and could jeopardize any future collaboration with SBS. We did nothing wrong.
We now leave this matter to the court of public opinion. Consider this a cautionary tale for others.
Enjoy the ‘new’ documentary folks – it promises to be fascinating, engaging, and one of the best-researched programs you’ll see. We invested considerable time and resources into it, yet will receive no acknowledgment from SBS. Nevertheless, we take immense pride in having advocated for this project for so many years to come to fruition.
Let’s hope that the broader issues of accountability and systemic failures involving parties outside the NSCA are properly addressed in this ‘new’ program, as they should have been all along.
We may have more to say after the program has aired.
To finish, we would like to express our greatest appreciation and thanks to Steve Warne, the late David Tiley (see his Script Editor report, such a beautiful writer), Rick Parish and all other key members of the former NSCA, John Lindsay (VP at KETC PBS, US) and everyone else who participated in our project and the incredible journey it took us along, together.
Karl Quinn’s recent The Age/ SMH article on the matter. Remember as you read this, when the NSCA collapsed and John Friedrich was on the run, the authorities first response was: “NSCA? Never heard of it. John who? Never heard of him”. The greatest case of collective amnesia Australia has experienced.
Here’s one of our sample videos below – Full playlist