I joined Slated in 2014 after attending a producer breakout session at the American Film Market in early November. The speaker was the co-founder and CEO of slated.com, Steph Paternot.
He was compelling, confident, and it felt like I was hearing the answer to my prayers! They had created a site who’s sole intention was to connect independent producers and filmmakers with financing and distribution.
As we’ve used the site over the last year and a half, I wanted to write about our experience, why our expectations haven’t yet been met, and what I think both the users of the site and those running it could do to make it more valuable.
If you’d like to see why we have chosen to use Slated in the process of validating our current project, you can check out my last post here.
Slated By the Numbers
What I really feel like I can offer in this post is a deep dive into the actual numbers, since I am a member of the site (it’s free to join…) and we have recently paid for the script and financial analysis, so I can really go in and see where a project like ours looks like to Slated’s algorithm.
Why this is important is that we represent the typical first-time independent filmmakers. We don’t have a track record, therefore, our personal scores are low or non-existent. We don’t have all the money for the film raised (that’s why we went to Slated in the first place), we don’t have big name actors or producers attached, and we don’t have (all of) our distribution covered.
Sound familiar?
Good, then hopefully this post is for you.
The other reason to talk about “the numbers” is that Slated operates based on its own algorithms and the scores that algorithm places on its members, the projects listed on the site, and those projects “Package” scores, which are determined by applying an algorithm to the project’s “Team”, “Script”, and “Financial” scores.
This is incredible for us young/first time filmmakers. Nowhere else can you go out and get such an objective value placed on your project, at least for as little as Slated charges.
A photographer friend, when I posted my last blog post, wrote me and said:
Man, that Slated post makes me wish there were something like that for photography.
…And we’re also talking about qualifying art that is supposed to be compelling AND make a return…
The value Slated is claiming they provide is undeniable. But the biggest question is “does it work”?
First, a few more stats:
Currently, Slated states on their home page that there are over 57,000 members of the site, broken down thusly:
I can vouch for the caliber of talent that has joined the site since its inception. The biggest production companies, agencies, producers, directors, etc are on the site. It’s less known for the actors that are members, as this isn’t really a site that helps actors get work.
Slated attaches a score to your profile, so it’s similar to an IMDb star meter ranking. Someone like Barrie Osborne (who is a member of the site) has a score of 89/100, while little ol’ me has a 0.6, and that’s for my work as a sound engineer, not as a writer or producer, for which I currently have no score…
Even as a nobody, though, I’ve been able to message and have convesations with some mid-level producers, investors, and production companies through the site, so there are people that are on there, looking for projects, willing to engage with unknown filmmakers.
I’m not sure what their monthly active users are, but to venture a guess I’d put it pretty low, especially for people with scores above 10. Maybe 10% of those people are active, more so for the members — like myself — that are on their seeking financial and producing partners.
Now, what about projects?
Currently, Slated has a total of over 4,400 films listed on the site, 1,825 of which haven’t yet been “completed”, (whatever that means…).
Why are these numbers important? Now we’re getting somewhere…
Aspiring Filmmaker?
I've created a free 5-day mini-course about the principles behind becoming a full-time creator. You can sign up with just your email.
A Promise
Right on Slated’s home page is a quote taken from an NYT review :
“Slated…like being at a cocktail party with a bunch of investors, and, if they’re interested, they reach out to you.”
Now, I can’t fault Slated for their marketing, because their whole goal right now is to get more people on the site. That’s a quote that must be working to help them reach that goal, because it’s on the homepage…
However, it’s the beginning of a promise that the site is selling that when you really dig into the numbers, becomes less of a promise and more of the same reality that you would normally experience in Hollywood as a first-time filmmaker, just online.
For example, most higher ranking producers, investors, and directors have turned on a feature that prevents people from below a certain score from even being able to message them. I get why they do it, but it’s a little bit of a let down after reading that Slated is supposed to be like a cocktail party that you’re invited to.
So, it’s more like you’re in the same hotel as the investors, but their cocktail party is a completely separate one from the party you’re attending, with more expensive alcohol, nicer labels on their suits and dresses, and a bunch of meaty bodyguards preventing you from even taking a look inside.
The best you can do is wait outside for one of them to come outside, take a brief glance at you, make a snap judgment, then “if they’re interested”, engage in a conversation.
The next promise that they made is when they announced back in October their new Syndicate Financing service. When it was announced, project scores above 60 automatically qualified.
“Sweet!” I thought. We were just given a clear path to financing our film! Get a project score above 60 and they’ll take over the financing and go raise the money for us!
Except…then they changed their threshold when they announced their Executive Producer services:
“But, hey,” I thought, “now we just need a script and financial score above 70. It’ll be hard, but not impossible…”
We did a round of analysis on the script and financials which I detailed in my last post, the script score came back a 64 and the financials were a 91 if we verified our lead.
It put our team score up to a 26 and our “Package” score up to a 56.3, which put us in the 99th percentile on Slated.
At this point, however, I started to feel a little nervous. Was I putting too many eggs into this one financing basket? I reached out to Greg Gertmenian, the head of Story at Slated and the one who is basically the keeper of the scores. He would be the one determining whether or not a film was granted entrance “other cocktail party”.
I asked him flat out if things were going to change again, and his response was “yes, in 1–2 weeks…” it would be changing to require a full package score above 70.
Meaning that we’re trying to hit a moving target. That’s no way to finance a film.
Going back to the numbers, though, out of 1,825 films, the top 1% is made up of 18 films. Apparently, that’s not enough, though. The financial partners that Slated has “have made it clear they are interested in projects with strong, filled-out teams, and a start date, which is why the 70 Package threshold is in place.”
Ugh.
Currently, there are only 4 films on Slated that have cleared the 70 threshold. So top 99% isn’t good enough, and 99.9% might also not be enough if the film doesn’t meet whatever other qualifications they want to come up with in the next two weeks.
Double ugh.
I had hoped that Slated had managed to partner with investors that were willing to take chances, to accept a little higher risk for a bigger potential reward. It seems that’s not the case. The way I’m interpreting the writing on the wall is that these investors are just as afraid and lack the confidence neccessary to be playing in this field.
Slated is literally telling them how much money a project is projected to make, and it still isn’t enough. So they’re not really taking chances, and they’re not really connecting filmmakers with financing.
Now, this is both a criticism and an opportunity for myself and other filmmakers to broaden our perspective on this industry we’ve chosen to work in.
Conclusion
Making movies is hard. To think that we can put in a certain level of effort, even if that effort puts us in the top 1% of films, and get everything we expect, well that’s just not the way the world works.
What it should do is inspire us and get us fired up to work harder to become that top .01%. The cream of the crop. The undeniably good projects that ANY investor would fear missing out on. This is what Slated does really well, it gives you much needed perspective that you can use to move forward, increasing the value you’re creating for investors and for those involved in the film.
While I think Slated could and should work out the kinks before taking large chunks of a filmmaker’s or production’s budget if the “pot at the end of the rainbow” could just be moved to the end of a different rainbow on a whim.
Once they figure out their business model, though, I do feel that Slated is in an incredible position to connect projects with investors, but that they should also work harder at lowering the investors’ expectations and their threshold for what projects should qualify for consideration.
Imagine if Slated actually invested in 18+ films per year, rather than 1 or 2 that cross their thresholds. Only then will they really be living up to their tagline, “Where great movies get made”.
In the meantime, Slated is great if you manage your expectations and use their valuable feedback to get your project into the top .01% of films. Work hard, keep grinding, and I’ll see you in theaters someday soon.
If you enjoyed this post, please use the share buttons below to recommend it to others. Thanks for reading!
Thanks for sharing your experience on slated. I also learned of it from the AFM but have not had much luck in figuring out how to work the site without paying for a service (like the analysis reports for script and/or finance). The price tag is pretty hefty. $395 per draft for a script analysis? That would buy me 4 days at the AFM.
I can track people and that’s kind of cool – but it doesn’t rally get me into the room due to my rank. I have had much better luck getting into the room at the AFM.
And for the life of me I cant figure out how to delete the massive number of notifications that keep piling up. I can archive them but would rather delete a few hundred that look like part of a mass mailing list.
I’m keeping my account open even though I can’t really do anything with it at this hour. I remain hope’s bitch.
I’ve been using it a lot less lately as it hasn’t served to help me at all. Best of luck!
Thanks, Daren, wishing you much success, too!
They do not offer a delete option for the consumer nor a way to contact them. This is an extremely poor business practice and I am currently talking to my attorney.
Had a film, a schedule, a casting director, nothing. Legit investors? Yeah probably. But it’s about who you know and how you sell the project and knowing who your audience is. Slated scores are bogus. I’ve sold films before. All slated scores look at are previous credits and the actors attached. You could have a first time director or worse, a second time director coming off the biggest flop in the history of cinema, but if he has a Alex Baldwin attached and a producer with at least one credit (which could be some direct to dvd porno) his package score is sky high.
Yeah, seems like their model needs some more tweaking. I’m not actually convinced there *is* a model that will work…but it sounds like they are committed to making a go at it…
Hi Darin.
I appreciate your post. Most of the people with whom I’ve communicated are seeking financing. I’m listed as a development exec, producer, writer, director, but have only been listed with one project scored a 1 (that I’m slated to direct). Yesterday, I uploaded two projects of mine, and began having meetings. I had one job offer to direct a film, but only if I brought along some investment money with me. Didn’t know I could buy a job as a director in an indie feature. BTW: Do you know of a similar service for TV productions?
See you there.
~Valerie
I don’t know of any for TV. In my mind that’s an even tougher one to crack. Looking at going fully independent – self financed, self distributed – that way you don’t have to have permission from anyone to create the content you want.
I hear ya, Daren. I’ve been posting my TV projects on Slated.com as well. They might be produced as films first to pave the way for the series. Dunno. Also, I grew up going to the movies, and watching the episodic shorts (mini-movies) that preceded the main feature film (like Buck Rogers). Each episode would end with a cliff-hanger. I guess these would be something like mini-series today i TV. I’ve been wondering about doing something like that format for mini-episodic films. I feel like these 2-hour TV mini-series (like John Adams) are mini-movies. Or is this all just semantics? ~Val
Sounds like this is another scam to get money out of people. Like “film festivals” that are basically money grabs for “event” planners
They do not offer a delete option for the consumer nor a way to contact them. This is an extremely poor business practice and I am currently talking to my attorney.
I just disabled my slated account.
Some time ago I “chatted” w one of their reps and asked why we couldn’t receive scores for our imdb credits. She said it was bc imdb was not always legit.
I found that to be an odd statement as you have to go through a vetting process w imdb to get your credits approved and listed (unless you enter a film in an imdb-eligible contest).
At slated, they prefer you have your credits listed at a completely different website than imdb. I don’t recall the name of the site but, at the time of my chat session, I checked it out and saw that they will list your credits for a fee.
If you get one of those pop-up windows on slated.com asking if you want to chat or need help go ahead and inquire about this. It may have changed over the past several months.
Of note: BigSeller257 and gang, I thought this might be of interest re: slated financiers.
I have a project listed which has director/producer Sean Brosnan attached via his co (Knight Marcher). Sean was featured in Variety w a great write up and listed as one to watch. Once our project info was posted I received a message from slated asking if I would be interested in being listed as a financier since I have this particular connection.
I am not a financier. I’m seeking finance — along w Knight Marcher — for the project to get made. I just thought it was interesting that they reached out so quickly. I did not “apply” or submit a request to be listed as a financier — so it seems as if they’re really looking hard to find financiers or execs who can really help pkg or move a project forward. Unfortunately, I’m not in that position. My only success has been in making connections via pitching at the AFM and placing in the Nicholl a few times.
I’m curious to hear if anyone else has any other stories re: slated success (or lack of).
PS: I was just about to delete my account with them tonight when I received a “follow” from another AFM acquaintance. I may keep my acct open for another moment or two bc of that.
Hi. Seems to me that Stage32.com has more success stories. I found the co-creator and screenwriter for an one of my original scripted TV projects there that I recently listed on Slated.com. Stage 32 is especially good at helping writers pitch their projects to development, prodco, and agents. Great for networking, and relationships that can lead to eventually helping to fund your own projects. ~Val
Slated.com is a “service” built on proprietary algorithms. The website is extremely opaque and counter-intuitive to use. A user will spend hours and days clicking around the site to understand how to list their resume and projects in development.
But listing your work history is frustratingly difficult because slated does not link to IMDb and links instead to another, proprietary website. So there is actually a good chance that most people will find it impossible to list their personal achievements because slated simply won’t recognise the project in its database. This is unacceptable and misleading.
To list projects in development is less difficult but still leaves users a far cry from actually connecting with financiers, let alone having a chance to pitch to them. The website “vets” users by way of its proprietary credit score system which requires users to achieve superlatively high scores. How to get those scores? Once again, be prepared to make it your full time job to click around the site in an endless feedback loop in the hope of solving slated’s algorithmic puzzle.
The website is largely useless for anyone hoping to raise finance for their projects. The site merely draws you in and has you clicking and clicking which generates “activity” for slated.com and results in a great deal of time wasting for its users.
Some of the services cost money and nothing is ever clear cut. In fact, slated.com goes out of its way to ensure that users never really figure out how it really works – if it does at all.
Slated.com’s pitch, that anyone can join the site to raise finance for their projects, is then nothing more than a pitch to register with and spend time on their website.
Filmmakers and producers are far better off going back to the drawing board and old school methods of pitching strong stories, writing tight treatments and great screenplays, and meeting or calling upon production companies and financiers in person. Effort is what gets films made, not surfing pointless websites such as slated.com.
So please do not register with or log into slated and give them the time of day. The website is a horrific waste of time and their business model, such as it is, is based on nothing but your clicks.
What is it that they say about free products? “If the product is free, you are the product…”
Thanks for your comment. Hopefully it gives anyone looking into the platform some added perspective.
Some filmmakers keep their analyses visible. One thing I noticed is that on projects with a racial/social/political element, the scores between readers will be much different. For example, on a script about African Americans, one reader will give structure a 4, but another reader will give it a 2. On all other projects, the scores only vary by one point. There is an obvious bias against minorities on the part of one of Slated’s readers. I wonder when the lawsuits will start.
It seems to me if you have names for talent, a great script as determined by script analysis, formidable director etc., and a great ROI you wouldn’t need this service at all. You’d be able to get the money people to return your calls on your own. There are no shortcuts or roadmaps.
I completely agree. Yet, it often doesn’t work out so easily. Slated positions itself as a way to increase your chances on that front, but how effective it’s been I think isn’t as great as you’d hope.
Thank you Daren for the information. You possess a most scintillating telencephalon. I was wondering how propitious you feel SLATED is for an actress such as myself, having starred in 37 features – two coming out soon — NATION’S FIRE (opposite Bruce Dern) and AGRAMON’S GATE, which I have the lead. I am new to SLATED, albeit joined a while back but never engaged until last week. Thank you, kindly.
Laurene Landon
laurenelandon.biz
I stand corrected – I have received at least four responses from producers today from SLATED!!
There’s an old saying in the film business, “…Nobody knows nothin’.” Just put together a great package and pound the pavement in every way you can.
Finally. Thank you, Sterling Macer. Agreed, there is no set formula and exhaust all avenues.
I would love to know the date on this and its responses. Trying to see if things have changed over the years or if I should just look at another avenue. (Today’s date is 2/26/2021).
I am on the site and have paid for 4 Script Analysis. SAVE YOUR MONEY. The analysis is sloppy as hell and wildly inconsistent. Readers who have read the script before read it again so they seem to be evaluating it on how many of their recommended changes you incorporated. And let’s not talk about the Financial Analysis, which you can redo for every new script analysis. It went from 49 (Script 60) to 8 (Script 65) to 42 (Script 62) to 3 (Script 66). I kid you not. Nothing else changed. SAVE YOUR MONEY. They take their sweet time getting back to you and don’t really answer your questions. Readers are making factual errors which tells me they skim your script. Mary wrote that the readers spend 5-6 hours on a script. I call bullshit. You cannot be making consistent factual errors if you actually read the script. If you actually do what you are being paid to do. All this said, SOME of the readers are good and I have to say, their analysis benefited the script greatly. But I cry in my pillow at night wondering if I’d spent 2K on $35 to $45 Skype pitches on Stage 32 how much further ahead I would be.