I think you’re absolutely right about the need to be very clear about editorial control, journalistic ethics and the difference between corporate videos and documentaries but I also think that filmmakers and the Third Sector/commerical brands are going to have to figure out how to work together in a way that makes sense because the cat is out of the bag and it is not going to get back in. There are not enough slices of television/government funding pie available for everyone now that so many people are picking up cameras and making films. And there are tremendous opportunities to be had in seeking new partnerships (as well as potential pitfalls of course). In the US, there is a much longer tradition of this kind of funding because there is hardly any Government funding available and not such a strong tradition of well-funded television documentaries (HBO aside). “Public service” isn’t a priority here unfortunately. The positive side of this is that it has created an inspiring and entrepreneurial American independent documentary industry – and I believe that UK doc filmmakers can learn a lot from the US without throwing out the public service baby with the bathwater!

But I, like Tom, would also like more information about how this all fits in with broadcaster policy. Please comment here if you have any answers!

As we left The Good Pitch I heard someone muttering, “Don’t they realise that the BBC rules mean their documentaries could never been shown?”
So does taking charity cash mean ruling out the BBC?
This seems a tricky area and one I haven’t been able to pin down. I called editorial policy at the BBC and they said if a film had ANY funding by non broadcasters would make it ‘difficult’ for the BBC to show it.
I mentioned Jeremy Gilley’s superb Peace One Day which was shown on BBC Storyville and cost £1.4 million in charity donations and sponsorship. The man said ‘that was Storyville’s problem to solve.’
So not exactly clear…..
It would help a lot of people if we could get a definitive answer on this. Can anyone help?
Best
Tom

I think that one has to make an attempt to balance views evenly and ask the same questions to people on both sides of the divide, and also – very importantly – specify in credits who paid for making of the film, proportionally.

I propose to introduce a system where the viewer could see what was the proportion of funding, who gave more and who less, in per-cent figures. Obviously this will help to see how “objective” was the doc. An information that the film about running shoes is financed 80% by Adidas and 20% by Puma will help me to understand why the narration favours the first one. And it will help to be more transparent about sponsors.