Global collective Makers is breaking the traditional modes of production

Victoria Miller of Makers delineates their flexible approach to production

出自 India Fizer , AdForum

Makers
Toronto, 加拿大
See Profile
Victoria Miller
Executive Producer Makers
 

We had the opportunity to chat with Victoria Miller, Executive Producer of Makers, the global producer-only collaborative that is making waves in the world of production by breaking the mold.

 

Could you give us a brief overview of your company/team structure?

Makers is not a traditional production company. In fact, we don’t call ourselves a production company at all. We are a Producer-only collaborative that empowers all types of Producers to make anything. Our process for making ideas looks a lot different than a traditional production company or agency producer - no two experiences are alike.

Our team is composed of 70+ full-time Producers with varying disciplines and backgrounds that range across production, experiential, and digital. 

We exist between the line-producing and agency world, with the ability to flex depending on our clients’ needs. We can operate in varying capacities that range from working directly with brands to partnering with agencies, and we can do this across different verticals. 

With teams in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, and London, we work at scale in various global markets for any and all types of content.

Makers also has a massive global network of over 11,000 Producers and Fixers in 173 different countries. They are a pre-vetted extension of our full-time team, which can use the network to pull in the resources and talent they need to execute ideas in different places around the world. It opens up new and exciting opportunities for our clients as well as our team.

 

How would you describe Makers’ POV?

The combination of Makers producer-only model and our core values is what makes us a uniquely different proposition for clients.

One of our values is that we are a ‘doer culture’ and are heavily involved in each project we take on. For instance, we had an idea to build a sustainable house, and produced one in partnership with Habitat for Humanity. We dream up big ideas, but also have a pragmatic approach to getting them made.

 

Our vision is to push beyond the bounds of what people think by default when they hear the word “producer” and encourage them to reshape their perceptions about what producers can accomplish outside of the traditional modes of production (i.e., commercials, films). We love it when clients come to us with what they call a “crazy idea” because in almost every instance, we can rise to the challenge.

 

When bringing a concept to life, how do you incorporate your creative style while keeping in mind the client’s vision and brief?

There are instances where I’m not in a position to add my perspective because the creative has already been locked in; however, I always try to think differently about ways to approach the budget or crew we bring onto the project. 

Creativity isn’t always about who ideates the concepts; it’s also how the logistics of the project are executed. Execution can make the difference between an idea that people want to experience and an idea that people ignore. 

Sometimes that means we bring on a DP or Director who might be a little outside of the box, but they ultimately add a fresh perspective to the job vs. someone who might be a more obvious choice.

In situations where I’m part of the (creative) process, I’ve always been big on pointing to other art or films to further support the pitch so that the client has clear points of reference. Good art does an excellent job of acknowledging other works that they’re inspired by, but never fully replicating it; instead, they use it as a means to communicate something new. 

I take the same approach for a client’s vision or brief: I like to throw in certain references to make it interesting and more visually layered, while still speaking to what their ultimate business objectives are.

 

In the past few years, a lot has changed rapidly given the pandemic and the worsening effects of climate change. How has the structure of production companies adapted and in what ways has this shifted agency-production relationships?

The pandemic has forced a lot of production companies to be more flexible and nimble in regard to the types of projects they take on. Many brands have had to tighten their budgets either from the pandemic fallout or the recession, forcing production companies to think about creative ways to tackle certain projects from a budget and production perspective. 

However, despite some of these factors, to be candid I still don’t think there has been a drastic overhaul in the way production companies currently operate. Many of them are still working within traditional confines, which is why in contrast, what Makers is doing is so radically different. 

By centering a production model around a collective of Producers, our team is at the center of each project, acting as the business lead, while bringing on the best talent. In contrast, many traditional production companies represent Directors, Editors, or DPs who can sit on their roster for months at a time, and if the right project doesn’t come along, they won’t work.

 

More and more we’re seeing production companies have the opportunity to work directly with brands and clients. How do you see this trend evolving?

I see the trend of production companies working directly with brands being a lasting one. Many brands are building their own in-house production teams, and as a result, aren’t as heavily reliant on agencies. Instead, a lot of brands find themselves leaning on help from production companies when they have an overflow of work, or when they’re producing complex projects that their in-house teams might not have the skill set to execute.

Ultimately more brands want to work directly with the source vs. working in the traditional agency model, which helps in regard to more streamlined communication, and in many cases, is more cost-effective with the same, if not better, quality of work.