IS THERE A LITMUS TEST FOR IDENTIFYING THE KILLER LOOK?

IS THERE A LITMUS TEST FOR IDENTIFYING THE KILLER LOOK?
If you were to call me up today and ask me “What are your current business goals?” if I really thought about it, it would be “Finding the specific answers to the above question.”  Or possibly “Generating a defacto list of answers to the above question.”

If we were to summarize the rhetorical question of the entire business activity of agents and managers and talent in Hollywood, it would probably be something like “Is there a magic bullet?” to having the big career?

This is discussed ad nauseam: agents discuss it with managers, managers discuss it with talent, talent discusses it with other talent.

In summary, everyone is looking for The Golden Ticket, The Magic Bullet, that “Special Agent” that can deliver a miracle and get a newcomer cast in a major role in an important project.

Does the magic bullet exist?

The problem with being “the talent” is that there are certain physical limitations on the types of looks that are relevant or achievable for you.  This is a combination of ethnicity, body morphology and genetics.  Or simply “genetics”.

Because of this, and let’s be clear, this is a priori: talent faces a unique problem that clearly does not affect talent agents.  I’ve written about this is in the past: agents can solve the problem of “Having a LOOK” just with selective client recruitment.  I see this over and over again with referrals.  The “easy client” gets the meeting with every agency whereas the “hard client” doesn’t get any meetings at all.

So consider the case of Cheryl: she’s Cauasian, 27 and has been in Hollywood 4 years since graduating from her college drama program.  She’s super motivated.  She would do anything to succeed if only she knew exactly what to do.  It’s hard to find a true Cheryl but I would theorize that Cheryl would adopt any look that she knew was going to deliver the results that she wanted IF ONLY SHE KNEW WHAT LOOK TO ADOPT.

This is a challenge for me and for you because in reality, no matter how much research you put into a LOOK, and no matter how great your photos are, the litmus test is: the results that come back.  Luckily we can work with this process: it’s a form of trial and error (sometimes iterative or successive approximation) and there is no question that in product development (treating your acting career once again as an American “product”), trial and error, both on the product side and the marketing side, are necessary aspects of the business process.

EXAMPLE: Did you know that Apple has a failed social media platform? Probably not. It was called Ping and it was integrated into the iTunes program on both Mac and iPhone. The failure of Ping is also an example of how a “lack of commitment” (and we’re talking about the Daniel Day-Lewis definition of the word) can lead to launch failure. I think Apple Ping could have been a success, it’s just the company bailed instead of sticking it out and continuing to grow and evolve the concept. One problem with early or easy success is that it can lead to an unwillingness to fail while attempting novel strategies later in life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Ping

So let’s return to the central thesis of this post: Is there a litmus test for the KILLER LOOK?

I think the answer is yes and I also would assert that we can arrive at this answer using mathematics rather than some kind of amorphous, vague, subjective opinion.  The problem with opinions is that everybody has one, including me.

If we can find an objective criteria it will be much easier to identify WHAT LOOK TO ADOPT?

Before I lay out my giant thought for the day let’s quantify what it means to audition for major roles.  So I’m specifically setting aside the dynamics that apply to celebrity and TV NAMES and restrict this discussion to the vast majority of aspirants: relatively unknown character actors.

I recently had a discussion with a client: What is a good pilot season?  I think we can address this with statistics:  In a normal pilot season, a “Good Pilot Season” is somewhere between 6-10 Series Regular appointments between November and April (early and late pilots included but not off-cycle pilots).  Yes, 1000 Series Regular roles are casting each pilot cycle, but realistically how many of them can you expect to describe your general age/ethnicity/type? Probably the most I have ever scheduled is 12-15 and in each case there were some additional temporary factors at play.  In other words, the results could never be reliably duplicated except in that one pilot season.

So let’s pick a number.  I’m going to run with “Ten.”  I’m choosing this number because I did have a Diverse client who was with a mid-Level agency and the client typically received five Series Regular auditions from her agent each year.  This was a newcomer with no credits, nothing but raw talent/training and compelling comedy submission materials.  They got their agent through a “lucky break” by interning on a television show.  The casting director for the television show offered to refer them to an agent and that’s the provenance of that particular agency relationship.

We have to pre-qualify our litmus test:

1. The test should be applied to a specific category, which means to say the combination of a playable age range and an ethnicity, including diversity considerations.
2. It doesn’t matter what representatives the talent has, just as long as they submit the talent to the roles.
3. It doesn’t matter how great the photographer is, just as long as the photo is good and the LOOK is clearly evident.
4. It doesn’t matter if the client has any existing credits.

So now that we’ve got our qualifications in place we can establish the litmus test for having a LOOK:

If we are able to identify at least three “case studies” (i.e. prototypes) where a talent with a SPECIFIC LOOK is getting eight pilot auditions per cycle; no matter who their agent is, no matter who their manager is, no matter who the photographer is, no matter whether or not they have ever worked in television before; then I think we can say that for the purposes of that talent category or demographic, THEY HAVE A KILLER LOOK.

If you think about this assertion you will see that there are two primary factors which are going to yield these numerical indicators:

1. How many roles are written into television shows that would require this look (read: market demand)?
2. How many actors are available with this look who have talent representatives (read: market saturation)?

These are both “How many” questions which means effectively we are talking about the competitive landscape within a product category.

Next time you go grocery shopping at RALPHS, take a notepad and now return with me to the nostalgia of 7th grade algebra:  As you push your cart down the breakfast cereal aisle, tabulate the total number of product offerings in the category of “American breakfast cereal.”  I have never done this but my guess is that the number might be as high as 50.  Since you’re at RALPHS and the store offers “ethnic food products” as you push down the Asian food aisle take your notepad and tabulate how many products are offered under “Thai Fish Sauce.”  My guess is that there would be probably between zero and three products offered in this category.  So if you were looking to break into the food business you have to decide between the large customer base with the vast competitive field or the narrow customer base and narrower product offerings.  See if you can find “Organic Vegan Thai Fish Sauce” anywhere in Los Angeles; any grocer store, any neighbourhood.

So if you’re trying to figure out the answer to the rhetorical question “DO I HAVE A LOOK OR NOT?”  And many of you are trying to answer this question!  I think you can answer this question by tabulating the total number of pilot Series Regular auditions in any (pre-pandemic) calendar year:

• LESS THAN 3 AUDITIONS, ANY CREDITS - It's not a LOOK.
• 6+ AUDITIONS, NO CREDITS, EASY CATEGORY - Might be a LOOK.
• 6+ AUDITIONS, NO CREDITS, HARD CATEGORY - The KILLER LOOK

As we start to apply this objective criteria within the realm of some of the so-called “hard” or “impossible” Hollywood talent categories, we’re going to objectively identify the KILLER LOOKS.  Because if a 30something Caucasian actress with ZERO CREDITS and an ENTRY LEVEL AGENT can get 6-8 pilot auditions every year with A LOOK when the comparable fully credited (i.e. has a vast resume) actor with a great agent and NO LOOK cannot get any, this metric is telling us WHERE THE MARKET IS LACKING IN PRODUCT OFFERINGS.

Back in my high tech days we used to “think” a lot about product categories.  And we had a saying:

“Sell the product that the customer is buying.”

They probably deal with this concept on SILICON VALLEY (HBO) and other copycat shows.

And also, this is what your agent is doing.  If you don't have an agent, this is what the agent that won't meet with you is doing.