America, best known for The "Selling Proposition"

 

America, home of The "Selling Proposition" Like it or not, you live in a capitalist society and most everything you own and use came about as the result of making some kind of purchase.  And, in each case, before you made that exact product selection you were first confronted by a selection of products (competition among sellers). With each product offering tendered, the seller either explicitly or implicitly was presenting you with something that we might call "a selling proposition".  Or, in your favorite vernacular, "a pitch". One might ask themselves this rhetorical question: why did I buy this product over that product? Unpacking the thought processes that lead to a purchase is no small task.  The human mind is filled with all manner of inconsistencies and emotional or irrational responses to such purchasing decisions. Therefore we might expect that such dynamics of product selection are also at play when casting directors solicit talent to audition for roles in television and film. It would be my opinion that, in most casting calls, only two kinds of selling propositions are effectively in play: In the first scenario (selling proposition), the casting associate "loves your recent credits" (momentum, which might include the possibility of soon becoming a name).  There is an uncertainty about the future here and the casting office might relax their idea of what the character is "supposed to look like" or is "imagined to look like" and open to be convinced (read: sold) that a specific actor with strong momentum could yield a reasonable choice for the role. So the pre-selection or qualifying process here might be: Eliminate all faces from the casting grid (submissions) which are "clearly not suited for the role." From the list of remaining candidates (could be right for the role), rank the aspirants according to their credits (momentum: most recent credits are the most important). Take the top 30 or 100 candidates and solicit self-tape auditions from them. From the actual audition tapes that are returned, eliminate all candidates who failed to prove they are indeed "right for the role". From the list of remaining candidates, rank them again by some combination of "the audition tape", "the look", "the credits" and submit a shortlist to the final decision maker (director/producer) for a casting decision. In the second selling proposition the casting associate starts with an a priori criteria of "the ideal look" for the character (as described by the writer in the script - "if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage").  The uncertainty here in the mind of casting is the somewhat problematic mapping of a non-speaking look (purely a visual - i.e. "the headshot") into the fully realized character that embodies both the look and whatever other characteristics (speech/mannerisms) that are implied by the character description. So the pre-selection or qualifying purchasing process might be like this: Given the maximum number of candidates the casting office is willing to audition (or has time to audition), go through the grid of all candidates and rank the them from "the most relevant look" to the "least relevant look". Take the top 30 or 100 candidates from this list of "best looks for the role" and solicit audition tapes from them. From the list of returned audition tapes (not every talent confirms, not every audition tape will be returned by the deadline) further rank the candidates such that the combination of look/audition "most closely match" the described character. Further rank this shortlist based on credits/momentum and submit the top 5 candidates to the final decision makers for a casting decision. The truth is that both of these selling propositions would likely be at play in every casting situation.  So a legitimate casting session would include both types of candidates as per the above pre-selection techniques. I want to draw your attention here to: - "clearly not suited for the role." - I think most casting directors can make these eliminations from photos but in some cases it might be determined by watching a reel. - "the most relevant look" - Again, I think most casting directors when surveying the list of submissions are making these selections based on gut instincts or intuitive reactions to the imagery that is presented.  In other words, "they know it when they see it."  The emphasis here on the phrase "SEE IT." "Seeing is believing" I think it follows that the most likely reason a candidate is dismissed is due to the headshot(s) failing to address the specificity demanded by the role. And furthermore, the most likely reason a candidate rises to the top of the list of "solicited auditions" is, conversely, a result of the headshot(s) UNIQUELY QUALIFYING THEM for the role. And finally, if a candidate has no momentum or has lost their prior career momentum, the most effective way to compensate for that is with a highly detailed and specific look that uniquely qualifies the actor for a very narrow, targeted subset of character archetypes. The generic headshot (aka look) is "sorta right for everything" but "perfect for nothing." The specific look or headshot is "perfect for one character" but "not quite right for everything else." Given the fact that most TV roles receive 3000 submissions you won't be surprised to learn that generic headshots tend to lead "nowhere" except possibly in the case of young actors (i.e. character age <21) where the great majority of candidates have no credits and no real look.  Even under these circumstances the appropriate look still elevates the candidate to the top of the list resulting in a higher audition rate.