Tinderflint Breaks the Traditional Production Company Mould
Founded in 2010, Tinderflint is a full-service creative studio in London, creating a variety of projects for clients worldwide across broadcast, digital, social and online, regardless of deadlines or budgets.
Almost 15 years after its conception, Tinderflint and its founders have seen the landscape rapidly shift. While multi-million pound budgets still exist, they’re far and few inbetween, and TV campaigns aren’t the sole focus as social media has become a pillar of most campaigns. Eliot Carroll, founding partner and director at Tinderflint, explains that today social-first campaigns offer an opportunity to communicate with a target audience that TV and VOD can’t easily reach.
“That’s not to say the TV ad is dead,” he adds, “but social now has to sit with a campaign more effectively than just a reversion of the TV spot. Budgets have also become more challenging, which has shifted the landscape considerably.”
In line with this, Tinderflint has aimed to adapt its approach accordingly. Born from broadcast and growing up in digital, the company’s roots are not like those of many big production houses. “We’ve always punched above our weight and because of our structure, we can make budgets work more efficiently and provide more value to our clients,” Elion says. “That doesn’t mean we’re cheap, but it does mean that we can offer solutions that genuinely make a difference for our clients.”
With this in mind, Tinderflint’s team has moved away from the traditional roster approach. Roster-free, the company now uses its network to find the right director for the project rather than assigning a director solely for their position on the roster.
Eliot comments further: “In the current climate, directors don’t want to be restricted to a single production company. They want the freedom and flexibility to work with a range of clients and we recognise that. We’re used to working in an agile and responsive way and by taking a rosterless approach, we can provide a real choice for our clients based specifically on brief, not just on a name.”
LBB> Tell me about the start of Tinderflint. At the beginning it was sitting at the intersection of broadcast and digital, how was this beneficial and how has it changed?
Eliot> Tinderflint was born from broadcast back in 2010 when the two other founders and I met working for a broadcast crewing company. We saw an opportunity as budgets started to migrate online and so we applied a broadcast approach to the content we made. This effectively meant applying a mentality where everyone rolled up their sleeves to get the job done, something that is still applicable in our approach today. We would never ask anyone to do something we wouldn’t be prepared to do ourselves so quite often at least one of us will be on location to help strike at the end of the shoot.
Digital production was really in its infancy back then, so we have very much grown up in digital. I guess this means that we’ve built Tinderflint from the ground up, not top-down, which enables us to be more creative with budgets and the approach we take to every project having had to do that from day dot.
LBB> Since the company's start, what are some of the biggest changes you’ve seen in the landscape, or perhaps some you didn't anticipate coming?
Eliot> The production landscape has changed considerably since we began, be it through the advent of technology, platforms and consumption. Social content, specifically influencer content, plays a much larger role than ever before. This means that the UGC aesthetic is an important factor in order to maintain a feeling of authenticity. That doesn’t mean that everything has to be shot on a phone. Our last campaign with Amazon was social-first, but the production values were high even though it was shot platform specific. It just means that a social media audience is more discerning than they are often given credit for. If it feels like a blatant sell, then it’s not going to stop thumbs.
LBB> How has Tinderflint adapted to those changes and what have they provoked in the company?
Eliot> As mentioned, we grew up in digital, so have continually evolved as technology, techniques and content consumption changed. What it has taught us is the importance of remaining agile, so that we are able to adapt quickly. I know everyone claims to be agile, but we truly are. We are able to adapt to changes pretty seamlessly, something that our clients often compliment us on. Our team is multiskilled and our network provides specialisms in various different fields. It’s the Mission Impossible approach to getting the right director and building the right team for the right project before the message self-destructs in 30 seconds.
LBB> Why do you believe social-first campaigns are now leading the agenda for many brands? Do they benefit every brand, or are there certain brands that you believe should stray away from social-first communications?
Eliot> Like every bit of work produced, it’s only effective if people see it. You need to cater for your audience, which in most cases is on one of the many social platforms. That’s not to say that it’s right for every brand and it certainly is not right to force a brand onto a platform just because it’s a trend. Forcing a brand onto TikTok for the sake of it is like an ageing uncle at a family gathering trying to act 20 years younger than he is.
As someone currently undergoing a midlife crisis, I know from my own kids' reactions that this approach is pretty cringey!
LBB> And with the rise of AI, how do you anticipate social-first communications will change? Are there any worries coming in this territory?
Eliot> Technology is something that has evolved in our industry continually over the years and we’ve always viewed new tech as an opportunity to improve our work. It’s just another production tool, just an incredibly advanced one. With the speed of change, it will no doubt have a huge impact on social first communications. The armoury of new tools available will certainly bolster creators’ capabilities, but I don’t think that will stop the need for production companies.
We try to view it as a positive rather than a negative way, despite my nine-year-old son suggesting that AI will take over the world and challenge humanity for dominance of the Earth… He’s partial to a bit of sci-fi.
LBB> You mention that due to your structure, you're able to make budgets work more effectively - can you elaborate further on that point?
Eliot> As I mentioned Tinderflint grew up in digital, so when producing content, it would always be done end to end. The idea of just doing one element of a project and passing it on was a bit of an alien concept to us. We built a team around an end-to-end process, which enables us to offer full-service production. This in turn gives us the opportunity to use tight budgets in a way that can reduce costs in one area to allow us to throw budgets at others. That’s not to say that we don’t go out when required, but in an environment where budgets are tight, we can meet those requirements without negatively impacting creativity or the final deliverables.
LBB> When did you decide to make the step to becoming roster-free and what did that transition look like for you? How do you operate now and how does this tie in with the current, social-first heavy landscape?
Eliot> As we moved into higher end production and began to produce bigger and better work, we looked around at other production companies to see what they did and tried to emulate that. We built a roster of great talent which opened up new opportunities for us and allowed us to work in a different way from which we were used to. As we expanded our network of freelance talent we kept having the same conversations. Directors didn’t want to be limited to one production company, unless they were being fed lots of work. They wanted the freedom to work on interesting projects with different people. We felt the days of directorial monogamy were short lived and believed that this opened up interesting and exciting opportunities. It was at this point that we amicably moved away from our roster and looked to find the best creative solution for every requirement. We draw on our extensive network to give our clients a director that is perfect for a project, rather than just forcing a director onto a project because they are on our books. ‘The world is our roster’ is a cheesy tagline, but it’s very much true. It’s an approach that is gaining traction both from our network and our clients.
LBB> Were there any major challenges that came out of this transition and if so, how did you overcome them?
Eliot> The main challenge for us was a perception issue. People are used to working in a certain way, with certain people and in challenging times will normally default to that approach. Opening doors and convincing people that our solution will provide better creative output can be a difficult hurdle to overcome. Thankfully we have an experienced commercial director, Stevie Holliday, who has done a fantastic job of persuading people to dip their toe into alternative water, the results of which have been great.
Once we’ve worked with a client, they have always returned to work with us again, which is testament to us doing something right!
LBB> Would you like to say anything to the current directors that might be unsure on what their next step should be?
Eliot> Production companies with rostered directors can be excellent at nurturing talent and helping build a director's career. However, the freedom to work with different companies also presents exciting creative opportunities for directors. This approach not only benefits established directors but also opens doors for emerging talent. It's no longer just about having a big name; it's about assembling the right team for the specific project. It's like creating content tailored to a particular platform, rather than retrofitting a film into a format it wasn't designed for.
LBB> What is the most exciting thing on the horizon for Tinderflint today?
Eliot> I'm excited about the ongoing discussions we’re having with a couple of brands, which could lead to some truly innovative projects in the near future. We're also deep into our ‘Content for Good’ series, which is gaining momentum and generating a lot of positive attention. Third sector work has been an important part of our business since our inception and so offering our time pro bono to produce work for a certain cause or charity is something that everyone at Tinderflint feels is incredibly worthwhile.
LBB> Any final thoughts?
Eliot> There is a lot of pressure on agencies to inhouse work at the moment due to tough economic conditions. Whilst this may be viewed negatively by many, I’m a strong believer in adversity bringing opportunity. I’m pretty confident that the way Tinderflint works, provides opportunities to collaborate with exciting talent in a way that fits within budgetary restrictions whilst delivering great creative results. And great creative results are ultimately something that everyone along the chain wants to achieve.
