Former TV Exec Rebecca Stay on Thoughtful Notes and the Value of Serendipity, Pragmatism, and Listening

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to work with seasoned script consultant and former TV executive, Rebecca Stay, through the Athena Writers Lab. Working with her helped me to become a better writer. So, when I had the opportunity to talk with her on behalf of Pipeline Artists, I jumped at it.

Rebecca has had the privilege of working with some of the most exciting and inspiring creative teams in the industry. She headed up several TV Production companies, including: FourBoys Ent. (Patricia Heaton and David Hunt), Ventanarosa (Salma Hayek & Jose Tamez), Is or Isn’t. Ent. (Lisa Kudrow & Dan Bucatinsky), and Shephard / Robin (Greer Shephard & Michael M. Robin). Most recently, she was one of the Executive Producers on the CBS half-hour show, "Carol’s Second Act," starring Patricia Heaton.

She’s passionate about nurturing established writers as well as discovering fresh voices. She’s helped award-winning writers and producers navigate from pitch to pilot to series, working with various cable and network outlets. A Southern California native, she grew up in Hermosa Beach, with a love for TV and film from an early age.

*Note: interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Sarah Granger: Let’s get right into it—you were a TV development executive for many years. What brought you to that work?

Rebecca Stay: Serendipity has been my North Star as far as my career has been concerned. In my late 20s, I was waitressing to keep afloat while I pursued an acting career, but I wasn't finding much success or joy, so I began to consider other creative endeavors. Enter serendipity.

At the time, one of my besties was working at ABC network as an assistant, and she called to see if I wanted her job. She'd been promoted and transferred to a new department, which meant her soon-to-be former boss needed to fill her spot. The reality was I had no business being in the running for the job. I had zero experience. But my friend convinced her boss that I was a quick learner and trustworthy, which counted for something, given he worked with confidential budgets. In my interview, he seemed to appreciate my sense of humor—maybe that made up for my lack of corporate experience? Or maybe it was in large part due to my friend who not only gave me a recommendation, but a glowing one at that ... which then led to a three-decade career.

SG: That’s amazing.

RS: It was a reminder that it's all about relationships. In college, our acting teacher told a room of us: “Look around the room. Sitting next to you might be a future writer, producer, casting director, or even a studio or network executive, so be kind and respectful to each other. You never know when you'll all meet again. Maybe someone in this room has your future in their hands.” His point was that a large part of this industry is indeed about relationships, but you have to nurture and nourish them.

SG: What was working at ABC like?

RS: I have very fond memories of working at ABC. I've no doubt some of it's selective memory. It wasn't unusual to work from 8:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night and work weekends; there were long, stressful hours depending on the time of year. I made some wonderful friends, both in house as well as at the various agencies and studios—all of us in pursuit of climbing the executive ladder—supporting each other, but also competing with one another. It was also an exciting time because there were many women in charge. Head of Comedy, Drama, Casting ... all women. Whether they had any true control was questionable, but as a female employee just starting out, it was a wonderful example to see what was possible.

It was also a time of taking chances as far as what was developed and how many scripts were purchased. It wasn't out of the norm for ABC to develop 50-60 drama scripts and almost the same amount in comedy during any given pilot cycle. CBS developed 80-90 drama scripts alone. Can you imagine? That's unheard of in today's marketplace, especially in the broadcast realm. I also got to see executives double, sometimes triple develop an idea and then have bake-offs. Don't get me wrong, executives still didn't take huge risks in what they ultimately put on the air, but they tried every development season to look for those diamonds in the rough.

I was only at ABC for a year before serendipity stepped back in. I was offered a job working for two executives—one in current programming and one in drama development. Both women. What a master class that was … two mentors/bosses showing me how an idea morphed into a pilot script and then what happened when a show went to series and what that day-to-day management looked like. Moreover, they were my first glimpses into how to have meaningful relationships with writers and producers.

SG: What was it that drew you to TV dramas in particular?

RS: I was attracted to how (at the time) hour-long series inherently provided more space to explore characters and themes. There was a depth and breadth to the stories and arcs of the characters.

SG: What did you look for in concepts when it came to selecting projects to develop?

RS: As an executive, you had a certain mandate, which usually included looking for writers that had a unique POV, who had something to say within the scope of the world they were bringing us.

In every development cycle, writers, agents, and producers would come in and say excitedly, “We've brought you something you've never heard before,” which was always amusing. We were hearing hundreds and hundreds of pitches per cycle. Of course we'd heard it. One year, I think we heard two or three pitches that included the main character in a coma! How random is that? For me, and I'm sure for some other execs, we were not asking writers to reinvent the wheel; it was about what they could do with that wheel. And that usually started with great writers giving us characters that surprised us—putting their spin on a thematic question that mirrored the current zeitgeist.

SG: On that topic—in your words, what are the best ways to stand out as a writer in such a crowded marketplace?

RS: Nothing is more alluring or compelling to an executive than hearing about a writer's real life that then led them to land on their current passion project. Because of the over-saturation of content, zero in on ideas that can answer the executive's question, which is and was always: “why now and why you” to tell the story they want to tell. I know writers and producers find those questions incredibly annoying, but a writer's answer—however adjacent to the question it might be—does tend to seep into the bones of the world and characters they're ultimately building. And it's going to sound counter-intuitive, but you have to take the studio or network you're selling to out of the equation when creating. Don't try to force or anticipate what genre or world or conceit they think will be popular—the writer needs to pick something they can't stop thinking about. That they're obsessed with ...

SG: On the topic of creating … you’re really tuned into characters and character development. I’d like to dive into that a bit more. You’re great at identifying characters’ needs, wants, flaws, backstory, etc. and you taught me a lot about building great characters. What makes a well-developed character, in your view?

RS: Backstory. Regardless of whether or not any of it makes it into the script, writers need to give their character(s) more than just an essence or random idiosyncrasies ... Writers need to form characters steeped in rich history so it can then melt into the fabric of their journey. That's what (I think) invests us as viewers. We can all agree no one wants obvious exposition, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Actors talk a lot about what goes into their preparation, including creating backstories for their characters. The key is to then let it all go and trust the work will show up in the performance. I think the same is for writing. A writer's process should include free association. Write paragraphs on what-ifs. Come up with quirky/surprising David Sedaris-type questions or scenarios. Has a toilet ever overflowed while the character was sitting on it in a mall store? If so, how did they handle it? Have they ever rescued a monkey in a tree? Who is their favorite villain and what does that say about them? Be wild and creative and non-sensical. Have fun creating scenarios for the characters. Figuring out who they are—and just as important ... who they are not.

The bottom-line? There are no short cuts. A writer must build and delve into the world of their characters outside of what a viewer might ultimately be privy to. Put in the time and explore.

SG: When we worked together, I noticed you had a particular skill for giving notes that included asking thoughtful questions, and making gentle suggestions for how to dig deeper into story. You asked me “why” often—“why is the character doing this?” That pushed me to work harder to develop more complex characters. When working with writers, what’s your philosophy or approach to giving notes? What do you find to be most effective?

RS: I think what might distinguish me as far as being a good “note-giver” from others could also be diagnosed as a flaw. As a network executive, I was constantly forced to quickly turn notes around, even more so when in production. There is no time to mull or digest as I like to do. I had to deliver notes to writers that were  manageable—that could be digested, processed and delivered by the writer and by (sometimes) cruel deadlines.

As a script consultant, working with writers that don’t have hard deadlines serves me much better. I can give more thoughtful notes. I like to live inside the writer's story and characters, sit with what their thematic question is or what they think it might be. Is it the right one? And if so, is it properly buried into the walls of the story and the character's journey? I like to sit with the material for a bit before I map out my thoughts. Even then I’m still mulling. Editing.

And then my favorite part … I like to share creative suggestions. I use the word “maybe,” “hear the spirit,” or “food for thought” a lot. I give both overall notes as well as specific page notes to demonstrate or showcase where my issues were stemming from. Where I bumped. What I loved. My goal (always) is to give constructive criticism with warmth, encouragement and enthusiasm. What's most effective? I think that question is best answered by the writer.

SG: I loved that about working with you. You made feedback an easier pill to swallow, so I was less likely to get bogged down in my own insecurities, and it was easier for me to focus more on the work … which brings me to my follow-up question. Writers get told a lot about how to receive notes—sometimes so much so that it can be confusing. What’s the one thing you would say is most important for writers to remember when they get notes from readers or execs about their scripts?

RS: Good question. Our job as the note-giver is to inspire a writer to go back and dig in. Our responsibility is to express what’s both working and not working for us and the writer’s responsibility is to see what the common denominator might be amongst all the feedback they're receiving.

Some questions writers should be asking themselves include: Does the reader get what I’m going for in a global way? Is the character's arc clear? Is there something the readers are all bumping on? On the flip side, is everyone giving random creative suggestions? For instance, it's not helpful if a reader would rather the character live in a Craftsman vs. a Tudor home or have a dog rather than a cat. Those are not helpful notes; those are just creative lateral suggestions. A writer should want to know where people are confused or lost or ultimately not connecting. Notes that a writer feels will make the next draft better. If they do get those, then they have a wonderful note-giver.

If a writer is getting paid to write a script, then they need to completely open their heart and mind to compromise. Pick and choose battles wisely. There are many reasons a project might not move forward, but if executives and/or producers had a wonderful experience with them and loved their writing, they'll most certainly want to work with them again.

On the other hand, if the writer fought the creatives throughout the process and proved to not be a team player, I can guarantee you they will not want to work with that writer again. Sometimes  the writer must look at the bigger picture, especially if they don't yet have a track record. If the writer is not a big name showrunner, compromise needs to be their middle name.

If a writer is not yet paid to write something they're working on, they should try to give the material to people who wear different hats. Give it to a fellow writer, a director, a studio and/or a network executive. An agent. Even a person who doesn’t have skin in the game but is a lover of TV and film. Give it to those whose perspectives are varied, but meaningful. I do understand not everyone has these kinds of connections. If they don’t, try to find people that will give a diverse point of view. In the end, as I tell all the writers I work with—take what's helpful, discard what's not, and most importantly, listen to your gut.

Lastly, this is so important to remember: writers shouldn't get too caught up in one round of notes on one draft. As a dear friend reminded me of recently—(I think) Jordan Peele’s Oscar winning screenplay for Get Out endured around 100-200 drafts. Gives one perspective, yes?

SG: That’s a lot of revising. Speaking of well-known creative artists, you’ve worked with actors, directors, producers, executives who have a wealth of experience and significant stature in the industry. Are there any big lessons you learned from that work or maybe a story you can share that you think could be of help to emerging writers and filmmakers?

RS: Yes, I have had the crazy good fortune of working with amazing and wonderful talent that included legendary women. They all taught me invaluable lessons; I learned the importance of knowing one's brand, lessons in confidence and pragmatism, and how to persevere.

Watching Salma Hayek in action was thrilling. She's smart, confident, passionate and funny! But I probably learned more from her soft-spoken producing partner, Jose (Pepe) Tamez. He was a pragmatic person, which didn't always align with my goal(s). I was all about the sale—how many projects could we get out there and set up? But I began to appreciate his pragmatic nature. He was constantly reminding me that we're not in the business to over-develop, we're in the business of getting projects made. And yes, that seems obvious—to get a show on the air, but at times I found myself digging in because I wanted multiple projects sold, to give us more opportunities for success.

Ultimately, it's about quality over quantity.

With Lisa Kudrow and Dan Bucatinsky, I learned the lesson of how brand is so important. At the time I joined them, they were still figuring that one out. With Patricia Heaton and David Hunt, the same, but our jumping off point was essentially built in. It was Patricia; strong female, comedy gold, family fare. In time, I tried to help them with their passion projects that were mostly off brand or brand-adjacent. I also learned to persevere. After almost five years, we finally got a show on the air—brand being on our side because the series' lead was Patricia.

The most daunting and hardest lesson was this: At the end of the day, it truly doesn't matter how famous you are—the writing has to be (as the executives love to say): “undeniable.”

SG: They really do love that word. What’s your advice for writers seeking producing partners or looking to sell their projects to production companies? What do you think is most important for the right fit?

RS: The answer lies in your question: Finding the right fit is key. The reality is writers may get a lot of passes ... producers or production pods that do not respond to the material. But that's good! The last thing a writer wants is to get tied to producers that are in it for the wrong reasons or want to completely up end and change the project in ways that don't align to the writer's vision. Or sometimes writers can fall prey to producers who love the material, but don't really have track records of success, or they don't have great connections to the buyers. Thus, the project might linger in a purgatory state.

That said, if the writer finds producers or pods who have the proper connections and have had some successes, then the way to find the right fit is to be diligent and do homework before the meeting(s). Beyond a love or passion for the writer's material, the writer should feel like the team they are meeting with truly understands what the writer has built. Look for partners that bring great ideas to the table ... that will help enhance the vision. There's nothing more exciting than to have partners that not only support the writer's vision, but will also help take the project to the next level.

SG: What’s your take on the state of the industry now and how writers can best navigate during this time?

RS: Everyone says it's harder than ever to sell and set up projects, but let's be clear—to some extent, it was never easy. Granted, there are a lot more variables that we didn't have to deal with in the past … an over-saturation of content, A.I., smaller writer rooms, tighter/smaller budgets, and consolidation of outlets. An even bigger issue is that the outlets don't seem to be in any big hurry to buy. All that said, if a script/project is great and a writer has a great team behind them, the buyers will find a way to get it made.

And I know this will sound like recycled, clichéd and trite advice, but it certainly won't hurt to do and explore. Plain and simple, writers need to write. Keep creating and learning. Go on adventures and live life in order to deepen their creativity. Read scripts, watch films and TV shows that inspire. Listen to creators on podcasts, read interviews, watch panels and forums. Now, more than ever, writers have much more information at their fingertips.

There is so much a writer cannot control ... i.e., when they'll secure an agent or manager, what the buyers will ultimately buy, getting into an outlet to pitch or getting their script read, etc. Focus on what can be controlled, like writing and producing a short that will act as proof of concept to what they ultimately want to make. Raise the money and make something exactly how they envision it and enter the shorts into a variety of festivals.

SG: Excellent advice.

RS: Trust me, I know it's all easier said than done. Navigating through this industry maze is maddening and frustrating and hard. I try to live by the Four Agreements by Don Ruiz: always do your best, don't take it personally, be impeccable with your word, and don't make assumptions.

SG: I love that. What’s next for you and your work?

RS: Right now, I'm obsessed with my pickleball game ... And for those of you that play, you get it. I'm also finishing up some consulting gigs, and I'm in the midst of a rewrite of a short I wrote with the intent of raising money and producing it next year. My attempt at practicing what I preach. I'm also currently weeding through my notes on a memoir. We'll see how all that goes.

SG: Excellent. Any final words for emerging and advancing writers?

RS: Hmmm. I love the Tina Fey quote: “You can't be that kid standing at the top of the waterslide, overthinking it. You have to go down the chute.”