When the Pitch Itself Needs a Pitch
Every so often, a message arrives that does not quite fit into any normal category.
It is not exactly a pitch platform. It is not exactly a publicist. It is not exactly a producer query. It is not exactly radio advertising. It is not exactly a branding service.
It is more like someone opened a drawer labeled “entertainment opportunities,” shook it over LinkedIn, and pressed send.
This one came from Myron Grace, listed on LinkedIn as Executive Producer/CEO at Screenworks/Starlight Midwest Entertainment. The message began as an offer for “promotion services” and radio commercials, then widened into search engine optimization, social media promotion, email, television solicitation, magazine and newspaper solicitation, radio solicitation, website promotion, brand recognition, publishing solicitation, media development, and more.
That is a lot of nouns.
For writers, the first question is not whether a service like this is good or bad. The first question is more basic:
What is being offered?
Because before a writer spends money on promotion, access, solicitation, branding, or exposure, the writer should know what is actually being promoted, who is doing the promoting, who the promotion is aimed at, and what proof of work the client receives.
That is where this pitch gets interesting.
What Was Sent to Me
The LinkedIn message began politely enough:
“It’s a true pleasure to meet you. Please allow me to offer you some promotions services. It would be amazing to work for you.”
From there, the pitch moved immediately into radio commercials. The offer mentioned “90 radio commercials for just $75 each station,” along with listener numbers for Hot Atlanta Mix 106 and Cleveland Smooth Jazz WJZZ. It also said I could choose both stations and take a 15% discount on promotion packages.
At that point, I was not sure whether I was being offered radio advertising, entertainment publicity, screenplay promotion, author promotion, or some larger consulting package.
And that uncertainty is the point. Before evaluating the price, the claims, or the supposed opportunity, I first have to know what kind of service this actually is.
The message describes Screenworks Entertainment as providing services in search engine optimization, social media promotions, email, television solicitation, magazine and newspaper solicitation, radio solicitation, website promotion, technology and media development, brand and name recognition, major publishing solicitation, media brand recognition, and more.
That is where the fog really rolls in.
Those are all real categories of promotional activity, at least in theory. But they are not the same thing. A radio ad campaign is not the same as pitching a screenplay. SEO is not the same as publishing solicitation. Brand recognition is not the same as film/TV outreach. “Media development where it is needed” sounds important, but it does not tell a writer what will actually happen after the invoice is paid.
The First Problem: Who Is This For?
The first issue is not the price. It is not even the number of services listed.
The first issue is that I cannot tell who the offer is actually for.
Is this for novelists trying to sell books? Screenwriters trying to get producers to read scripts? Filmmakers trying to promote completed projects? Musicians trying to build an audience? Business owners buying radio spots? General entertainment clients who want publicity?
The message references radio commercials, SEO, social media, publishing solicitation, television solicitation, newspaper and magazine solicitation, media recognition, and brand recognition. That may sound comprehensive, but comprehensive is not the same as clear.
A writer needs clarity before spending money. If I am hiring someone to promote a screenplay, I need to know whether they have legitimate film and television contacts, whether those contacts are open to receiving material, what kind of material is being submitted, and whether I receive a record of that outreach.
If I am hiring someone to promote a novel, I need a different set of answers.
If I am buying radio ads, that is something else entirely.
The danger with an all-purpose promotion pitch is that it can sound useful to everyone while being specific to no one.
“Who Is Myron Grace?”
Based on the LinkedIn message, Myron Grace identifies himself as CEO of Screenworks Entertainment. His LinkedIn profile lists him as Executive Producer/CEO at Screenworks/Starlight Midwest Entertainment.
A basic public search shows that Myron Grace and Screenworks/Starlight Midwest Entertainment do have an online footprint. Screenworks’ own site says Grace started Starlight Midwest Entertainment, also referred to as Screenworks Entertainment, in 1999. The site presents his work broadly across entertainment, promotion, radio, media, publishing, music, film, and related services.
There are also public profiles and listings connected to Grace, Screenworks, Starlight Midwest Entertainment, Grandhouse Films, online radio programming, and small production/media credits. IMDb lists Myron Grace with producer credits connected to projects including Atlanta Mix 108, Community & Business Cleveland Television, and Internet News Network.
So this is not a case where the name produces nothing at all. There is a visible online presence.
But that is different from verifying the specific claims in the LinkedIn pitch.
The pitch says he has worked with major authors, helped authors sell more than 6.4 million books, and works directly with major publishers on a regular basis. Those are substantial claims. From an initial public search, I found company pages, profiles, radio/media connections, and some production listings. I did not find clear independent documentation connecting those broad public materials to the specific sales and major-author claims made in the pitch.
That distinction matters.
Having an online presence is one thing. Having verifiable, writer-relevant proof of specific paid-service outcomes is another.
The Cost Is Real Money
The price points are not tiny.
According to the message, the promotion packages range from $1,295 for 35 days to $4,095 for 185 days. The message also says there is a 20% fee on any deal obtained, in addition to upfront package fees.
That combination matters.
An upfront fee is one business model. A percentage of a deal is another. Combining both is not automatically wrong, but it does raise the need for very clear terms. What kind of deal counts? How long does that percentage last? Does it apply only to deals directly generated by the campaign? Does it apply to a project, a company, a book, a script, a film, or the writer’s future work generally?
The message also mentions additional costs, including a 100-page movie script for an additional fee of $4,195, plus possible mailing and legal fees if soliciting a lawyer directly in Hollywood.
Again, maybe there is a clear explanation behind all of this. But from the initial message, a writer would not know.
And when a package costs four figures, “I’m not sure what this is” is not a small problem.
The Claims Are Big Enough to Need Receipts
The message also makes some very large credibility claims.
Grace says he has been “very successful” working with authors such as Terry McMillan, Gloria Loring, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, Eric Jerome Dickey, and others. He also says he has helped authors sell more than 6.4 million books and works directly with Random House, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, and many others on a regular basis.
Those are not small claims.
And to be clear, the issue is not that the claims are impossible. The issue is that they are too significant to leave undefined.
“Worked with” can mean many things. It could mean representation, promotion, advertising, interviews, event support, media placement, publishing outreach, or something much more limited. “Helped authors sell” also needs context. Did the promotion directly lead to sales? Was he part of a larger campaign? Were these already bestselling authors? What titles? What dates? What measurable role?
This matters because the pitch appears to be asking for real money upfront, plus a percentage of any deal obtained. If a writer is being asked to pay based partly on major-name credibility, then the writer is entitled to ask for specifics.
Big names can create confidence. They can also blur the question.
The question is not whether famous names appear in the pitch. The question is what specific work was done, for whom, when, and with what result.
My Response: Define the Offer First
Before I can evaluate the offer, I need to know what the offer actually is.
So my response is not going to begin with price negotiation, package selection, or a call. It is going to begin with the most basic due-diligence question:
Who is this for, and what is the goal?
Here is the response I sent:
“Hi Myron,
Thank you for the information. Before I can evaluate whether this is relevant to me, I need to clarify the basic purpose of the service.
Who is this promotion package designed for?
Are you offering services for screenwriters, novelists, filmmakers, musicians, business owners, or general entertainment clients?
Also, what is the specific goal of the package? For example, are you trying to help clients sell books, promote a film, get screenplay attention, build a public brand, secure publishing interest, reach producers, advertise on radio, or something else?
I’m asking because your message mentions radio ads, SEO, social media, publishing solicitation, film/TV solicitation, media outreach, brand recognition, and a 20% fee on any deal. Those are very different services, so I would need to understand exactly what you are offering before discussing any package or payment.
Thanks,
Randy”
That is not a hostile response. It is not an accusation. It is the minimum level of clarity a writer should request before considering a paid service.
If the answer is specific, documented, and relevant, then there may be something to evaluate.
If the answer stays broad, shifts into another sales pitch, or avoids the basic question of who the service is for, that tells me something too.
The Answer Made the Offer Broader, Not Clearer
The response did answer one question, but maybe not in the way a writer would hope.
When I asked who the service was designed for, the answer was essentially: almost anyone selling almost anything.
Grace described Screenworks Entertainment as “a full service promotions and marketing services company” offering advertising to “anyone with a product or services,” including authors, film companies, telemarketing, technology and marketing companies, product and service companies, and more.
He also said the company helps clients sell “products, services, books, and anything that sells.”
That is a remarkable phrase.
It may be perfectly honest as a description of a general marketing company. But for a screenwriter trying to evaluate whether this service is relevant, it does not narrow the offer. It widens it.
The response also says part of the company focuses on screenwriting, film and music production, book sales, author services, and entertainment-related needs. Again, that sounds broad. But it still does not answer the key practical questions:
What exactly would be done for a screenwriter?
Who would receive the material?
What proof of outreach would the writer receive?
Are the “major Entertainment Lawyers, Companies, and brands” named, reachable, and expecting submissions?
What deliverables come with a paid package?
A phone call may be useful eventually, but when a service involves four-figure packages and a potential 20% fee, I would want the basics in writing first.
At this stage, the offer is clearer in one way: this is not a specialized screenwriting service. It is being presented as a broad promotion and marketing service for books, films, products, services, brands, companies, and entertainment clients.
That does not automatically make it bad.
But it does mean a writer should be very careful before assuming the package is designed to solve a screenwriting problem.
Where This Leaves Me
At this point, I do not think this needs much more detective work.
I asked a basic question: who is this service for, and what is the specific goal?
The answer was that Screenworks Entertainment offers promotion and marketing services to “anyone with a product or services” and helps clients sell “products, services, books, and anything that sells.”
That may be a perfectly accurate description of a general marketing company. But it does not solve the problem for a writer trying to decide whether to spend money.
For a screenwriter, the unanswered questions are still the important ones.
What would be done for my script or project?
Who would receive the material?
Are those people expecting submissions?
What proof of outreach would I receive?
What deliverables come with the package?
What exactly would trigger the 20% fee?
Can any recent writer-relevant outcomes be verified?
The answer did not give me enough to evaluate the offer as a screenwriting service, an author service, a film/TV solicitation service, or a publicity campaign. It confirmed that the offer is broad. It did not make it concrete.
Whether that vagueness is intentional or simply the result of an all-purpose sales pitch, the practical result is the same: I would not spend money on it.
Not without written deliverables. Not without verifiable recent examples. Not without clear terms. And definitely not because someone wants to move the discussion to a phone call before the basics are in writing.
Be First to Comment