None were in the credits at all.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
What makes this mid-level producer more worthy than the other producers? 

He isn't "mid-level" at all. You keep saying that, but it's decidedly not true. From the earlier discussion I linked to:

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Producers are subordinate to Supervising Producers.  If you follow the history of say Producer Merri D. Howard, in the first season of ST: Voyager, she is credited as a "Producer".  In ST: Enterprise, she has been promoted, and is credited as a "Supervising Producer".

This is a common progression.

Check the link: you'll see how the promotion from Producer to Supervising Producer is described as getting expanded duties. She certainly didn't feel she was demoted, there, would you say? Then there's the Producer's Guild of America, who describe (here) the Supervising Producer as "The credit of Supervising Producer shall apply only to primary creative contributors to the series that perform, in a decision-making capacity, a substantial number of producing functions.

So I don't see how you get "mid-level" from that at all. It's just not true. Note that the PGA also says, later on, that "The Producer reports directly to the Supervising Producer". Again: that doesn't really ring "mid-level", does it? Because it isn't.

But again: we've already had this exact same discussion dozens of times, pointing to the exact same definitions, and raising the same misconceptions. It's been argued to death, there was a poll, then the rules were updated - after which nobody complained and everyone seemed happy with it (better yet: most users were already adding the Supervising Producers long before the rules update - once you've seen and understood someone's job progression over the course of multiple seasons of a TV show, it's pretty hard not to). All in all, I just don't understand why you're suddenly questioning all this again right now?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
What makes this mid-level producer more worthy than the other producers? 

He isn't "mid-level" at all. You keep saying that, but it's decidedly not true. From the earlier discussion I linked to:

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Producers are subordinate to Supervising Producers.  If you follow the history of say Producer Merri D. Howard, in the first season of ST: Voyager, she is credited as a "Producer".  In ST: Enterprise, she has been promoted, and is credited as a "Supervising Producer".

This is a common progression.

Check the link: you'll see how the promotion from Producer to Supervising Producer is described as getting expanded duties. She certainly didn't feel she was demoted, there, would you say? Then there's the Producer's Guild of America, who describe (here) the Supervising Producer as "The credit of Supervising Producer shall apply only to primary creative contributors to the series that perform, in a decision-making capacity, a substantial number of producing functions.

So I don't see how you get "mid-level" from that at all. It's just not true. Note that the PGA also says, later on, that "The Producer reports directly to the Supervising Producer". Again: that doesn't really ring "mid-level", does it? Because it isn't.

According to the PGA, Producers/Co-Producers report directy to the Supervising Producer who, along with the Line Producer and Co-Executive Producer, report directly to the Executive Producer.  Sometimes, he will report to the Co-Executive producer.  Since he is neither at the top nor the bottom and, in some cases, third of four in the chain, he is a mid-level producer.

Quote:
But again: we've already had this exact same discussion dozens of times, pointing to the exact same definitions, and raising the same misconceptions. It's been argued to death, there was a poll, then the rules were updated - after which nobody complained and everyone seemed happy with it (better yet: most users were already adding the Supervising Producers long before the rules update - once you've seen and understood someone's job progression over the course of multiple seasons of a TV show, it's pretty hard not to). All in all, I just don't understand why you're suddenly questioning all this again right now?

I am questioning it because the issue was brought up.  As a user, that is my right, just as it is your right to question things you don't agree with.  If you don't like it, don't participate in the discussion...simple solution.

Not really as it doesn't answer the question as to why these mid-level producers are worth tracking but the others aren't.  Why do we care about these guys but not the Co-Executive Producers they sometimes report to?

I am looking for an explanation that makes sense...thought I don't hold out much hope.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
If you don't get it by now, after several years of discussing (and ultimately resolving) this and without anything new coming to the surface, then I don't hold out much hope either. But hey, since it's all been done before, I'm happy to copy/paste some more for you, so here you go... We track them because the Supervising Producer indeed "supervises" the other producers. He's the "leader of the pack". The "normal" producers report to him (hey: if their supervisor is "mid-level", you'd have to call the regular producers "mid-level" as well, right?). There is absolutely no difference between Supervising Producer vs. Producer and, say, Supervising Art Director vs. Art Director, Supervising Editor vs. Editor or Supervising Sound Mixer vs. Sound Mixer, and so on. We track the Supervising Producer for the same reason we track those. The general Do include "Supervising" credits in the above categories rule has ended not just one, but all all of those silly and pointless nitpicking fights in one fell swoop. 

Actually, for TV series, the Executive Producer is the 'leader of the pack' as he is in charge of them all and, no, I would not call regual producers mid-level as that would put them on the same level as their supervisor and that just doesn't make any sense.

That being said, none of what you just posted answered my question...that question being, why the Supervising Producer and not the Line Producer or Co-Executive Producer?  Unlike production credits, there is no Executive Sound Editor or Co-Executive Sound Editor that the Supervising Sound Editor answers to, so it isn't quite the same.  If you don't have an answer to the question I asked, that is fine, just say so, but don't continue to repeat the same stuff that doesn't answer the question.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I would not call regual producers mid-level as that would put them on the same level as their supervisor and that just doesn't make any sense.

Ah, so the "regular" producers aren't mid-level, but their supervisor, the Supervising Producer they report to, he suddenly is mid-level? You're absolutely right: that just doesn't make any sense. 

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
If I get this right, there is more of a direct chain of command from producer to supervising producer to executive producer, so it makes sense to include the middle chain rather than skip straight from bottom to top.
A line producer tends to work alongside a producer, doing a slightly different job (the line producers I know are more responsible for crewing up and dealing with the production office side of things), so I can understand why we skip them.
As to why we skip co-executives - I don't know, I've never understood why we skip co-anything. Although sometimes "co-" can be used to mean assistant, so maybe that's why.

Hope this helps.

Thank you.  That does make sense.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
It does to me, too, yeah: from everything you've said, it's abundantly clear that the "Supervising Producer" is worth tracking. That's probably why we do indeed track them - just like we track Supervising Art Directors, Supervising Editors, Supervising Sound Mixers and the like. Feel free to assign a "level", a color, a nickname or a number to them however you deem fit, but yeah, it's still all fairly obvious to me, indeed.

Have you nothing better to do?