I approach High-Concept as an idea that when summed up in 1-2 sentences contains the protagonist, the nemesis, and the stakes. So, for instance, Armageddon to me is high concept because you can sum it up as, "Oil drillers must land on an asteroid and blow it up before it crashes into the Earth." I wouldn't consider Sideways high-concept because within your summary there are no stakes involved.

This what I posted once in a forum. My understanding of high concept. "However, the term high concept is exclusively used for plots. There is no high concept genre. It will always come down to the story you are telling, not the way you tell it. High concept is all about originality, clarity, and success potentials. The one sentence pitch condition they put is related more to the first two. Originality You can almost describe any movie plot with one sentence, but the question is: will it stand out from the rest if its pitched that way? "Waking up with no memories and lethal skills, he/she has to dodge bullets while trying to find his/her true identity" This, as you can see, can apply to "Resident evil" and "Bourne identity" as well. And if we drop "the lost memories" part it will apply to more. Also if we remove the lethal skills. So the more you strip down the pitch, its originality starts to fade quickly. But if it's one sentence and still stand out, that's the first check point of high concept. "He has a severe short-term memory loss, and a wife to avenge" Clarity If you need too many words to describe your character goal, the obstacles, and the stakes, this means you have a clarity issue, which is a sign that your script might suffer from the same problem. "On his way to the most important competition in his career, an arrogant hot-shot race-care accidently damages the road of a small town, who wouldn't let him go before he fix it" Original yes, but clarity wise not so much. If you gonna pitch it in less words you would definitely escape an important element of a logline. If it's short and clear, that's the second check point. "A rat pursues his lifelong dream to become an A-list chef in Paris" Potential of success It's just a fancy way to say: "Would it make a good movie?" "A ten million dollar painting has to dry before a crawling toddler reaches it" We got the previous checkpoints, but it might not be that fun to watch as a movie. Original, clear, and would make a great movie, that's a winner. "A patient at a mental hospital who claims to be from a different planet starts to convince his own psychiatrist" This is just my own understanding of high concept, and I wanted to share it."

I agree, high concept movies tend to get a bad name, since most blockbusters are high concept, and so many of those do rely on the gore/explosions/cgi etc to deliver the movie, vs a story, and they end up feeling empty. You just kind of forget that there are loads of high concept movies that have heart, and plenty of small stories that fall into the high concept category. When I think of low concept movies, I tend to think of the more dialogue-centric meandering types, where the outcome doesn't really affect the characters(or me)that much. Stuff happens, maybe they learn something, but nothing is all that different and/or the changes aren't that visual. Clerks, Good Will Hunting, Trains, Planes & Automobiles. Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Forrest Gump. The first high concept movies I tend to think of are once I saw as a kid-- back when I'd see a trailer and think I would DIE if I didn't see it right away! Ghostbusters. Teen Wolf. Back to the Future. Gremlins. Jurassic Park. Encino Man. Home Alone. The idea is flat out exciting, simple enough for a 5 year old to at least semi-comprehend, and I'm desperate to see what happens. Something just makes them MOVIES! My 2 (or 20) cents, anyway.

The notion of high concept in the discussion of films kind of baffles me. However, I do know that "The Fly" was high concept. (Should I be ducking?) Did anyone mention "The Fugitive" as high concept? (Should I be ducking?) "Citizen Kane"... hahahaha That bloody film can be dropped in anywhere. Biography? "Citizen Kane." Mystery? "Citizen Kane." Best dance tune? "Citizen Kane." How about the high concept movie "Pay it Forward." There you go. No ducking on that one; I got my dukes up. So you want a definition for the term, eh? Let me base my definition of "high concept" on the film choices I've listed. And let me add the "Sixth Sense" to the list: A boy sees dead people, which includes his shrink. "Jurassic Park," too: Misplaced science runs astray building a zoo for the lost age of dinosaurs. (Greed's in it, too.) Think of Time Inc.: all their magazines start with a high concept title: Time; Life; Fortune, etc. My definition of the term high concept goes like this: A film proposal that turns on one central development. Here's an example: Government deceit opens the door for terrorism, and only one flawed man stands in the way of disaster. I call that one, "The Six-Degree Conspiracy," which is my spy thriller that will be published on Kindle June 1 or June 3. Couldn't resist the advert, Scott.

Don't confuse high concept for genre. Just because most summer blockbuster Action movies are high concept, doesn't mean high concept are solely summer blockers. GROUNDHOG'S DAY is high concept.

I hate writing loglines. That's just me and mostly because the stories I tend to write are complex with complex characters. The concept may be high and said in one line that focuses on the hook/twist, but writing a log line from that is a lot different and perhaps this is a discussion that will flow over into logline creation. Let me expand on that a bit, though. If I say "two wayward friends who go on a debauched road trip through California’s wine country" is my concept - especially for the purposes of The Quest - as someone else noted, that doesn't cover the basic necessities of a logline. Furthermore, the concept is the springing board - the premise from which the story is created. The logline, to me, is a culmination of the story once all the other good stuff has been mulled over (like theme, consequences, dividends, etc.). The big difference is the logline identifies who wants what, why, and who's trying to stop it (or some variation of). If we're merely starting at the concept level, we've got a lot of work to do before hitting the logline. I have an idea I've thought about pitching, but to be honest - I'm not at the point I can turn it into a logline. It's merely a concept. Trying to do a logline without knowing certain elements won't do the premise/concept justice, imho. What would is pitching the concept. What if... I guarantee that would be much more concise and instantly "aha! I see it!", because "seeing it" is about seeing the potential in it, the endless possibilities for conflict, etc. Here's a good example of a great high concept: cloning dinosaurs for an amusement park on an island. That could be played into a thousand different stories, but this is what the logline ends up as: A family struggles to escape a remote island park whose main attractions—genetically restored dinosaurs—have been set loose by a power failure. Bringing this all together for my concern, isn't The Quest meant to take a high concept, explore it and create the rest of the elements resulting in a feature screenplay? Meaning, if we're submitting loglines, we've already started laying the foundation for characters as functions, stakes, conflict, etc. - things I'm sure you'll be going over in your approach. So, in that regard - is it better to pitch a logline or a concept at this juncture? Is Producer Scott set firm on loglines, or will he buy into a concept to be fully explored if it's good enough? Or, perhaps either will do?

I really dig this. It's some of the clearest and well explained thought on high concept. And now it's time to throw a monkey in the wrench. Originality -- DUE DATE and TRAINS, PLANES, and AUTOMOBILES. Same logline. (Hell, it's really just a rip-off). Also the CHANGE UP. And let's just go with pretty much any body switching movie. 17 Again, Freaky Friday... I don't think originality is a factor. You can be utterly transparent and still high concept. In fact, CHANGE UP was so transparent the marketing campaign was simply Ryan Reynolds is Jason Bateman and vice versa.

There's no fine line, but a high concept film is one where the story idea by itself can be used to market the film. With a low concept film, the movie has to make other promises: great performances, laughter or tears, social relevance, stunning photography, etc. The story idea itself won't get people into theatres. Sideways is a low concept film. The marketing went against the concept. Yeah, it might be a movie about snobs drinking wine, but it's really smart and funny and the actors are fantastic. Audiences went to laugh and see Paul Giamatti act, not for the wine. Of course, high or low concept has nothing to do with good or bad, but there are many high concept films where the concept itself is so laughable (Battleship) that high concept films get a bad name. Also high concept films tend to draw bigger audiences, because the easiest thing to sell in a movie is a high concept. The second easiest thing to sell is either big laughs or big stars. The hardest thing to sell these days is the small character drama, which is why Hollywood doesn't make them anymore. There are just as many bad low concept movies, but they either go unseen, or there are so many reasons why they fail they can't all be lumped together as a single thing.

High concept strikes an emotional chord so deeply entrenched that a radar blip in our memory triggers the experience of what was (most important to us at the time) into immediate recognition to "feel" it all over again. It's personal in a sense that we simply can relate to such events in very specific manners. Joy & sadness, amazement, love, fear -- all reactions to a pre-rationalized model of thinking. Non-high concepts are then (somehow) a matter of uncommon and yet fairly rare conditions that a very limited amount of people can identify as known or "boring" through a lense of passive (emotionally static) moods. A polarity clash of Shock & Awe or Familiar & Recognizable.

I'm not 100% certain that a high concept needs stakes. While, I completely agree that a logline WITH stakes is a much stronger logline I don't think it is mutually exclusive. A cop teams up with a dog as a partner -- has no inherent stakes. But it was a big enough high concept to warrant two similar films. I do also think that's only half a logline, but if you think the missing half "to stop a drug smuggling operation" is the half perking people's attention, I can assure you it's not. Most people don't even know the plot of LETHAL WEAPON. They just know it's an over the hill cop teamed with a suicidal cop. I think what ALL high concepts have is a HOOK people can relate to or at least wants to see. Something that peeks your curiosity. And that's where I think Sideways fails. Now, you're saying -- James... saving the Earth from an asteroid, I don't really care about. I've seen that. That's not going to hook more than just the hardest core SciFi fans. True. But that's not the appeal of ARMAGEDDON. The appeal is "Blue collar workers in space." That's the hook. Think about that movie. And think about some of the most memorable moments. For example, the guys asking to never pay taxes. EVAR! Compare THE CORE to ARMAGEDDON. In terms of plot (besides ridiculousness of THE CORE) and stakes -- they are ultimately identical. What is missing is the hook. The part about why do I as a viewer care? Why would I want to watch that -- and Armageddon answers that with -- I get to see blue collar workers in space. High concept answers -- I get to see a man teamed with a dog take down criminals. I get to see a kid who keeps a zombie like a pet dog. I get to see if a man would allow another man to sleep with his wife when offered a million dollars. I get to see an affair gone horribly wrong. I really think high concept is nothing more than a concept that peeks our morbid curiosity.

We had this discussion over at another site during its Logline contest. Some people pitched just a premise and got scolded for it. The general consensus was that it should be a true logline with stakes, goals and a specific protagonist etc. and not just an idea for a movie. But in my view some movies write themselves. A smart producer sees the value of a great idea and can develop it into a movie. Your Jurassic Park example is a good one. With that concept who the hell cares about the family drama or any B-story. Fuck that. It's a distraction.

"There’s no fine line, but a high concept film is one where the story idea by itself can be used to market the film." I love this definition. I know it's totally not helpful, but I think it's 100% accurate.

Thanks!

I find that while some loglines are appropriate, they are ultimately boring for the story they are pitching because there isn't enough context to understand how it is actually interesting. But logline and high concept are not the same thing. All movies will have a logline, one way or another. It's a space in a form called coverage -- and if it's left blank, I doubt the movie is getting made (that and a reader isn't doing their job). So, someone has to figure out a logline for non-high concept material. And apparently they are very able at doing so because low concept movies get made.

High concept ideas are ideas that intrigue people with very few words. The easiest way to intrigue is through strong conflict - either external or internal. But interesting characters, strong dilemmas, worlds / environments we haven't seen before, can also create high concepts. That's why "high concept" is so hard to define. It's a concept that's cool and intriguing, but the element that makes it so can change from concept to concept. For example, "a cop sentenced to death has to go on the run to prove his innocence for a murder he did not commit" is not really intriguing, even though it has a clear goal, conflict, and stakes. But what about "in a future where technology tags criminals before they commit their crimes, a cop has to go on the run to prove his innocence of a murder he has not yet committed"? Same basic stakes. But there's intrigue. Or "A ditzy airhead gets accepted to Harvard Law School"? Intriguing. But no real stakes or goal implied. Same with "A tomboy FBI agent has to go on an undercover mission at a beauty pageant". Intriguing, but again - no clear goal or antagonist there. Just an interesting contrast between protagonist and environment that promises entertaining conflict. Same for characters. A man falls in love with a woman? Bland. An obsessive-compulsive misogynistic romance novelist falls in love with a single-mom waitress? Intriguing.

I believe there are several characteristics that can make a logline high concept... 1. A turn. Start with something familiar, but with a twist that turns the something familiar on its head. 48 Hours: A hard-nosed cop reluctantly teams up with a wise-cracking criminal temporarily paroled in order to track down a killer. A hard-nosed cop is a character we've all seen before, and we've all seen him work with wise-cracking partner--but working with a wise-cracking criminal is original. It turns a familiar characteristic of cop movies on its head. The something familiar doesn't have to be something we've necessarily seen in movies, but something most can relate to or experience. Example: Meet the New Boss: An employee of Capital Properties goes from one jerk of a boss to another, and the new supervisor is even worse because it's a robot. Everyone has had at least one bad boss, but a bad boss who's also a robot? 2. Irony. I think a logline with irony can create the highest concept movies. Liar Liar: An attorney can't tell any lies for 24 hours. The Matrix: A computer hacker discovers he's living inside a computer program (essentially). In general, I think if you read a logline and NEED to know what happens, that's high concept. Jurassic Park, for example--you read "During a preview tour, a theme park suffers a major power breakdown that allows its cloned dinosaur exhibits to run amok." I don't know who could read that logline and not want to know what happens.

An MA Screenwriting student I'm supervising (hi, Ben!) said to me the other day "I always start with a predicament". And that's what I think a high concept idea is: a predicament. Jason Bourne is in a predicament. The guests and staff in Jurassic Park are in a predicament. The family in Little Miss Sunshine and the guys in Sideways are in predicaments - the stakes aren't as high, they're not going to die, but they still find themselves in a situation that they wouldn't have chosen, and the only way out is through. A predicament isn't a plot, but it is the jumping-off point for one. Jason Bourne waking up shot, half-drowned and not knowing who's going to kill be could play out through a thousand different plots, but the predicament remains the same. And it also relates to character. The predicament arises from who the character is - very often it's an ironic 'punishment' for their flaws, or their worst nightmare come true.

Groundhog's Day is indeed high concept, It's the very definition, as I understand it. But do I confuse concept with genre? Maybe it's my viewing habits. The only high concept films I like are of a particular genre. Could be. Or am I mistaking your point?

Just gonna riff for a sec: Don't I always? I'm not sure I'd classify BATTLESHIP as high concept. I mean, it doesn't even seem to have a concept at all. What's the hook? That they made a movie out of a board game? I've seen the trailers. And I still can't picture what to expect from that movie. With a cop and a dog, I can picture a dog biting a criminal's butt, maybe even doing wild kung-fu disarming techniques, and eventually having to use the dog to do something cop related (like bust international arms dealers or something). I'm going to go totally against the grain here and say -- Battleship is low concept. No clue what the aliens want. Who the main characters are. Why Battleships are even important. The title seems terrible/forced to me -- because, if it's an alien invasion movie I wouldn't be naming it after some sea going vessel attack vessel (unless it was a space one and they just use our naval terms -- which I COULD PICTURE!) Why do the aliens have to fight the battleships? Ugh... Brb -- looking up the logline. Okay, found 2-ish. Not really loglines, but I think they readily exemplify my point. "Based on the classic Hasbro naval combat game, Battleship is the story of an international fleet of ships who come across an alien armada whilst on a Naval war games exercise. An intense battle ensues over sea, land and air. What do they aliens - known as 'The Regents' - want?" So, they play a game of Hasbro battleship together? Intensely? "A fleet of ships is forced to do battle with an armada of unknown origins in order to discover and thwart their destructive goals." What? Why? And not the good why either! Am I the only one having a tough time picturing a movie from this? I mean, I can picture alien ships fighting boats. I got that. But why?! Why don't they fly away? Why are they hostile (especially if they can't fly away)? So maybe I'm wrong. Maybe stakes do need to play a role in high concept. At least, implied stakes. Like a dog and a cop imply that eventually their teaming will need to solve something. And the body switching movies, there is the implication that they eventually have to return back to normal. But what is the implied stakes with Battleship? That only our battleships can save the planet from certain alien doom? Like here let's just fix this now -- No idea, haven't seen the movie but -- Aliens plant a massive giant BOMB THING that will suck the Earth's oceans dry unless the world's Battleship (and yes for some reason only battleships, okay, okay, we'll lighten up -- armadas works too) can defuse it in time! Now it's high concept. Sucky high concept. But now at least I get it. Please, somebody tell me why the aliens are doing this. Now I need to know lol.

Let me guess: Scriptshadow?

Was going more off "that bloody film can be dropped in anywhere. Biography? “Citizen Kane.” Mystery? “Citizen Kane.” Best dance tune?" You were citing genres. I was just pointing out high concept isn't necessarily genre specific. Take MEET JOE BLACK as an example -- Death takes human form for a day and asks Anthony Hopkins to be his tour guide amongst the living. (This is rough. You could come up with others for it, I'm sure). This could be the logline of a comedy. Oh, look at how out of place that wacky Death is! Or it could be the logline of a thriller. Just because he's in human form, doesn't mean he gets a day off. He still has to kill people. He is Death, you know. (Hmm, could see THAT being a comedy too). But neither of those choices are the way the actual filmed movie went. They went way of Drama. Same goes for GROUNDHOG'S DAY -- could easily be a whole host of things. They went with Comedy.

Yup. To clarify, I was not on the "true" logline team. Whatever works works is my motto. Sometimes it is better to give less information about the story to spark the recipient's imagination.

"48 Hours: A hard-nosed cop reluctantly teams up with a wise-cracking criminal temporarily paroled in order to track down a killer." Great. If only the word "temporarily" were stronger; although the sentence does land on the word. Still, it's the twist that matters most, as you point out.

Well, I had suspected I was off key with "Citizen Kane," really, but I just couldn't resist fooling around. You're point's well taken. That "Groundhog's Day" could be a lot of things is an important idea, I think, and it speaks to the point that concept by itself can be so stripped down -- assuming it's good -- that any costume will do, clown or victim.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Don't almost all stories/movies include some sort of predicament in the broad sense you are using the term? What predicament do the guys in Sideways face? Sure, towards the end they get in trouble but to begin with their only predicament is where to get wasted. Similarly, I just watched a movie called Tyrannosaur (a great gritty British indie flick on Netflix if anyone is interested) that was certainly not high concept but could be said to involve a predicament (a man with anger issues struggles to get a grip on his life). For me, I agree with Scott's assertion that in a high concept movie you can get an idea of the story just from the one line description. I don't agree with the assertion that Sideways is high concept. From his description I don't see the movie. I would agree with what others have said in that with a high concept idea you don't even necessarily need to know about the protagonist. It's simply just an interesting situation. A killer shark terrorizes a beach town. A little boy finds an extra terrestrial. A child's toys come to life when he is not around. There are no hints to the actual plot or story in these high concepts but there is something about them that is just inherently different. Perhaps this is what defines high concept; an idea that requires little story detail.

I loved Tyrannosaur! Your description is interesting in that it's from the Joseph's (the man with anger issues) perspective. One could also describe the movie from Hannah's point of view, that she is struggling with an abusive husband and with keeping her faith in god. This is a movie that in my view has two protagonists of equal value. They both have major arcs and they both impact each other immensely.

Battleship is high concept, it's just not a good concept. I think that's universally agreed upon. The concept - a battleship must battle an alien ship - is the selling point of the movie. Who, what, where, why isn't that important. The point is it's not movie stars, or emotional involvement, or anything more than the concept selling the film. That's much different than having a good story, or strong conflict, or even something that makes sense. I'd argue that the whole concept thing is overrated. It's marketing. Concept can be where a story begins, but execution is everything. Concept has zip to do with quality.

Dunno why it won't let me reply to ya Bryan~ Yeah, I was admittedly going off the deep end with Battleship. My point was it's hard to classify it as high concept, when you start to question terms like "concept" and "selling point." Another problem I have is the lack of human factor (be it anthropomorphic or not). There's nothing to relate to. I'm 100% with you on execution is everything.

The human factor is often missing in high concept films - one reason so many are bad - and why it's different than a logline. A logline is just a way to describe the concept (or other selling point) so that it sounds like a real story with human beings and drama and all that. That's needed for any concept - high or low.

"High concept ideas are ideas that intrigue people with very few words. The easiest way to intrigue is through strong conflict – either external or internal. But interesting characters, strong dilemmas, worlds / environments we haven’t seen before, can also create high concepts." Completely agree! Pitch perfect.

Only really scanned the article and comments, but I understand high concept as an idea that, conveyed in a line or two, opens up the story so the reader/listener can see it's going places. They can see the possibilities, the potential, and want to know more.

Just because a movie has a clear concept doesn't automatically make it a high concept. Sideways is just a fairly ordinary concept. Clear, but ordinary. High concept = not ordinary. Little Miss Sunshine = ordinary. Weird family road trip. What is "high" about that concept? Clear concept does not equal high concept.

I agree, it has two protags and they clearly have an impact on each other.. but if you pushed to name one I think it would be Joseph. It starts and ends with him. It's his voice over. We discover Hannah's big reveal through him.

I'm going to quote from a book I read a while back :) "High-concept means unusual or startling or flashy or eye-catching...High-concept stories usually aim for escapism over verisimilitude and such escapism is one of the thrilling pleasure of movies. Eventually, you'll have to find ways to make the story somewhat plausible, in its own way, but when starting out you can banish all boundaries from your imagination. Indeed, many high-concept stories bend reality altogether, as in Field of Dreams, Splash or The Ring." [Writing Movies: The Practical Guide to Creating Stellar Screenplays, Gotham Writers' Workshop] Being John Malkovich and Speed are other examples cited as high-concept, and Lost in Translation, American Beauty, The Fabulous Baker Boys and The Graduate are all cited as being low-concept. Vertigo is cited as hovering in between. Though admittedly the lines between high and low concept are blurred, I sort of agree with the basic idea that low-concept strives towards verisimilitude, while high-concept aims for escapism. I also tend to agree that Sideways and Little Miss Sunshine would be low-concept.

High concept for me is a conceit/logline that sets off that light bulb above my head – BING! – and I just see it: I see the movie, there and then, in my head. But not just that, I see variations of that movie which in turn starts a chain reaction of thought in which I imagine interesting scenes, great dialogue, and exciting characters – all from a few lines I’ve just read. And this is what most, if not all, high concept ideas do. They offer you a concept that is so great you cannot help but actively fill in the blanks and visualize the rest of the film yourself – a kinda audience participation. A great high concept should first excite you, then make you think about it for days, if not weeks, afterwards. So, you could say that an effective high concept should only give us one half an equation, but one so interesting we actively strain to figure out the rest ourselves. One of my favorite loglines of late is: Dear Satan: A 7-year-old girl accidentally misspells “Santa” and instead invites Satan to bring her a toy for Christmas — and he does. I read that and was just blown away, not just by how obvious the idea is (in retrospect, of course) but also how much potential it has. Made me wanna look at an anagram generator online (although I didn’t). For me though, I generally think high concept ideas have a great twist or irony, and it is generally that element of the idea you’re trying to sell but wrapped in such a way as it imply a full movie experience, no matter which direction you intend to develop it.

Cool answer. High concept is the hook.

Ditto Re: Battleship A stupid concept, high or low. Maybe Bryan's definition should include "rational" as a concept modifier. Then Battleship would be excluded.

Actually, the Battleship movie was made long ago and it's really good, but it was called "The Enemy Below." http://www.amazon.com/The-Enemy-Below-Robert-Mitchum/dp/B0001NBMH6/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1338321810&sr=1-1

Summarizing several of the comments here with my own thoughts... High concept ideas are ideas composed of very few words that are instantly intriguing to the hearer. They are intriguing because they are simultaneously original and yet can also be instantly visualized as a coherent whole. It is the holy grail of hollywood, the sweet spot between "familiarity" and "originality" in roughly equal parts. (As a natural consequence of this convergence, they also happen to be money-makers.) So my pseudo code is: If Intriguing (Familiar + Original + Coherent) then High Concept. Houston, we have a movie! - - - - - BATTLESHIP Familiar? Yes, Battleships. Original? Somewhat, Aliens vs Battleships. Coherent? No. Intrigue-o-meter: Not High Concept (and I predict a Box Office Flop) GROUNDHOG DAY Familiar? Yes, a time loop story. Original? Yes, a time loop story as a RomCom in a place called Punxsutawney. Coherent? Yes, Bill must land Andie. Intrigue-o-meter: High Concept! Looking at this, I think I'm on to something and this could be extended a bit. What do the rest of you think?

Having slept on this idea, I do think I'm right but maybe "relatable" should replace "familiar" here. I also note that if you start with an idea that is relatable, you inevitable tend to go to some thing more specific. Consider the introduction of Bruce Willis' character in THE FIFTH ELEMENT: Relatable? Yes, flying car (been done before) Original? Yes, flying taxi (new twist) And maybe we don't need the coherent part. I think these two do well on their own. And we'll see about BATTLESHIP. I still think it's a stinker, but it will also have lots of explosions. Ergo, it will make some money. It all comes down to execution (and a coherent story) but the marketing I've seen in the previews is strictly for the CGI whores. This is one to check on twitter on opening day.

Daniel, I like that: relatable. Certainly can help a story concept connect with a buyer.

[...] What’s YOUR concept of “high concept”? (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]