Category: Business

Categories
Random Thought Studio 2.0 The Business of Production Video Technology

Why are most production workflows inefficient?

In my experience few productions – be they film or television – are well planned from a workflow perspective. It seems that people do what’s apparently cheapest, or what they have done in the past. This is both dangerous – because the production workflow hasn’t been tested – and inefficient.

In a perfect world (oh *that* again!) the workflow would be thoroughly tested: shoot with the proposed camera, test the digital lab if involved; test the edit all the way through to the actual output of the project. Once the proposed workflow is tested it can be checked for improved efficiency at every step. Perhaps there are software solutions for automating parts of the process that require only small changes to the process to be extremely valuable. Perhaps there are alternatives that would save a lot of time and money if they were known about.

Instead of tested and efficient workflows, people tend to do “what they’ve done before”. When there are large amounts of money at stake on a film or TV series it’s understandable that people opt for the tried and true, even if it’s not particularly efficient because “it will work”.

Part of the problem is that people simply do not test their workflows. I’ve been involved with “film projects” (both direct to DVD and back out to cinematic release) where the workflow for post was not set until shooting had started. In one example the shoot format wasn’t known until less than a week before shooting started.

Maybe there was a time when you could simply rely on “what went before” for a workflow, but with the proliferation of formats and distribution outputs, there are more choices than ever to be made.

Which brings me to the other part of the problem. Most people making workflow decisions are producers, with input from their chosen editor. Chances are, unfortunately, that neither group are very likely to truly understand the technology that underpins the workflow – or even why the workflow “works”. They know enough of what they need to know to get by but my experience has been that most working producers and editors do not actively invest time into learning the technology and improving their own value.

And when they’re not working, they’re working on getting more work. Again, not surprising.

But somewhere along the way, we need producers to research and listen to advisors (like myself) who do understand the workflow and do have a working knowledge of changing technology that can be make a particular project much more efficient to produce, but I have no idea how to connect those producers with the people who can help.

We’ve seen, in just a little under two years, how technology can improve workflows, just with our relatively minor contributions:

Rent a couple of LockIt boxes (or equivalent) on set and save days and days synchronizing audio and video from dual system shoots;

Log your documentary material in a specific way, and take weeks off post production finding the stories in the material (Producers can even do a pre-edit);

Understand how to build a spreadsheet of your titles and how to make a Motion Template and automate the production of titles (and changes to same).

If you know you can recut a self contained file into it’s scene components, how does that change color correction for your project;

Import music with full metadata.

These are all examples of currently-available software tools from my company and others that are working to make post production more efficiently. I wrote more about this in my Filling in the NLE Gaps for DV Magazine.

My question though, is how do we encourage producers to “look around and see what’s available” and open up their workflows to a little modern technology. To this end, Intelligent Assistance is looking to work closely with a limited group of producers in 2010 to find ways to streamline, automate and make-more-robust postproduction workflows. So, if you’re a producer and want to save time and money in post, email me or post in the comments.

If you’ve got ideas on how encourage producers move toward more metadata-based workflows? How do we get the message out?

Categories
Business & Marketing Distribution Random Thought

How do we solve the problem of media piracy?

So apparently some author comes up with a figure that online unauthorized distribution is costing the book publishing business $3 billion a year. (Once again repeating the totally bogus argument that each download is a lost sale but that’s for another post.) One has to question the independence of the study when the writer works for a company presenting a “solution” to the problem they identify, but let’s leave it for the moment.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. There’s another industry that costs the book publishing business $100 billion a year in lost sales: libraries. Using the same methodology as the study in the cited publisher’s weekly article above, this blogger calculates that libraries have cost publishers $1 Trillion dollars in the last decade.

So, if we’re going to solve the book “piracy” problem in a way that really helps publishers, we’ll have to close all the libraries. After all they’re costing publishers more than 30x more than any unauthorized distribution does: even if you calculate that unauthorized distribution with totally bogus methodologies.

In fact, photocopying also costs the print publishing industry billions of dollars a year, so we should regulate their use. In fact, if the RIAA/MPAA want a “three strikes” rule, then it should be applied to everything.

A three-strikes rule (as introduced in France) would mean that if an unsubstantiated assertion from a record-company-appointed “watchdog” is made against an IP address, the account would be cancelled and the user taken off the Internet. (Note: this is without judicial process; without any proof that the account holder did the download; with a system that has accused dead people of “piracy” or any other legal process we normally hold as being important before issuing punishment. At least there has to be a trial!)

So, if this is a good idea for music or movies (like they’re some “special” category) then it obviously should be carried through to protect print publishers as well.  According to “Freedom to Tinker” it would work like this:

The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.
As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.
A few naysayers may argue that print bans might be hard to enforce, and that banning communication based on mere accusations of wrongdoing raises some minor issues of due process and free speech. But if those issues don’t trouble us in the Internet setting, why should they trouble us here?
Yes, if banned from using print, some students will be unable to do their school work, some adults will face minor inconvenience in their daily lives, and a few troublemakers will not be allowed to participate in — or even listen to — political debate. Maybe they’ll think more carefully the next time, before allowing themselves to be accused of copyright infringement.
In short, a three-strikes system is just as good an idea for print as it is for the Internet. Which country will be the first to adopt it?

After all, if it’s fair to have people cut off the Internet (and their life) based on three unsupported, unproven assertions from anyone, it should apply to everything. Right? It should apply to the children of Record Company executives (who apparently only got a “talking to” from their father -wish I could find a link to that story).

This is, of course, after the RIAA and MPAA have totally failed to establish that they have had any loss from piracy. (The biggest grossing movies were mostly pirated before release from within the studio.) Study after study (sorry Adage login required) after study shows that those who download music are the biggest buyers of music, but facts have never gotten in the way of idiot assertions from these organizations.

So, either we apply “three strikes” under some reasonable regime that would require the record company or movie studio to actually do what the law requires and identify the person at the account and prove that they uploaded a file as “making available” is not established legal precedent in any jurisdiction; or we’ll allow a regime where anyone can be accused of “piracy” by any other person without proof or the need to follow established law.

Which are you going to support?

Categories
Apple Pro Apps The Business of Production

How to save on the AVP Conference next week?

You can get a great deal on the AVP Conference for either the whole conference or any single days, by using my discount code: BIGBRAIN when you register.

I’m talking about the Association of Video Professionals Conference Jan 28-30 at the Radisson Hotel, 6225 W. Century Bld, Los Angeles (just near LAX). This year the conference has some of the best trainers in the industry, including myself, Larry Jordan, Frank Rohmer, Mark Spencer, and Bruce Nazarian.

My session, on Thursday 28th is:  Awesome Titling

How to use all the Titling tools available in Final Cut Studio to create Awesome Titles: choose the right font; better typgraphic design; when to use Calligraphy, Motion or LiveType; and animating fonts and glyphs.   Be prepared to experiment, be inspired and be exposed to new possibilities with titles in the Final Cut Studio ecosystem.

Register and use my discount code BIGBRAIN and you’ll get a 10% discount on the full conference or any single day. That’s $20 off a day and $50 off the three day Conference package. But wait there’s more! Anyone that signs up for the conference using my promo code will also receive a free one year Gold Listing on the FindAVideoProfessional.com site (a $149 value).

It’s going to be a great conference. Come along if you want to learn how to make awesome titles and I’ll see you there.

Categories
Studio 2.0 The Business of Production

How does keying technology change production? [Updated]

As regular readers will know, I spend a lot of time thinking about the future of production: how we will produce, fund, build audiences and get paid. One of the four questions we must answer is how to produce less expensively while maintaining the quality.

It’s becoming obvious to me that one solution is to use more blue and green screen. (Green is typically used for electronic production while blue is usually the choice for film acquisition.) I have been in the mindset that keying was “just for when it can’t be done live” situations: to create scenes that don’t exist; to put people into a scene that would be too dangerous real (like adjacent to live wild animals) but a recent viewing of Stargate Studios’ Virtual Back Lot reel set me thinking. The reel is definitely worth the viewing, but to realize that “regular” street shots and building exteriors were all being done with green screen in studios instead of  going on location is revealing.

Of course, smart shooting isn’t limited to keying – I understand that co-executive producer on Mad Men Scott Hornbacher suggested a combination of a sheet of glass and some black drapery to simulate the view from inside a train, instead of heading out to Travel Town for the shoot. The shot took minutes without the expense of setting up for an outdoor shoot. However, keying is more broadly applicable and such ingenuity, combined with some use of green screen, is demonstrated in the Stargate Studios’ reel: check the shot on (I think) the Warner lot of a “newstand” that was little more than a lean-to on the side of a convenient studio exterior.

Technologies that are going to dramatically reduce in price and complexity over the next couple of years will be improved green screen keying and virtual sets. A series could develop many of its sets as virtual sets, shooting in green screen most of the time and building a million dollar look for a lot less than that.

[Update] Thanks to Rob Shaver from the comments. Sanctuary did, indeed, shoot 70% green screen to reduce cost.

Categories
Interesting Technology Media Consumption Video Technology

Where are the rest of the BuZZ interviews from 2009?

Over recent months Larry and I have spoken regularly on a variety of topics, so I thought I’d post some of the interviews here.

RED Digital Cinema’s latest announcements and more on how we’re going to fund entertainment

http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/BuZZ_Audio/Hodgetts_BuZZ_091105.mp3

More of my thoughts on the Democratization of production

http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/BuZZ_Audio/Hodgetts_BuZZ_091126.mp3

My Look Back on 2009

http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/BuZZ_Audio/Hodgetts_091224.mp3

My thoughts on what to expect in 2010

http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/BuZZ_Audio/Hodgetts_091231.mp3

Categories
Studio 2.0 The Business of Production

What if Apple or Google simply bypassed Networks and Studios?

For a while now I’ve been wondering why Apple puts up with the intimidation and limitations placed on “premium content” from the Studios and Networks. Instead of being intimidated why not simply replace them by going direct to the producers/talent and (on the other end) the audience?

Even if they did not plan to do it, the threat should cause the existing players to really seriously reconsider their position. Apple currently has about $34 billion in cash, while Google has about $22 billion in cash.  Keep in mind too, that the goal of all production is to recoup the investment and make a profit. In the long run the original capital is not eroded unless there are a string of commercial failures.

Keep in mind that either party could use a lot of the modern advantages of a greenfield studio so the real cost of production for a completely new player would be significantly less than entrenched workflows and cost structures.

Let’s take just Apple’s little pot of gold. With $34 billion they could produce 566 “average cost” movies. (Average cost is $60 million, up from $35 million a decade ago – and yet the movies aren’t twice as entertaining!)  The Guardian and other sources suggest there has been a peak of about 600 releases from the studios generally considered to be “Hollywood”, although that number is expected to fall to around 400 for 2009.

Apple alone could finance/produce more movies than the entire current output of “Hollywood”. Think about that for a minute. (Not counting independent features, which cost a lot less and generally don’t recoup their investment.)

If we turn to Television where a hour “scripted drama” (whether dramatic or funny) generally costs around $3 million an episode, although some of the newer shows (Mad Men, Friday Night Lights) are producing for under $2 million an episode. If we stick to that $2 million mark, although I expect a new studio would be more efficient than that, then Apple alone could produce 17,000 one hour TV episodes.

17,000 one hour shows equates to 850 shows running 20 episodes a year. There are not 850 shows being produced in this budget space in the USA. There are no doubt more series overall, but they generally cost a lot less per episode and/or run for shorter seasons.

So, between them Apple and Google could completely refinance the film and television production industries without any input from NBC, ABC, WB, Sony or anyone else.

Remember, MGM as a production studio with a fairly good library of titles, is on the block right now and expected to be worth less than $2 billion. Comcast is buying half of NBC Universal for about $30 billion, but the broadcast network is considered to be a liability in that deal, rather than an asset. (Comcast were expected, at one point, to sell the broadcast network, although that seems to be off the table right now.)

Clearly, either Google or Apple could destroy the existing content production industries without borrowing or risking their business. Just what leverage do the current middlemen really have?

Update: Mike Egan at Cult of Mac makes a similar suggestion in mid 2011.

Categories
Studio 2.0 The Business of Production

What are the four problems we have to solve for independent television?

Clearly Distribution U and the “fantasy” of my last post about starting over with a clear slate have been continuing to weigh upon my thought process. Just yesterday we broke down the challenge into four problems that will need to be solved. Each is complex but there are already indicators that the problems are solvable.

1.     How do we reduce the cost of production without noticeably reducing the quality (so that shows can be profitable with smaller audiences)?;

2.    How do we build audiences for our shows (in the absence of network or cable marketing)?;

3.    How do we take the audience that we’ve attracted and recover the cost of producing the shows (and a little profit, thank you)?; and

4.   How do we fund the whole thing (because the income comes long after the expenses start)?.

1. How do we reduce the cost of production?

Not a new subject for me – in fact there’s a whole section in The New Now on that very subject, some of which I posted here in How to Produce more cheaply back in March. But beyond those then ways of reducing cost without reducing quality, we also have to consider the inefficiencies if inventing workflows again for each production; setting up facilities anew for each project and not taking much advantage of efficiencies that could be derived from new production tools and techniques.

I also think there are huge opportunities for more efficient production and post-production by embracing metadata-based intelligent workflows, such as the Assisted Editing tools my day-job company Intelligent Assistance is working on.

Change will come slowly (unless there is a cataclysm) because most projects have a lot of money on the line and people are reluctant to embrace change if it means there job and reputation might be on the line. Ultimately though, lower production budgets, with increased efficiencies are coming – whether we like it or not, really!

2.    How do we build an audience for our shows?

Many of us are in this business because we love being involved in the process of production, but ultimately if we’re only making shows for ourselves, we’re not going to be able to continue for very long. We need to build an audience. Traditionally this was done by spending a lot of promotional dollars on advertising and a PR/marketing blitz. Plus, of course, networks and cable channels use their own air time to promote new shows.

Without money or a compliant channel, how do we build an audience? I see a lot of good signs from what Independent Filmmakers have been doing to build audiences and I think a lot of that will translate to building audiences for independent television.

It will help, though, if we know there is an audience for a show before we start production! Right now some research is done but ultimately the decision to “go or not” with a show is up to the “gut feeling” of some executive. By making sure first that there is an audience before committing to production (using similar techniques to Demand Media) we introduce more efficiency into the process.

Plus, of course, every social media tool can be turned into audience building tools, as long as people are treated as part of a conversation, rather than a “targeted demographic”. This is going to be  a hard lesson I suspect, because we can also use social media to influence the direction of story lines:  if an audience is reacting badly to a story it can be changed before becoming damaging to the show. (I’m thinking of the strange murder subplot in season two of Friday Night Lights.)

3.    How do we monetize the audience we’ve attracted?

Frankly, I don’t think there is any one answer to this question. Instead independent television will be funded by a wide variety of methods. We’ve already seen how this pans out with independent film.

Here’s some ideas:

  • Single sponsor shows where the sponsor’s message is integrated into the programming;
  • Product placement;
  • pay for program – a non-advertising alternative that could be attractive to some audiences;
  • live events around program themes (Glee, a current season hit on Fox, undertook a 10 city tour to promote the show back in August 09);
  • merchandise of all kinds, associated with show themes;
  • and a whole lot more ways yet to be discovered.

A key point is that the revenue may not come directly from the content as part of a more complex business model where the content may be free, but revenue is raised on the back of the content in other ways. Traditional advertising is this kind of model but I’ve already expressed my thinking that traditional advertising – interrupt a program with mass-blast ads – isn’t a viable path in the future.

4.     How do we fund independent television?

Oddly enough, I think this is the easiest part of the equation once we have the first three in place. Funding businesses that have a track record, and a model that leaves little to guesswork, is already a proven model. Lots of projects require advance funding before they generate revenue. If the model works, the funding will be available.

Are these huge challenges? Every one of them is and the answers are complex and mostly unknown. That doesn’t mean they can’t be solved. Creating a new model of independent television is a much easier challenge than fixing the economy, putting a man on the moon, or even creating an operating system. Human ingenuity solved those problems and I dare to believe we can solve these four to create a model of independent television.

Note: I’ve shamelessly appropriate the term “independent television” from Matthew Weiner, producer of Mad Men who used it during a presentation to the TV Academy in 2008. His usage, as is mine, essentially adapts the approach of an independent filmmaker to television production.

Categories
Distribution Random Thought Studio 2.0 The Business of Production

What if there were no established TV production “industry”

One way or the other I’ve been thinking of what a “new media studio” would be like; how will people be paid; what would drive consumer demand; and all the rest that goes with a theoretical construct of a “replacement” for what we have now. Practically speaking, it’s more likely to evolve with many ideas in parallel, than come in one sudden upheaval that creates a new greenfield.

Although, as an aside from my main theme, I look ahead two years to when the actors’, writers’ and directors’ contracts come up for renewal. My feeling is that they’ll either have negotiated a settlement before the contract runs out, or we’re in for an apocalypse.

Remember that this a purely theoretical construct so I’m forgiving myself for not having every detail covered. What set me thinking, horrible-though-it-is was Demand Media. Wired’s article The Answer Factory: Demand Media and the Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell Media Model is really a nasty kick in the mouth for production skills: essentially “quality” has no place in this (highly profitable) production line, where costs have been driven down by competitive pressure. It is probably the dystopian future we were warned against when the industry became “democratized”.

Fortunately I don’t think it’s feasible for television-like content. (I’ll just call it Television, but I mean the sort of content that people watch on networks, cable channels, or off a satellite or even via Hulu.) For a thousand reasons I’ll bet at a minimum a more complex production process and higher demands for writing skills. Even relatively successful Internet Shows often have underdone production values from lack of quality writing, lighting or sound. (And some are excellent in all three because they have been made by “old school” folk.)

But let’s step back and apply some of the principles and see what might come of it.

Based on audience demand

Instead of basing program ideas on  some ‘gut feeling’ of a producer or executive we can take a lesson from the Demand Media case and design shows tailored to specific audience demands. Demand Media have algorithms that watch search terms and derive future “shows” as answers to questions people are asking ‘now’.

I’m sure there are ways of tackling similar challenges for TV shows. Monitor social media interactions for the types of comments being made about shows; use that data to derive algorithms to direct existing shows and find ideas for shows that will have an audience, and the business model for that audience would also be known. (See below, Funding it All)

Production Line

Everything becomes a production line. It’s going that way now, but the whole process needs to not be recreated anew for each show. In a greenfield model, employment is constant with people moving from show to show as they come and go; moving from one creative grouping to another.

Everything is standardized: production gear, cameras, record formats, etc. Standard workflows, controlled by the studio.

Talent

Talent would be mostly staff – from writers, production crew, actors, editors, audio post – paid decent salaries and with good benefits. Everyone would get a decent salary with a flat salary structure (instead of the enormous salaries for some) but would also share in the studio profits. Everyone is motivated to make it work.

Talent (across the board) is nurtured in their craft advancement based on merit. (Implicit in advancement is the concept that people will leave, unless the studio always grows.)

Production

Put production in inexpensive facilities, either purpose built (long term) in inexpensive locales (low cost counties) or in excess facilities from a declining (declined) old industry.

I see a lot of standing sets and green screen, and frankly a lot of synthetic sets.

Again with standardized production gear, all matching grip and common set modules for set construction. Work on the model of Southwest, JetBlue and Virgin America: one standard service, in standardized aircraft with much simplified maintenance and costs for spares.

Standardizing on common equipment, workflows, formats and outputs would save production and post huge amounts of money. Equipping with modern gear that has great quality at affordable prices taking advantage of all the cost reduction of the last decade.

Production will require talent. We need it to “look and sound like Television” because that’s where a large market is at (if we’re in a greenfield remember). It will still need to be lit well; recorded well and finished to a high standard, but I would argue that the most profitable approach would be to go to the least expensive “good enough” solution. And by “good enough” I do mean that it has to be good, but maybe for this type of content, shooting with a Viper might be “more quality than we need to pay for”. But AVC-I or direct ProRes acquisition with a KiPro makes for high quality and efficient pipelines that maintain “good enough” quality.

Apply that concept across the range of production departments: good enough, but not luxury.

Promotion and Audience Building

I think there are a lot of lessons from the independent film producers who have learned how to build audiences, and it’s something I’ve presented on before. It will be more building and nurturing fan bases and involving them in the process as much as possible.

Funding it all

Ah yes, the million dollar question. Or multi-billion dollar question if we’re talking an alternative to the current Television industry. Of course, I don’t have any definitive answer because, well frankly, there won’t be one. As was obvious at Distribution U, there are many avenues to funding a program:

  • some audiences will want to pay directly, and that’s a viable business model as I’ve demonstrated before, for even quite small audience sizes;
  • less expensive productions make it easier for one advertiser (a.k.a. brand in recent discussion here) to sponsor the whole show (Mark Pesce’s Hyperdistribution model)
  • use the show to promote merchandise, live performances, or other scarce good.

In one part of my mind I think a model like this could actually work. In fact I’m sure some variation on this is part of Jim Louderback is attempting with Revision3 and Kip McClanahan is attempting with On Networks. I suspect that no-one is going as radical as Demand Media, and I hope no-one ever does.

Kip McClanahan
CEO, On Networks

Categories
Business & Marketing Distribution

What did I learn about distribution at Distribution U?

Although I attend a number of conferences a year – often as a speaker – I mostly find that they go over ground that I either already know, or have heard the panelists/speakers go over before. In fact in 2008 there was one conference that I found extremely valuable – The Conversation organized in part by Scott Kirsner, who’s CinemaTech blog should be on everyone’s reading list.

So, naturally when Scott teamed with Peter Broderick on the Distribution U conference I signed up immediately. The conferences, held last Saturday, Nov 7, was a one day overview and summary of what people are doing to promote their independent films. While my primary interest is in the (as yet undeveloped) field of “independent television”, there were a lot of lessons from Distribution U (link is to Scott’s wrap up).

For me, the concentrated day helped me consolidate a lot of the thinking I’ve been doing on distribution over the last 3 or so years and helps me build on some of the thoughts I’ve been sharing via the (free) Supermeet 2009 magazine (How to grow an audience for your independent project) and via sessions at Digital Video Expo and other places.

Trying to summarize my eight pages of notes (a new conference record for me).

Scott Kirsner’s “scene setting” session started by pointing out how all technology innovation is immediately rejected by “the established players” – Edison hated projected film because he feared (accurately) that it would kill his profitable Kinescope business. We still see this happening today. His primary point is that “participation and engagement” with audiences is a crucial tenet of modern audience building – a term I prefer over “distribution”.

Another primary theme, from both Scott and Peter, is that the distribution for every project will be different, because the primary (or starting) audience will be different and what attracts one audience will not attract another. In modern distribution the “primary” audience for any project is one that is already engaged, in some way, by the topic or content. That helps get word-of-mouth buzz going and the audience can spread. Targeting a specific audience is easier (and cheaper) than trying to build a generic audience.

Another primary theme is that revenue comes from all sorts of places, not just “traditional” ones. A revenue mix seems to be the new normal for independent projects.

For example, the audience (and revenue) for Brian Terwilliger’s One Six Right has come from pilots, because the film is really about the romance of flying small planes and should appeal to every pilot in America. One Six Right has made money: (corrected after comment from Scott Kirsner)

  • selling DVDs directly (9,000 in the first 9 days it was available);
  • selling the soundtrack on CD (30% who buy the DVD also buy the CD of music unknown other than in the documentary);
  • selling posters signed by the 24 year old filmmaker (so far $30,000 from sale of posters)
  • listing (and selling) the DVD and merchandise through a catalog for pilots (Sporties);
  • selling through Amazon (where apparently the tip is to keep supply to Amazon low, which keeps them from deep discounts and keeps the sale price high);
  • selling a calendar (people pay to have the project’s promotion on their walls);
  • deals with local general aviation airports for local premiere’s;
  • giving the show to public television while retaining 4 x 15 second spots before and after the show to promote the DVD and merchandise;
  • creating a half hour “making of” special that builds the documentary out to a 2 hour or 90 minute package and selling that to Discovery channel. This sale apparently covered the original budget, on top of all the income from all the other revenue-generating activities, which is substantial.

I don’t know the budget for 161 right but some quick math shows that the initial DVD sales and calendar sales account for about $210,000 in revenue alone.

In fact, engagement with the audience starts at the very beginning of the project, rather than after production is complete: build an audience as you build the project and neither is more important than the other. Starting early builds an audience for the project and it builds anticipation.

Peter Broderick focused on “Hybrid Distribution” – don’t throw out all the “old” methods but adapt them and slice up the rights to the filmmaker’s best advantage. Never give anyone more rights than they need, and always retain direct sale rights for DVD and digital downloads. Although Peter gave a lot more examples at the seminar, his 10 Principles of Hybrid Distribution article provides an excellent overview.

I really appreciated the depth of examples that Scott and Peter provided, and the willingness to “talk numbers”. In most cases we got specific examples of the revenue from each type of activity surrounding the production.

Scott Kirsner will be speaking on “Building Big Audiences and Generating Revenue in the Digital Age” in San Francisco on Tuesday Dec 1 and I recommend you go if you have any interest in the subject – it’s based on his book Fans, Friends, and Followers (my copy is on the way and I’m looking forward to reading it).

I think this quote from Lisa Seward of Mod Communications summarizes the changes best:

You used to use your budget to buy an audience. Now you have to invent ideas to attract an audience.

The quote comes from an excellent presentation, referenced by myself and Larry Jordan already, The Audience is always right.

Categories
Business & Marketing

How do you turn generous offer into a PR disaster?

In The New Now I made the point that, whatever your promise in business, that you’d better be able to keep it, because when you make a promise or offer and don’t keep it, you usually do more damage to your brand than if you’d never made offer in the first place. By way of example, here’s my experience from this last week and how a company that I had fairly neutral feelings toward has turned me completely against the company, simply because they failed to follow through on a promise – a promise they didn’t have to make, but did.

Last Monday, Oct 26th TV Pro Gear sent out their regular newsletter (which I signed up for) with an offer for a free entry to the SMPTE show exhibition last week. I duly signed up for that free entry, figuring I’ll go if it’s free (normally $25).

I heard nothing Monday, nor the next day. So now I’m feeling like TV Pro Gear has let me down, particularly since there was no email or any follow up other than an acknowledgement that I had successfully filled out the form.

When I finally rang I was told (by their receptionist “Crystal”) that “Oh yeah, something happened and we couldn’t do that”. There was nobody else there to find out what had gone wrong and the only “solution” would be for me to go down to the show (and pay $25 for an exhibition of unknown quality). Crystal promised to take my number and someone would get back to me. I also sent an email to their general contact address asking what had gone wrong and requesting both an explanation and an apology.

No email and no phone call a week later, I decided to call. First call gets dropped by the receptionist; second call I get put through to “Bill”. Bill declined to tell me what went wrong and why I wasn’t contacted by phone or email. Basically, the company apparently simply doesn’t care about potential customers or their public reputation or they expect a simply “we’re sorry” – without explanation – to be enough. Bill, that is NOT enough!

Let me be clear: making promises to your customers (or readers of your newsletter) that you cannot or do not follow through on is very bad for your reputation. It certainly makes me think I’d never buy anything there because, how would I know what is true and what they are just saying to get me in, like the false promise in the email newsletter.

So, be very careful when you make promises: you better have the resources to follow through or you damn well shouldn’t make the promise because it will just backfire on you. Like this has.

Deal with TV Pro Gear, Flower Street Glendale at your own risk. It seems to me they don’t care. Of course, they could care, but simply not be competent enough to deliver.

There are lots of great Value Added Resellers in Los Angeles (Keycode, Advantage Video, New Media Hollywood come to mind immediately), deal with them and make a note to not create a disaster for yourself when you make an offer or promise.