Disqus - Latest Comments for jsepoch

Re: NEW CHALLENGES, AGING ROCK STARS & RE-DEFINING THE WORD FINAL

jsepoch — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:07:21 -0000

That's a great question and I can answer it in one word. Overages. Yes, we tend to back into numbers but a smart EP also creates parameters around the scope of that work so if the creative execution or time of delivery is altered by either agency or client we can ask for additional money with inclusion of production fees.

In the case of R'n H and others, they tend to make deals based on a price per shot not taking into account the complexities, diversity or time frame of the shots themselves. A quick example. If a studio wants to go down for 2- 3 months and then pick back up, what do you do about the artists? You need to make sure they remain available. The studios aren't budgeted for their down time but expect they will be available when they are ready to resume work. The VFX houses, or at least the poorly managed ones, often eat that cost versus bill it back. The reason. Fixed cost on variable terms.

Commercial prod has a lot of problems but this usually isn't one of them.

Re: NEW CHALLENGES, AGING ROCK STARS & RE-DEFINING THE WORD FINAL

jsepoch — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:21:59 -0000

hi bruce. I've shut down the blog in terms of my responses but this was too good not to comment.

A couple things. The vfx implosion consists of two major American houses, Digital Domain and Rhythm 'n Hues. This wasn't due to their lack of commercial work or a sharp decrease in commercial margins. From all reports it appears to have been primarily caused by mismanagement of the feature divisions not advertising. Not that ad business doesn't have it's fair share of issues but not to this extreme. It seems in VFX the studios have been operating a fixed cost pricing but insisting upon variables on delivery. They've been getting it for years and it's finally broke the bank. But enough about them.

To answer your question about commercial production, here's a guess.

I believe commercial production will remain steady but you will see the vendor evolve into two types of companies - giant behemoths with 20 plus directors and very small companies 4 and under with one or two name directors. Commercials aren't going away as as long as there are sports, news and event programming. Also they remain the only place where you will ever be able to reach mass. However, the fragmentation of media will result in commercial work being reserved for the best in class directors. Brands will pay for the talent when making the investment in the media buy of mass market. The result. Less work, smaller number of directors, bigger projects. Note I'm talking commercials not other areas of brand related content. That's where the good news lies...kinda.

There is a huge demand for brand supported content. It will be high deliverable, low budget with a desire to be good quality. Brands need to fill there digital portals but can't spend too much in one place. The result being less talent dependent and more model reliant. It isn't here yet but I believe it's coming. There will be a divide between commercial work and content work. One is couture and the other commodity.

The silver lining is that the corporations are highly profitable and have cash to spend. They aren't going to spend it unwisely but they are going to throw money at marketing to try to unlock the code of how to reach consumers effectively and consistently through their preferred forms of media. The negative is creative opportunities and their accompanied budgets will be reserved for the elites.

And of course there is the high possibility I could be completely wrong.

Re: ALL THINGS MUST PASS, THE FINAL CONFESSION

jsepoch — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:52:47 -0000

Stop blogging or sell the shares in your company?

Re: ALL THINGS MUST PASS, THE FINAL CONFESSION

jsepoch — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:52:08 -0000

Thanks Sharon for all your support. I'll keep writing not sure if it will be public.

Re: ALL THINGS MUST PASS, THE FINAL CONFESSION

jsepoch — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:51:19 -0000

Had to get out before I suffered brain damage from too many hard hits.

Re: THE ECONOMICS OF TALENT MANAGEMENT

jsepoch — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:51:09 -0000

If we get specific with the analogy there are undoubtedly holes. What I was trying to communicate is the general idea of product research and development.

Yes, directors are not an unmet need. Lord knows there are plenty. But like every industry there is always a desire to bring new and improved to the marketplace. For example, there is no shortage of beverages but Coke still seems to bring out new products constantly. All companies do it and so do production companies. Maybe I should used the soda business than pharma but hopefully the point came across.

Re: TRUST ME?

jsepoch — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:21:13 -0000

There are definitely circumstances where agencies handle this process to not only ensure their client is making the best and most informed decision but are also the vendors expectations are tempered. In those cases, the bids are apples to apples. The reels are skewed toward their choice. And, the treatment is honed to address all the clients concerns. This is great when it does happen. It comes down to creative ideas not money. And the agency has done their job of ensuring they have a range of appropriate talent that is affordable and available. I think these situations are becoming more the exception than the norm.

As you said, the clients today demand more and agencies in the past used to just present the one. Now they want to see all three. This shift could be either an indication of a more complicated process and a bigger decision or a deterioration of trust. Maybe both.

Re: ENTERTAIN US

jsepoch — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:42:41 -0000

I don't know the deal with the Dish Auto-hop but I can't imagine that it will end favorably to Dish. It's one thing to say you have the option to skip but another thing altogether to eliminate without any effort on the part of the consumer. My guess is the channels will start to pull their programming from this service if it's somehow deemed legal. We'll see.

But this is just another indicator how TV commercials are losing their power. This leaves the questions - who is going to subsidize them if advertisers aren't getting the value they need, and what is the enticement for viewers to watch them?

The one thing I didn't mention in the post is does the client now have to think more like a producer and less like a marketer? That has good and bad points.

Re: ENTERTAIN US

jsepoch — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:22:29 -0000

It was but that's a longer story. Haven't made a post about it but one day I will.

Re: IN A WORLD GONE MAD...

jsepoch — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:08:08 -0000

I can only assume. And just because someone provides a discount before bidding the job or seeing the creative by no means should expect that their clients won't ask for even lesser cost with more service.

Re: IN A WORLD GONE MAD...

jsepoch — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:05:25 -0000

Susan, I'm going to be my best to try and reassure you. Here's my feeble attempt.

Creativity will never be eliminated in the process but I do think at the moment, if only for a while, it has been marginalized. I do believe there exists a divide between what I call commoditized work and the creative work.

The commoditized work being completely research marketing driven. If we get this message out in these places at X cost we will achieve Y results. It's a purely mathematical equation. The creative work is about capturing an audience, gaining notice and going viral. This requires ideas and innovation. I believe there is a lot less of this work, and shrinking, compared to the commoditized work. The reason being its harder to achieve, more expensive to make and all without guarantee of success.

However, here's my attempt at seeing a rosier future. I have to believe that in this cluttered media world with unlimited options brands will realize they don't compete with their rivals when it comes to marketing. What they compete for is attention along with everything other distraction (pay per view, video games, social media, DVR, life). The only way to gain attention is stand out from the crowd. Isn't that why TV has gotten so much better in the last decade. Good old fashioned competition.

For advertising to be effective in the future they can't just sponsor a show or an event and expect results. They must stop being the interruption and start enhancing the experienced. This requires creativity. It may come from an agency. It may come from somewhere else. But it must start with the client.

I have to believe that somewhere in the future advertising and entertainment are no longer mutually exclusive. And if it is, creativity will matter and be valued far beyond what it is today. I could be idealistic but the thought of it makes me feel better. You?

Re: IN A WORLD GONE MAD...

jsepoch — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:54:30 -0000

Was the use of no turing this "tide" back a pun?

Yes, I agree that there is a lot of commoditized work that may not require a great creative solution only paint by numbers execution. However, it is a skill set with value nonetheless. The problem is that deciphering between the two is subjective to say the least. I think the only thing from preventing us seeing more of it is the clients own internal struggles and dysfunction on how to implement it.

Re: A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND STATUS UPDATES

jsepoch — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:23:12 -0000

Thanks for the comment Greggo33. Because I decided to write about an observation as opposed to some business practice, I thought no one would care. I appreciate you restoring my faith in my loyal yet slightly disturbed audience. And, I live with the same hope as you that Facebook maintains the core idea that makes this a great social media platform.

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:04:59 -0000

I think everything is up for grabs and it's already happening. Clients do in-house marketing that was usually reserved for agencies. Agencies do in-house post and production that used to be the exclusive domain of outside suppliers. Production and Post go direct to client to offer conception services that was once considered solely agency territory.

Once again whoever can do it better, faster and cheaper (and some times just different) can compete in the marketplace. It doesn't matter where your traditional expertise lies. Walls are coming down. Barriers being scaled. Worlds colliding. Kind of scary but kind of exciting.

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:57:20 -0000

That is a startling stat. It does show the impact in-house post is having on the community. I was unaware.

So, what does this tell us? Are editorial companies lessening in number but also growing in size. In other words, more bigger shops with national/global reach. Is there a place left for the creative boutique or is that work being absorbed by the agencies themselves? Is this foreshadowing to what can happen to the production companies? Something I'm going to have to think about some more. Thanks, Owen.

Re: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE

jsepoch — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 10:23:59 -0000

There is little doubt the direction of production will be determined by distribution with it most likely being dominated by some form of web and mobile based applications. My question is can web advertising reach mass audiences? And, if so, to get there how much will it be diluted?

In other words, they'll have to make more content across the web to reach the same audiences they did for TV. This will produce more films with lesser budgets. For producers it means creating a greater number of delivers at significantly lower costs per unit.

I don't know if this will be the case. But, if it is then there will need to be a real shift in the way we address our productions. This covers everything from labor to suppliers.

I don't know what the outcome will be other than it will not look like it does today.

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:40:58 -0000

Owen, you bring up an issue that I didn't in the post. The rise of in-house production, and especially in-house post, is the need to create new revenue streams for agencies. This is the single greatest factor. However, when profit is the greatest motivating factor over the ability to create a great product, the venture over time often proves unsuccessful.

In-house production has never worked because they can't deliver a quality product to their client. The producing expertise and the directorial talent isn't there. It might work for low budget work or commoditized brands but not for anything of creative value.

In-house post has become more problematic. It seems every agency has some form of in-house editorial yet it seems to be that when the project as creative value, the agency seeks outside talent. Maybe I'm wrong on this but that's my perception. You'd know better than I. But despite this rise of in-house post it seems there are still a lot of offline and visual efx companies with their doors still open.

In the end, I know the idea of taking stuff in-house won't go away. It is a profit center for many shops. But the ability to sustain themselves with continued investment in infrastructure, talent and model isn't the same commitment as privately owned independent shops. And when they can't do it better, faster and cheaper than us the clients they work for simply won't accept second best. At least that's the hope.

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:28:58 -0000

Love you too

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:28:46 -0000

I don't disagree but there is no stronger form of communication than storytelling through performance. It's been going on since Ancient Greece.

I don't believe casting will go away but I do believe the value of casting directors has diminished like it has for many others on the production. But, once again, you get what you pay for. If people go in house with a casting director without an understanding of the talent pool and an eye for performance, they will end up with a bad representation for their brand.

Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE

jsepoch — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:26:13 -0000

Not that I'm surprised but you make excellent points. You should start a blog. And, it makes me very happy you read me.

Re: BETTER. FASTER. CHEAPER.

jsepoch — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:50:29 -0000

Look at the cynicism in these two comments. I expect it from Steve but Gravitas, c'mon.

Yes, there are already agencies and other entities taking market share away from the traditional production shops. It's inevitable. That's capitalism. They for sure can do it cheaper. Maybe they can do it faster. But they can't do it better. Here's where I get optimistic. We have expertise. We have creativity. We have experience. These cannot be easily duplicated and certainly not in those structure and business models. For commodity work sure but for the image making projects / mass market branding initiatives, I still believe there is no one better than our community.

Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE

jsepoch — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:03:28 -0000

Victoria, I love that I rile you up. But I must respond to a few things.
The Facebook status was of course a mock up. It was meant to infuse a little humor and to show that in the age of social media the idea of confidentiality has become even more urgent. I hope you got a little chuckle.

As it relates to some of your other peeves. Yes, I know the agency wouldn't put our bid info out for public consumption. However, the point I'm making is they could being that the NDA's aren't reciprocal. And why aren't they reciprocal? I can only assume they aren't for three reasons:

1. The agencies don't believe what we offer is proprietary

2. They need to share our information with whomever they choose and those that they share with also need the ability to share with whomever they choose

3. They don't have to.

Ideally, I would love to make up my own NDA and have agencies sign it. Unfortunately they never would or could. I can't make it a deal breaker in bidding a job. Not because I don't believe my work should remain confidential but because my competitors won't follow the same rule of engagement. It places me at competitive disadvantage. All I really want is for the NDA the agency supplies to say they afford us the same privacy rights as we offer them.

In truth, the biggest issue that I have is that our bids are shared with the cost consulting community. When I'm told that Epoch bid a job with some client 7 months ago that we took an 18% production fee and this client now wants the same, it feels as we've been violated. Our work is taken out of context and then shared with others to drive down our margins and devalue our contribution. If the NDA was reciprocal, I would be aware of everyone who had come in contact with my bid packages therefore protecting my belief that each job is custom built for the purpose of that particular project. It would push back on the commoditization of creativity and protect the expertise of our profession.

Maybe I was a little too "jokey" but I was trying to bring some humor to a serious topic. I guess I succeed only in raising your ire. At least, I'm glad you read and even happier you commented. Keep 'em coming. I love a good healthy debate.

Much love your production partner

Re: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE

jsepoch — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:50:49 -0000

And digital is broadcast. It's coming for sure. The question remains how does advertising infuse itself into the platform you described.

Re: CAN'T TEACH HEIGHT

jsepoch — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:04:49 -0000

It doesn't hurt but it's neither a pre-requisite or a guarantee of success. Kind of like if you are a QB out of USC it doesn't mean you'll be an NFL starter. But, I do believe having an understanding of the way the industry operates, wether directly or indirectly, can be a factor in determining a director's ability to make it.

Re: CAN'T TEACH HEIGHT

jsepoch — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:42:29 -0000

I knew you'd love the Washington sports analogy.