Disqus - Latest Comments for markhubbard

Re: peer chatter

markhubbard — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:48:39 -0000

I made the very same suggestion years ago when GM came out with their "bidding guidelines", suggesting the WSJ ad tell consumers to go to their GM dealer and tell them they couldn't mark up the tires and wheels, audio systems and various other features. Sound preposterous? That's what GM is telling it's suppliers. That should have nixed the "bidding guidelines".

Re: crash and burn

markhubbard — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:32:32 -0000

I'm not missing the sarcasm here, but I think you can trace this back to the Budweiser "Why did the chicken cross the road?" spot than ran many years ago on the Super Bowl.

I also think this is much more of a wake up call to the ad agencies than the production community. What are the odds that an "amatuer" can execute a spot that finishes in the top 3 again? If the creative coming out of the ad agencies was consistently stronger, it would be extremely unlikely. They are the ones with their "feet to the fire" on this one. If you read between the lines, Doritos is saying "We are so underwhelmed by the quality of the creative concepts coming from traditional ad agencies, that we're hoping the public can again come up with something better than what we are spending many tens of millions of dollars for right now". What's Doritos potential cost - $1,000,000 (and that is only if the spot finishes number 1)? If they sweep the top 3 spots and Doritos has to lay out $5,000,000 it's still a bargain for them.

It will be interesting to see what "amatuers" take a shot at this. In a sign of the times, I suspect you may also see a lot of unemployed or underemployed creatives and/or directors taking a shot at this to try to make a name for themselves.

Re: kicking back

markhubbard — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:28:46 -0000

I don't think this is blurred at all - I think it's crystal clear.

First, I doubt that the production companies are aware of this practice. When I was the CFO of one, I negotiated favorable rates on behalf of the company with many vendors who were then designated "preferred vendors" and the Producers and Supervisors could only use an alternative vendor if they would beat the preferred vendor deal. The production company is the one who should benefit from the "discount" in the form of a lower negotiated price. The Producer or Supervisor is being paid to produce on behalf of the production company and has a duty to inform the production company of these type of programs. If I owned the production company and found out a crew member that I was paying received a $5,000 "kickback", I would assume that I had just been overcharged by at LEAST $5,000 by the vendor (probably much more).

Secondly, do the vendors issue 1099's to the individual recipients of the $5,000 "gift cards"? Are the individuals reporting this income on their tax returns? If not, there is also some tax fraud going on as well.

It's simple - the production company is the one who is making the payments to the vendors. They are the ones who are entitled to the benefits of any discounts or "loyalty" programs.

Re: am i the only one who likes to shoot in the united states?

markhubbard — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:37:59 -0000

Bill, this is the inevitable and predictable result of the SAG strike of 2000. They didn't shoot themselves in the foot, their leadership shot them in the head. Unfortunately, the ramifications are far-reaching. Not only have they hurt themselves, by introducing the clients and agencies to the overall savings of shooting abroad (as you correctly stated, primarily the talent buyouts), they have also severely hurt the US based crews who have seen their jobs taken overseas or across the border, as well as the vendors whose business it is to support US productions.

None of the "working" actors I know were in support of striking in 2000. Unfortunately, they were overridden by their own leadership and the legions of non-working SAG cardholders who naturally wanted to strike for higher pay just in case they ever got a SAG gig again.

If the trend is ever going to be reversed, SAG needs to narrow the gap in the cost structure vs. the overseas talent buyouts. So far, their response has primarily been to try to get the foreign actors to increase their pay requirements. That is why the agencies and clients naturally continue to gravitate to the less costly option at the expense of US talent and production crews.