-
FCPX and the new economy.
This may be a bit off topic but I wanted to post to this forum because you people seem like the smartest in this business. How are most of you or your business coping in this lousy economy? For us, as we’ve been in business for 30 years, I’d say corporate is down about 80%, commercials are almost non existent,political commercials which we did quite alot of, the funding has been removed from them as the developers and business backers have all gone broke, we’re doing a bit of government work, since there is still a bit of funds there.
I believe that FCPX plays into the hands of those who do the $200-$500 crappy videos for Demand Studios or Monkey See, et al, as that segment seems to have increased for the amateur.But I believe that if it were not for the cheapness in price of producing videos of this type, the client would not do them anyway, so no net gain for the pro.
I welcome your thoughts.
-
28 Replies
-
You may need to re-examine your business model. Low cost of gear for them also means low cost of gear for you too. You may be able to lower your overhead.
I was recently contacted by a corporate client who I haven’t heard from for years. it turns out they’ve been doing stuff on consumer cameras and cutting with iMovie. They have a huge job (8 training videos) that’s too complex for iMovie.
BTW have you thought about using FCPX’s iMovie import “advantage” as a way to generate “finishing” business for all those corporate produced iMovie jobs out there?
All those people using inexpensive tools may not have the best skill sets or the creative outlook. You need to think about how to pitch to those clients in a way that can meet their budget and your profit.
-
Maybe check out the business and marketing forum.
Maybe that’s a better place to post this?
Jeremy
-
[Craig Seeman]BTW have you thought about using FCPX’s iMovie import “advantage” as a way to generate “finishing” business for all those corporate produced iMovie jobs out there?
One anecdote does not a trend make.
-
[Gary Huff] “One anecdote does not a trend make.”
Not a very adroit sales attitude. If one is experiencing a downturn but believes video is still be doing or actually growing, it’s likely that much of the work is going “in house” on the cheap. A good sales person will exploit that. Or to you refute the OP’s noted downturn? Or do you refute that business is going in house on the cheap? FCPX is a tool that can exploit that because you can import a client’s project rather than start from scratch. That might be attractive to budget minded clients. Rather than lowering one’s rates one adds a service. FCPX might be a limited tool at the moment but this is one unique thing it has to offer.
In the last few weeks I’ve been approached by two other smaller businesses that were also using iMovie. The one I originally mentioned happened to be larger though. I suspect there are a large number of businesses making do with iMovie.
-
My gut feeling is that FCPX is aimed at the prosumer-self-proclaimed-pro “crappy $200-500” category of online vid preditor. I can’t speak directly about its quality, because I don’t own a copy of FCPX. Unfortunately, my video card (which I love otherwise) won’t work with FCPX or Motion5. Apple must know how severely they’ve burned the upper-end of producers with their FCPX release, and it was probably a key decision intended to refocus on the broader, therefore more lucrative, prosumer market.
Since I’m not trying for the price buyers at the <$500 category, the effect of the economy on our business is only indirect. Fewer SMBs starting up means fewer people need ads, corporate video or online video — and many of those who do are content to let the production happen in the illustrious studios of “My Nephew’s Basement.” We just sidestep these do-it-yourselfers, and go for business owners who can delegate these complex creative tasks to experts.
The trick is it’s hard to sell someone on quality, once they’ve experienced cheap — unless you can tap into their discomfort with their somewhat lame existing video production.
Anyway, our business is picking up, despite it all. Onward!
MacPro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 14GB memory – OSX10.6.4 FCP7
-
[Ann Clark] “My gut feeling is that FCPX is aimed at the prosumer-self-proclaimed-pro “crappy $200-500″ category of online vid preditor. I can’t speak directly about its quality, because I don’t own a copy of FCPX.”
Huh!!!???
The prosumer who uses XML export to go to Resolve and Smoke?
The prosumer who uses Sony SRMaster 4K?
The prosumer who uses SAN?Not looking at the free trial of FCPX and doing a little research before making wild assertions seems decidedly “prosumer” to me but in my experience even prosumers do that much.
-
@ Craig: You seem to really like FCPX.
Others on this forum (not just me) seem to have a bad taste regarding this product which reportedly has a few big flaws, not the least of which is that it doesn’t open versions of FCP files made in FCP7 or older. That’s already a big minus for those of us with 10+ years of FCP projects in the archives and lots of dollars spent training for the old FCP. Also, many producers’ favorite features were left out, much to their chagrin.
Most notably for those discussing FCPX, it seems to have a simplified interface that some have compared, at best, to Express or at worst, to iMovie. This is why there’s a common opinion that it’s for the less sophisticated producer — the one who typically tries to gain experience by doing small, low-cost jobs. Anyway, I was just jumping off on the poster’s mention of very low cost producers as the culprit for a downturn in business. But that doesn’t affect us here in my business, anyway. We’re all about high-end.
Given that FCPX is aimed at users not necessarily married to FCP7 (see other postings on this in Creativecow and also LAFCPUG) it’s a hard call to say it ISN’T for a brand new (and probably less experienced) user.
I’ve done a lot of research, and can’t use the product because it doesn’t work on my hardware at present. Management isn’t inclined to invest in FCPX until I make a good case for it.
Anyway, don’t be so quick to judge those who are trying to make a judgement on a potentially expensive switch (training + equipment). Before we jump in to buy this software, I need to be sure we really should scrap old machines, but more importantly, scrap old FCP productions that were contracted for by current clients, and which can’t be updated in FCPX.
Anyone else like to counter my assertions? I’d really like some good news about FCPX for a change.
MacPro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 14GB memory – OSX10.6.4 FCP7
-
[Ann Clark] “Others on this forum (not just me) seem to have a bad taste regarding this product which reportedly has a few big flaws, “
But making a blanket statement that is inaccurate serves no civil discussion. One may not like FCPX but certainly the features I list are fact and are decidedly not “prosumer” unless you have a very “high end” definition of “prosumer.”
[Ann Clark] “, not the least of which is that it doesn’t open versions of FCP files made in FCP7 or older.”
FCP7 sequence XML can be sent to CatDV which can export FCPX XML. It’s still awkward but given that, I suspect more facile or possibly advanced solutions will be on the way through various third parties.
Again you make statements that aren’t informed. There’s certainly real criticism but please be fact based when you make them.
[Ann Clark] “Most notably for those discussing FCPX, it seems to have a simplified interface that some have compared, at best, to Express or at worst, to iMovie.”
I’ve never seen ease of use as a disadvantage. The power is accessible. Roles is very good. You’re making statements without having used the app let alone spent some time with it.
[Ann Clark] “This is why there’s a common opinion that it’s for the less sophisticated producer — the one who typically tries to gain experience by doing small, low-cost jobs.”
I have 30 year years experience in post and started using Avid Media Composer in 1990. Again blanket generalizations have no productive conversational value. While FCPX doesn’t yet have the depth of features Avid and Premiere or even FCP7 had, there are some very advanced professionals and big businesses investigating in in anticipation as it develops. Some like it, some don’t. Generalizations without substantial information to back them don’t mean much unless one simply wants to troll.
[Ann Clark] “I was just jumping off on the poster’s mention of very low cost producers as the culprit for a downturn in business. “
Just like Final Cut Pro at $1000 was compared to the $60,000 Avid Media Composer in 1999?
Or maybe it’s that Sony XDCAM EX cameras as low as $6300 can resolve as much as some $30,000.
Or maybe that RED cameras have been as capable as cameras costing much more.
What part of the industry has not had a very radical drop equipment price over the last decade?As the price of entry dropped actually skills have become more stratified and obvious. Everyone who got to operate a CMX340 was a least competent given the cost of entry. Now it’s much easier to show off one’s skills given the plethora of people who own equipment they don’t know how to use properly.
[Ann Clark] “I’ve done a lot of research, and can’t use the product because it doesn’t work on my hardware at present. Management isn’t inclined to invest in FCPX until I make a good case for it. “
[Ann Clark] “MacPro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 14GB memory – OSX10.6.4 FCP7”
I seem to have the same MacPro at 10.6.8 and also MacBookPro purchased at the same time at 10.7.1 and FCPX runs on both and handles AVCHD work far better than FCP7.
[Ann Clark] “Anyway, don’t be so quick to judge those who are trying to make a judgement on a potentially expensive switch (training + equipment)”
Judgments should be fact based. So far you’ve made claims and I’ve presented facts to refute them. That’s doesn’t mean FCPX is the based NLE for a given job but you’re comments are inaccurate and I will refute inaccuracies because promulgating inaccurate information on the internet is something I will refute.
[Ann Clark] “Anyone else like to counter my assertions? I’d really like some good news about FCPX for a change.”
I’ve countered them with concrete facts about features supported. Maybe that’s not “good” news but then you’re looking for something you haven’t articulated, which gives no room for someone to respond to.
-
Craig, You’ve clearly got a lot of time on your hands. I’m not sure why you’re so interested in countering me line by line. Tiresome.
@Don — if you’re still following the thread you started — any ideas?
MacPro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 14GB memory – OSX10.6.4 FCP7
-
Good point. One anecdote does not make a trend. My experience is that most who have their own productions don’t really like hearing that “your baby’s ugly.” They’re twice as offended when you tell them what it will really cost to fix it (even if we offer them some really awesome deals on edit time, etc.). Based on the many clients we talk to here, they’re very emotionally invested in their handmade productions, and not inclined to see anyone apply any finishing services. It’s hard to even explain to them that a YouTube vid is not necessarily in broadcast format, much less get them to pay to have it fixed. I don’t really see a trend there yet. Maybe later, but not right now.
MacPro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 14GB memory – OSX10.6.4 FCP7
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up