Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
Amen to that warning.
I just participated in an RFP for video services and heard through the grapevine that one company got instantly knocked out because they led with a video clip from the company they were pitchings’ chief competitor.
Understand that the RFP specified that they wanted “samples that match the proposal scope as closely as possible” So the company thought that since the hiring company was – for example – in the ice cream business – a video they’d completed for a competing ice cream company would be right on point.
Not so much! One look at the competitive logo on the screen and that vendor got knocked right out of the competition.
-
“We’ve produced countless videos and TV commercials for companies that are never seen or used! So the question on these is “what was the critical problem that needed solving here?” Well, obviously there wasn’t one. So while you may be astonished that we’re all missing the point, the corporate world is a strange place, where projects are often done because someone “THINKS” they need to be done…or in response to some vague request or initiative.”
Clearly I’m not arguing that companies don’t often get this wrong. But after 20 years or so producing corporate videos, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s IMPORTANT to drill down and understand the underlying rational for the videos my client’s bring me.
I’m not “astonished” that everyone is missing the point at all. For the majority of my early career working with relatively large corporate clients I had the very same mentality. I’d just do my best to do what the client told me they needed. Essentially looking at each project as a “job” that was being run by the client. After each job, I’d move on to the next one.
Around that time I got a gig shooting for the National Speakers Association recording a lot of presentations by high-dollar corporate consultants who worked with CEOs and the like – and started understanding that while a large company will pay X dollars for SERVICES – they’re used to paying many times X dollars for Consultants who look beyond the services and look at the company more holistically. That there’s one rate for services and another whole level for EXPERTISE.
So I simply started trying to understand my clients more fully and started concentrating less on just “getting the video done.”
That simple orientation change made a HUGE difference in my approach to my work.
And on my billings.
Yeah, my clients still make mistakes. (Heck, So do I!) The difference, is that when they make a mistake when they’re working with me – instead of just turning away and shaking my head about it and laughing about how “lame” their corporate culture is, I honestly try to see if I can help them learn to do better using examples from my years of watching corporations work.
They seem to appreciate it. Sometimes, at least.
Go figure.
YMMV.
-
Just to amplify Steve’s idea…
Decades ago I adopted a modified version of Production Estimating that I modeled on the “Above the line/Below the line – motion picture standards back in the day.
I actually mostly use it for my own estimating and most clients just want my simple single-page QUOTE sheet, but sometimes on larger bids, I’ll include the Estimate forms.
The very FIRST line-item on my estimate is the Production Fee. It’s bold, it’s clear and it typically falls between 25-40% of the estimate total.
When I go over the estimate with the client, it’s the FIRST line I point out to discuss.
“This is what you’re paying ME for my knowledge and experience, to run my business and create your video.” (they typically nod and we go on to the specifics)
What has surprise me, however, is that even when budgets are squeezed and we’ve had to cut line-items to meet budgets, no client has EVER asked me to CUT my production fee! Weird. I think it’s too hard for them to imply to my face that I’m worth less than I’m asking.
That clearly makes the discussion of business overhead stuff like credit card fees irrelevant. Those kind of costs are insignificant in the face of the sizable up front production fee.
I also adopted and still use another motion picture billing practice from those days that a couple of you might find interesting.
When I fill out the line items in my Filemaker Pro Estimating form adds “contingency fees” to both the Production group costs total and the Post Production costs total (6% and 10% respectively)
Then a little asterisk right below the “TOTAL” field at the bottom notes what I’m doing in kinda small type.
A few times over the years, accounting departments have called me to discuss invoice specifics and they all started by noting something like “We checked – as is our routine – your invoice math and were at first confused, then we noticed the contingencies and when we re-calculated, confirmed your totals are accurate…”
It’s weird, but I think the accounting types actually ENJOYED having something mathematically unusual to do in their parade of numbers…
I think that for numbers people – it gives them the impression (hopefully accurate) that I understand how my business should operate and that my numbers aren’t derived from thin air.
Keep it simple for the clients – also give the accounting types enough to chew on so they can run some more interesting numbers and earn their living as well?
I’m not sure it makes any difference, but I also know that in the larger companies I work with, I’ve come to know the names of the people in accounting and they’re happy to take our calls and let us know what’s been processed and what’s stuck on someone’s desk – and PERHAPS those silly calls about our contingency numbers were the initial excuse to talk to the back room folks and start to form relationships where the checks (now the direct electionic payment transfers) are born.
Or maybe nobody really cares. But, if not actual food, it’s at least, perhaps, a few small snacks for thought.
FWIW.
-
Wow you guys make this really complicated. When I think it’s actually simple at it’s fundamental level..
Money gets exchanged between human beings for one purpose and one purpose ONLY.
A person has a problem.
Followed by the belief that giving someone else some of their money will help them achieve a SOLUTION to that problem.
That’s IT. Period. That’s why we pay for anything. Including why companies pay us to make them videos.
It’s starts with the perception of a problem. “Our people are messing up too much, we should train them better so they won’t.” “Our sales are down – we need to drive more sales” “This group of musicians see themselves as potentially “great” and see it as a problem that the world at large has yet to discover their greatness and come to agree with them” The bride and family are spending a fortune on this party and NEVER want to forget these “special moments.”
All problems.
And actually all represent the most common type of human problem. COMMUNICATIONS problems!
And YIPPIE! we all have spent our careers studying how to COMMUNICATE using what is probably the most powerful communication technology the world has ever seen. Video. Why? Because it combines all the most effective learning modalities (Ok, except experiential) into a simple, universal portable package. Sweet!
My thinking is clear and simple now. I have mastered a tool that can let me effectively help people solve their communications problems. IF – (and I think THIS is the central reality of why one video producer does better than another) IF they will allow me to get close enough to learn what their actual problems are and if they will allow me to PARTNER with them to solve those problems.
I don’t even think of myself any longer as actually making videos. I think of myself as using videos to solve problems for my clients. Hopefully problems that are worth as much money as possible.
Heck, want to get somebody to pay you a MILLION BUCKS to make them a video? Not that difficult in concept. Get them to trust you enough to show you a business problem costing them TEN million bucks – one that you can actually solve through the effective use of video.
Fundamentally, if YOU were the decision maker, wouldn’t YOU pay someone $1 million if you were convinced that by doing so you have a great chance to save $9 Million?
Simple good business.
Relationship maintenance and trust – when combined with technical experience and judgement – these are the ingredients of being allowed to take on bigger communications problems for bigger companies.
Essentially, to be allowed to uses your videos to help clients solve bigger problems.
I think the rest of what’s being discussed here is relatively marginal.
So, sorry, Ginner, but I’ve got to disagree to a large degree. That corporate type MIGHT be trying to dump cash to secure next years budget – and you can’t stop thinking about things at that level – take the check – and run. But don’t be surprised if eventually that stream of cash STOPS. Because you’re taking money but solving no (or minor) problems and therefore providing poor value.
I’d rather figure out how to help the client USE that budget to solve a real problem for the company – and condition them to think about ME the next time the company has another problem.
Because trust me – in these times, the one thing companies will NEVER run short of are problems.
My 2 cent’s anyway.
-
In the days of primarily analog production, a time base corrector took an incoming video signal, stripped out the sync signals that determine the timing of the various aspects of the signal, and laid fresh sync signals with the existing video and audio.
It corrected for “drift” between stuff like the timing of the color (chrominance) part of the signal relative to the black and white (luminance) part.
They were commonly used in linear A/B roll editing systems and early NLEs that worked with analog signals.
With digital video, the timebase is typically locked relative to the chroma and luma components of the digital encoding, so TBCs are unnecessary if you’re working with purely digital signal sources.
If you regularly extract old content from analog tapes – then a TBC is a great tool to put in the signal chain just before your signal gets digitized ensuring you capture the best signal possible coming off the old analog source.
Hope that helps.
-
Sounds like what you need is a Video Detector Switch.
It passes one video signal, but when that signal disappears, it switches to a second signal.
You still need SOMETHING to generate the replacement signal, but that could be an old computer or a DVD running in loop mode or anything else that generates the video you want to display when the primary signal drops out.
Good luck.
-
Aw come on, Mark.
If knuckleheaded brides could decide to walk down countless aisles to the “romantic” strains of Sting’s uber stalker song “Every Breath You Take” – and legions of little kids across America can now safely mime on grade school stages to the Village People’s YMCA blythly unaware of it’s arch 1970s gay cultural genesis – we can surely tolerate the politicos who use Springsteen – someone I’ve idolized since I bought Greetings from Asbury Park the week it was released – never “getting” the fundamental message of the songs they’re using.
Heck, a lot of us know video guys who work these political gigs and I couldn’t find it in my heart to stick the ones who work the RED side of the aisle with nothing but Lee Greenwood, Hank Jr. and The Big & Rich guy. Without tossing in at LEAST some Emmylou, Dolly, or some Charlie Daniels – it’s would be Cruel & Unusual Punishment, defined.
On second thought, I could live with Greenwood simply being snatched by federal marshalls – confronted by Stacy from “What NOT to Wear” – and having a permanent federal injunction against FRINGE levied against him.
On third thought, perhaps someone should pass a law that all political campaigns have to use BUYOUT music.
That would show them!
Just rambling here…
-
If you guys all want to feel a LOT better – run out and buy yourself a copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s new book “Outliers”.
He’s the guy who wrote Tipping Point and Blink – and is a leading business writer and social commentator.
Outliers is, among other things, about research into what it takes to actually achieve MASTERY at any subject. The contention is that it takes roughly 10 years of work to achieve a level of true professionalism in any area – video creation would be included.
The “take away” for me was to stop even TRYING to compete on price. It’s never going to be my strength. I’ll instead compete on my experience and judgement. The trick is to CONTROL the discussion so that you relentlessly bring ALL discussions relating to your work around to this point.
It’s no different from recent politics. STAY ON MESSAGE. PRACTICE THE MESSAGE. DEVELOP SURROGATES TO DELIVER THAT MESSAGE. BE CONSISTENT. Your message is NOT ever price.
IT’s EXPERIENCE. Period.
We can win the business worth winning on that – and when we lose, we’re losing work that won’t ever actually help us grow.
FWIW.
-
Sam,
Like Ty, I’ve been doing professional voiceovers for more than 20 years.
This is the thing…
Voiceover recording isn’t a big mystery anymore than music recording is a mystery. You want a great recording of a violin solo? The most important thing is the VIOLIN PERFORMANCE. The best mic, the best preamp, the best recording environment : used to record a poor performance will simply yeild a great recording of a crappy performance.
VO is a TALENT driven endeavor. NOT, typically an equipment driven endeavor.
A basic mic, a basic recording chain, a less than pristine recording environment – all that fades away when the PERFORMANCE communicates clearly.
A professional VO talent is a professional because that person has had years of experience translating often mediocre writing and turing it into something that the average listener can comprehend. That’s usually a matter of pace, timing, rhythm, interpretation and such. It’s typically NOT a matter of which mic we use.
So don’t worry about the gear.
Worry first and foremost about scripting things clearly and then about finding someone who can PERFORM that script properly. The equipment stuff is relatively easy.
Good luck.
-
I’m not an intellectual property attorney, and since I’m not, I’m not qualified to provide any legal advice on this matter. However, I believe that ownership of the rights to video footage are more complex than this discussion might lead people to believe.
Ownership often hinges on whether the job was “work made for hire” or not. That is a LEGAL definition under title 17, and has a lot of aspects that aren’t obvious.
If the work WAS classified as such, then yes, the ownership rights typically vest in the commissioning party. However, if the work was NOT done as work made for hire, then the “creator” of the work holds those rights intrinsically unless subsequent arrangements are made.
Personally, I treat ALL work I do for my clients as WMFH=. And I gladly send masters or work tapes or whatever to them if and when they request it. But as another poster indicates I ALWAYS charge for my time and work and this status applies only after their bills are paid in full.
Just be careful of listening to advice about “rights” from anyone other than those professionally qualified to weigh in on such issues, or you can find yourself faced with very nasty surprises.
FWIW