Three scripts. 34 talent. 20 locations. Two days. One brand new camera (Canon 7D). A totally awesome crew. A fantastic location (UVM). Even more fantastic clients. Thank you all for collaborating towards an amazing production!
Interesting juxtaposition here, with a shared premise of empathy. Microsoft (via Crispin) asks us to see ourselves in their new operating system—even gives billions of us credit. While Apple (via TBWA Chiat Day) suggests Microsoft is just shilling more of the same.
On Friday, September 19 I'll be speaking at the Birmingham, Alabama Ad Fed. Many thanks to Mason Guttery for chasing me down and brokering the opportunity.
Here's the overview of my presentation:
What is the future of advertising? Perhaps the better question today is, “What is advertising?” In less than 10 years we’ve witnessed
never-before-seen mutation in the marketing and advertising industries.
Technology, consumer empowerment and media fragmentation are helping redefine
the rules and methods of what defines an ad, how they’re made, who makes them
and what kinds of impact we can expect to achieve. Tim Brunelle thinks this
state of affairs is wonderful and hopes to convince you it is, too. His
presentation mashes up management consulting, philosophy, copywriting, design,
interaction, strategy, media negotiations and, most important—the primacy of
ideas—to help you evolve your work in this new age.
This is kind of based on a talk I gave at the Miami Ad School in June. But I'm refining it to look at the financial and strategic positioning of traditional ad agencies, versus PR, interactive and design firms—especially as it relates to new areas like social media. Every client I know says they get pitched the same capabilities from their entire spectrum of communications partners. Which means, ad agencies truly aren't just in competition with ad agencies anymore.
We're also talking about job descriptions here. How would you define a copywriter who concepts print ads, edits paid search term lists, does blogger outreach for clients and writes/produces radio? Rather, how do you determine equitable salary?
There's such great diversity of mediums, techniques, roles and opportunities now that are forcing our calcified industry to wake up, throw out old assumptions and rewrite the rules around staffing, compensation, and even the answer to, "What is an ad?"
I've been soliciting all kinds of Chief Creative Officers and other agency thought leaders across the U.S. to answer the question: "How do you define advertising now?" Lots of great response to date. I'll start sharing them here as the presentation takes better shape.
My goal is to cover the broader philosophical stuff, but provide a few actionable insights.
I gave a presentation—no, more of a non-stop rant—on Monday to the Minneapolis outpost of the Miami Ad School. The topic was "What's the future of advertising?" And I questioned whether we can even define advertising today. Case in point: I've co-founded three businesses in the past year that function within advertising but none are an ad agency as defined by recent standards.
So I channeled my inner-Eddie Izzard and didn't stop talking for 90 minutes. Here's a slightly revised recap of the presentation screens.
For the third assignment in my "Future of Advertising" class at MCAD, I thought we'd expound on an opportunity over at Current.tv's VCAM (Viewer Created Advertising Messages) contests. First, I think the whole VCAM program is generally awesome and very well constructed. Second, I thought it'd be more realistic to today's ad industry to require a TV concept integrated with "some kind of digital program." And leave it at that. Just like most creative briefs, right?
The client: Wachovia's "Way2Save" program. Here's a link to Current.tv's VCAM contest for Wachovia.
The briefing over at Current is pretty dull. Not really a true creative brief, but then, most of them never really are, are they? (Realism!) And I deliberately left it open with the digital side of the assignment.
Then one of my intrepid students sends me a link to this blog post about the Wachovia "Way2Save" program (bolding mine)...
"Clearly, very few customers will be able to get anywhere near the maximum bonus that is the major selling point of this program. That leads me to believe that way2save is nothing more than a gimmick, with Wachovia’s interests taking much higher priority than that of their customers."
And the author, Mike Smith, has done the math. "The major flaw with this program is that the amount of recurring transfers is limited to $100 a month. To get the full payout bonus of $300, you’d need a balance of $6,000 at the end of the first year, since $6,000 x 5% = $300. To get your balance up to $6,000 you’d have to make 4,800 debit card purchases or online payments over the course of the year!"
Let's contrast Mr. Smith's math with the assignment over on Current (italics mine): "Now with Wachovia’s new Way2SaveSM program, saving is almost effortless. Make an ad showing us something worth saving for and how the Way2SaveSM program can help you get there."
The irony is delicious, no? How many times have you dug into a creative brief to discover the program, product or service you're supposed to dramatize is really, well, honestly...worthless? And maybe even a little deceptive. C'est la vie in advertisingland.
Oh, there appears to be an agency-produced spot for Way2Save. Not sure who made it. But they seem to have decided that a "raining money" theme was appropriate.
I'm excited to see how my students will address all this. Stay tuned.
I think MacWorld is the new SuperBowl. Or the new Academy Awards. Sure the aggregate audience is smaller, but it's infinitely more targeted and passionate.
So I'm surprised that you don't allow live streaming from MacWorld. How else does a Mac-fan like myself stay on top of such an important Mac-event as it's happening? I don't want to have to wait until this afternoon for your crew to edit, encode and upload video to apple.com. Now I'm left with text updates via Twitter from people in the audience. How un-Mac.
Here's my idea: Create "MacWorld Live" and broadcast it on iTunes, Apple.com, YouTube, or even CBS. Turn your event into "must see TV." Then sell advertising. Heck, run some of your own ads.
MacWorld is such a major tech/cultural event, why not harness it for a greater share of attention? Apple would control (obviously) the cameras and live editorial. But then allow the live feed to be broadcast/simulcast/redistributed as users see fit. Spread the word. Share the love.
It started with a video (see below). I sent a video about the Writer's Strike by the writers of The Daily Show out to a a bunch of friends via email. My friend Chris sent his response and we were off the races. What follows is a debate on the strike, Chris taking the producers/media owners' side and me (and our friend Larry) taking the writers'.
Chris Jenning's wrote:
the average salary of a wga guild member is $90,224.
i wish i could strike when i don't get what i want at my yearly
review, then after picketing go back to my job.
Larry Andersen wrote:
Chris,
You management whore. Writers make the world go round. They make Leno funny, Stewart smart, Lost confusing. 90K might seem like a pretty good income, but it'd take a few thousand writers to equal Sumner Redstone's salary. And how does he make his money? By making sure his people aren't paid too much. By squeezing whatever money he can from the internet, while making sure that the creatives responsible for the content don't get any of that money. If he pulls that off, then maybe he deserves his salary. This is just a resettling of the playing field in this new media world of ours. I for one hope that the billionaires don't get another big break. Bush has given them pretty much the whole pie already.
Not that I really care one way or the other.
-Larry
Chris Jennings wrote:
Larry-
I thought we lived in a free market economy, driven by supply and demand. Are you suggesting a union is protection against the demands of the marketplace? Unions create a monopoly on labor. Labor should be a commodity - however - by 'unionizing' labor you suffer the same consequences that any monopoly creates.
Unions were born out of the 'guilds' that developed in Europe during medieval times: to recognize the development of a skilled trade through apprenticeship, etc. Now, they bargain on behalf of members, who pay dues, for benefits that are strangling our economy, and shipping millions of jobs overseas. I work for a company who's largest client is GM. I understand the role of the Union far too well...
My point is that Unions are like clubs, and membership is exclusive. Only the members benefit from the collective bargaining. Only members can get certain jobs if they are part of the Union. Getting into a Union - have you tried? I was a local 25 teamster in college. I opted OUT of the union because it meant that my performance was only judged collectively, not on my own merit and performance.
The 'let's stick it to the corporate greed' argument is really baseless. I'm not a person who thinks collectively or via government regulation that I should be guaranteed employment.
$90K - average. The national average - for families - is $44k.
Chris Jennings
Tim Brunelle wrote:
Geez, I almost thought I'd written a blog post instead of sending out a humorous video link.
But I'm enjoying the conversation.
I wonder what the national average salary is for media owners? I bet it's a bit more than $90k. As Sumner Redstone puts it in the video, "Getting paid is the name of the game."
I agree unions aren't perfect. (I'm a former member of the United Food & Commercial Workers and the Musicians Unions.) But I don't think unions are soley responsible for "strangling our economy, and shipping millions of jobs overseas." There are plenty of other forces and entities with a stake (and responsibilities) in that game.
I think unions are a fair response in the free market to the prevailing force of ownership.
The issues in this writers strike are valuation and then some form of equality in distributing that value/profit. What other venue or mechanism do the writers have (other than a union) in their quest to seek a more equitable share of profit from internet content? And if a byproduct of the union is a monoplization of certain kinds of specialized labor (which in this case it isn't--witness American Idol), then maybe that's just balance. Sumner and his equals aren't going to open the books and offer up an equal share of revenue just because they're nice.
As a writer and content creator, I'm interested in seeing how content will be valued in this new realm by those who own the realm. The outcome will benefit marketers, ad agencies, production companies, and ultimately consumers--as we better define how money flows within the realm.
Tim
Chris Jennings wrote:
This is good.
No, Unions aren't solely responsible for strangling the economy, but the structure and expectations the American Union worker demands, are making America - in a global marketplace - less competitive.
For example, did you ever think the Euro would be more valuable than the dollar? Or the Canadian dollar more valuable than our currency?
As for the national average salary for 'media owners,' and the prevailing force of ownership:
Viacom, GE / NBC Universal, and other media organizations (Google included) - that are public - have a responsibility to the shareholders. Yes, Sumner Redstone is a billionaire, but he's also keeping his eye on the stock so he can create wealth for the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of investors - worldwide - in his company (that he built from a chain of movie theaters). Of course he wants to get paid - its the name of the game for everyone. If the stock doesn't perform, every
What I have an issue with - more than the tactics of Corporate America - is a strike. Let's take the role of the production assistant for example. I believe the current day rate for a PA (it depends on which end of the business you are in and part of the country you live in) is between $175-300. I'm guessing - but let's say - it's the bottom end of the crew pay scale.
Joe or Jenny Smith PA just finished UCLA, with a degree in film and a whopping $125k in student loan debt. They must maintain a vehicle, which is required for the job. They live in East LA and share an apartment with friends that costs $400 a month.
How long can the PA be out of work to 'support' the writers cause before they suffer serious financial problems?
What about the grips? the Electrics? Camera department? Hair and makeup?
Then - it spreads to the valet attendant, the deli around the corner, the craft service people, etc.
Yes - content is king - but everyone and anyone who has been on a set, and that is probably 99% of the people in this email, know it is a collaborative effort.
So, Joe Smith PA, who wants to be a writer, busts his ass coiling cable, running errands, paying his dues, is out of work because the writers want a nickel every time I watch 'Triumph the Insult Comic Dog at the Westminster Dog Show' on You Tube.
How do you even begin to create a metric for that? Where do shareholders draw a line with profit sharing?
I'm not against royalties, but the point is, where does it end? Also - isn't the beauty of the internet that you don't have to function inside the 'system?' You can be rogue, independent and 'diy.'
My challenge (issue) with the writers is - What GOOD comes from a strike? Does it really work? This is a group of very creative people, with money and expensive legal representation, and this is the level of creativity they have with regard to negotiating a contract?
:)
Chris Jennings
Tim Brunelle wrote:
The plot thickens.
Back to an earlier point you made as a means of responding to your latest thoughts, Chris.
"Labor should be a commodity..."
If that were true, we wouldn't have the advertising agencies (digital or traditional) we do today--much less the editorial houses, production companies, cinematographers, music composers, etc. There'd just be a big virtual vending machine spitting out creative. And it'd be located in India. And someone like Ed E would be running it.
Perhaps the labor of strip-mining copper can be considered a commodity. But writing certainly isn't. Creating ideas that compel the masses surely can't be considered a commodity. (Unless, of course, you're the AAAAs. Or Ed E. Cue laugh track.)
So, if Joe Smith PA aspires to move beyond his role as a PA to become a writer, I suspect he wholly supports the currently striking writers, because this strike is establishing the architecture for how content creators will be paid in the future. I support the strike because I'd like see some framework established over the value of content on the internet. It's not in the media companies' interest to establish valuation, however, because then they can continue what they've been doing--telling advertisers (and shareholders) the content is worth millions if not billions, while telling the writers it's worth nothing. (At some point, the shareholders have to wonder if their shares are worth billions or nothing, right?)
Now, on to the tactics of a strike...
Do they work? Obviously sometimes they do.
Should those creative people have found a more creative means of arriving at an agreement with the media owners? Uhhh, well, they were negotiating for quite a while. I suspect many creative ideas were proffered. But we're talking about money. Strikes = Money. Being creative, say, putting an amusing video on YouTube about the inconsistencies of the media owner's position... I suspect that isn't going to get any media owners to sign a deal. What other choice do the writers have here? You strike because the other party has refused to negotiate or accommodate.
What GOOD will come of a writers strike? We'll establish valuation. That's huge. Because none exists. And we have to start some place. You asked...
How do you even begin to create a metric for that? You establish a metric by negotiating an agreement. "We the Media Owners and We the Content Creators agree that X = Y." You just sit down and do it. It might not be perfect, but as I said, it's better than nothing. And everyone--shareholders, advertisers, production assistants--will benefit from the clarity of establishing valuation. My media buying friend Chris just told me something like 80% of most online ad inventory goes unsold every month. Why? Well, bad inventory. But also because the media owners have been refusing to establish valuation for content. Why buy ad space at questionable rates if the content it's attached to can't be (or won't be) given a value? If The Daily Show online is worth nothing--as the media owners are telling the writers, then running ads around that content should be free to advertisers, right?
I appreciate the broader appeal of a writer's strike adversely affecting everyone else in the production community. But everyone in the community knows that's part of working within a union economy. Suggesting the suffering of the production community it solely at the hands of the striking writers is only possibly half right, and ignores the responsibility of the media owners to negotiate.
I also suspect the media owners have equally expensive legal representation. Likely more expensive.
As for the current value of the US dollar versus the Euro and the Canadian dollar... gee, do you think any other forces (Farm Subsidies, Steel Subsidies, Tariffs, a couple wars we're funding, Fannie Mae, etc) might be equally if not more responsible than the actions of American Unions? I blame Fannie Mae for our current woes.
And if the strike continues, I'm going to pitch this string of emails as "network time filler" to Letterman.
Gosh, it's late.
Anyone else?
Tim
Chris Jennings wrote:
Labor IS a commodity. Get over yourself. If you made a living by writing novels, I'd agree with you, but you are a creative working in an industry funded by corporations, to sell and promote their product by whatever persuasive means necessary. This is commerce not art. Sure, it takes some dash of 'creative' to think up new ways to 'sell' but don't pat yourself on the back too much. As they say, you aren't curing cancer.
It hurts to not be coddled and told how wonderful you are. And the corporations are basically putting the screws back to the talent and the creatives by saying - enough is enough.
If it weren't for the rest of the crew - they'd just be words on paper.
Yeah - maybe a strike is effective. But - back to your point about strip mining - I have much more respect for a guy who is going to die of black lung, than a writer who works for a guild where the AVERAGE salary is 100% over the national average.
This strike has done nothing except to reinforce my belief that creatives are a bunch of 'trumpeter swans' and a good 'ole fashioned wrangling may just be thing they need.
:)
Chris Jennings wrote:
Amazing.
And the reason why the WGA rejected the proposal is because the corporations wanted the guild to be held accountable for 'performance.' Meaning - if no one watches the entertainment, we won't pay you.
And why would anyone agree to that? I mean - if the Producer brings the job in over-budget, they could get fired. If the DP shoots the project out-of-focus, well that's a big problem. But - if the content isn't good - well, that's too objective - it could be any number of things.
Creatives DETEST accountability.
Tim Brunelle writes:
Lighting matches around gas pumps, are we, Chris? Your rhetoric amuses me.
I just read two OpEd pieces from this Sunday's LA Times. The first from Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and is its chief negotiator in the Writer's Strike. The second from David Young, executive director of the Writers Guild of America, West, and the WGA's chief negotiator.
Interesting stuff. I appreciate Counter's POV that the negotiations are between the writers and the producers, not the writers and the media owners. But then, guess who sits between the writers and the media owners?
And you sent me an interview with Michael Eisner from the NY Times. Eisner said, "The area where they cannot make a deal is original production for the Internet, which is neither profitable nor is it clear in exactly what direction itâs going to go." If original content isn't profitable on the Internet, why would Viacom sue Google for $1 Billion over copyright (meaning original content)?
Anyway, back to writing as a commodity. I'm not sure I agree writing is labor--unless we're talking about some brochure assignments I've encountered. And let's remember, Chris, the strike is over television and film writing. The goal with TV and film writing isn't necessarily to sell. I'll agree advertising is both commerce and art. It ain't all commerce, it ain't all art. And if you really want to parse that issue, check in with Mark Fenske.
(And I got over myself a long time ago. You?)
Oh, and if all writing truly was a commodity--just words on paper--would I be getting my day rate? If writing was just a commodity, would you and I (and others) have produced The Microbus Movie? Those were just "words on paper" that got us a standing ovation in Detroit?
So, where did you get this information that the corporations (you mean the producers, the AMPTP) want the guild to be held accountable for performance? Got a link? I'm curious to see what metric the corporations (or the AMPTP) suggest for measuring the "performance" of a TV show or major motion picture. Because those metrics certainly haven't been shared with advertisers or marketers. Or shareholders.
As far as accountability, well, uhhhh, my first meeting today was about analytics and metrics. The second call was about tracking for an AdWords buy. I'm not sure all creatives detest accountability--maybe just the folks you hang with do. The big problem I have with accountability is the strategy at the front end--i.e. What guarantees and third-party verified analytics will the media owners put on the table to help writers, producers, shareholders and marketers establish value?
I really like the show Heroes. But I just don't have the time or schedule to watch it when NBC decides to broadcast it. So last season, I subscribed to iTunes and watched the latest episodes when I had time, on the platform of my choosing, which happened to be an iPod, then an iPhobe. I paid Steve Jobs about $42. I assume NBC got some of that revenue.
This season, NBC seems to have decided they don't need iTunes. They've got their own media player. And the viewing is free. And it sucks. The player stutters -- on my brand new cable modem. Or it just doesn't load. One week it supports Safari, the next week it doesn't. It's enough to make a person stop watching Heroes. NBC has made the process so awful, so unreliable, that the content is no longer worth the price of admission.
Here's my favorite screen shot of NBC.com. I tried clicking on Technical Support.
Nice work, Zucker, Comstock, et al. Thank goodness there's BitTorrent.
I can't see how there's more money to be made by excluding iTunes in a distribution strategy. Knowing there's always a free alternative (i.e. P2P), why avoid people like me willing to shell out $42 for a reliable transmission? And while we're at it, what's the sense in a poorly developed web platform that routinely excludes Mac users? I've just told you I'll pay MORE for your content, if only you'd make it available on my terms.
Last night was one of those, "Well, yeah...let's uhhh...let's uhhh, let's watch a movie, yeah" nights. So we turn on the On Demand. And it's down to a Dustin Hoffman thriller about perfume and murder, the Fantastic Four sequel or The TV Set. I think we made the right choice.
What made me laugh is that this entire film could just as easily be about advertising and marketing. David Duchovney could be a creative director. His character's manager could be a group account director. Sigourney Weaver and Ioan Gruffudd could be running a marketing department. There's a moment where Sigourney's character, the head of a TV network, "has an idea" during the middle of a shoot (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that totally up-ends the entire premise for the whole show. Can't tell you how many times that exact sequence has happened out shooting commercials.
Recent Comments