You don’t need money to make video

Video 1) This is about as good as a home made video gets. It’s best case scenario. And it’s still not what I would expect from say a chemist chain let alone any kind of larger brand. It wouldn’t fill me with confidence if say Amcal was making videos like that.

Video 2) This is basically a proffessional video, or made by someone who has skills. It looks simpler than it is. Notice the camera moves. Show me a business that could produce that video.

Video 3 ) seems shonky

video 4) Looks quite nice, but again… get yourself some lighting. You’ll notice if you look closely he’s mic’ed. Get some computer skills for the green screen and supers. Have you got a good presenter in house?

video 5) Yeah, looks like power point. That’s because it’s power point.

It’s true the technical side of video has got easier and shouldn’t cost quite as much as it used to. But it shows a lack of experience or wisdom to not understand that there is a lot more to making video than the pure technical. Anything beyond the most simple videos (or videos that are meant to look low-fi) begin to require artistry. Video two is the best example – looks very simple but actually someone with an eye has made that and it basically relies on the professional skills of the illustrator featured.
You still basically get what you pay for.

I agree and disagree with this story. It depends on the needs of the client.

There are certainly many successful channels / videos on YouTube and elsewhere.

Some established companies might not possess the time or desire to film video themselves, so they might look to use a professional, who specialises in video production. I do agree that it doesn’t have to cost as much as some production houses charge. This is where clients can be smart and shop around / research a little and see how they can get great results for a fraction of the cost of others.

Many traditional ad agencies have old fashioned business models where they make large profits from production costs. This is an area where niche video businesses can offer their services and reduce costs for the clients…

You dont need money to make videos …?

The headline gets you … but the reality is that you do require money to make videos.
Whether you pay someone from within or outsource – bottom line … it does require money.

Yes production costs have decreased with emerging technologies and software but if you dont have experienced people producing and editing it can all look rather amateurish.

There are plenty of talented agencies and people around creating great video content that doesn’t cost the earth.

Absolutely agree with Mikes comments – you get what you pay for.

Clients can also write their own creative, book their own media and execute their own PR campaigns. So why don’t most of them do this? Because this is not their skill set. They take advice from external specialists and pay to do so. I have clients who can’t view a quicktime file on their computer let alone start creating their own content!

Anne’s own website says that “ICS is a best practice independent production agency to help businesses resource the best possible combination of creative and production providers across television, print and digital.” – Why would businesses need this service if they can do it all themselves???

Wow,

I’m not sure where to start… I agree with both Mike and Video Person though. I will paraphrase but I believe that you are effectively saying that because the tools and technology are now cheaply and freely available we can all pretty much produce professional quality videos? But why stop at Video? We can all become DJ’s and web designers, have you seen how easy it is to use photoshop? and thanks to Instagram I never need to hire a professional photographer again.

Don’t get me wrong, (and for full disclosure) I work in web video and I also actively encourage my companies clients to shoot their own footage where ever possible, we even provide tools for them to be able to top and tail their efforts with a professional intro and outro, but to suggest that they are of the same quality as professionally developed videos is pretty insulting.

There is room for everyone online and the more video content the better, but just like I wouldn’t consider amateur Dentistry for my teeth, If I wanted a clever and creative, targeted promo video I definitely wouldn’t do it myself either.

Well said Davin!

Agree with all the comments made and to add to them – if you have a cheap and nasty brand that needs cheap and nasty content – go for it and DIY it. But I would suggest most companies don’t want to look cheap and nasty.
The content a brand uses needs to represent it in the best light possible and that’s why many companies still use professionals – even to edit customer generated content. Those that have brought video production in house have done so because they are creating significant content daily or weekly but they still employ professionals in these roles.

In the end it comes down to production value – not the cost of using software.

Anne

Would you diagnose and remove the tumour at the base of your skull that’s been causing those headaches lately? Root canal and cap that tooth that’s been so troubling?

Would you repair the transmission of your car? Manufacture the office chair you’re sitting in at the moment? Fly yourself to your next meeting across the country? Well, maybe Amelia, but unlikely Anne.

Would you attempt to entertain people with your dancing, singing or acting skills and expect to make a living at any of the above?

I’m betting you wouldn’t even cut and colour your own hair, and I’m certain you wouldn’t wear one of your own designs.

Would you make a lavish dinner for your friends at some interesting setting and expect them to fork over $100+ a couple for the privilege? If so, sign up for the next season of Master Chef. Otherwise, head for one of our top restaurants where an artist and his well paid team will do it for you, and however many people call you a friend.

Maybe design and build your own home? Well you might try the last one, but if you’ve ever seen an episode of Grand Designs, you’d know that it will cost more than hiring professional architects and contractors would in the long run, and end in tears for the result.

This is the lesson of DIY production, which is both a professional enterprise that requires actual knowledge and experience, as well as an artistic skill when it’s done well, captivates an audience, and performs what good advertising should, brand building.

Now of course with your extensive background in production from Plush, the inside agency prod co without a director’s roster and the overhead of marketing the same or building careers, you’d know all about low-balling the professionals in the industry, helping to destroy what was one of the most creative business in this region and is now a retail shell of its former self, a transformation that has generally championing the move by advertisers toward the kind of unimaginative and badly executed marketing we see far too often on our computers, our broad and narrow cast screens.

Just because the pro-sumer technology exists to make images and tell some kind of story, or attract some level of attention doesn’t mean that anyone can do it well.

Your ideas are a false economy, they’re short-sighted for clients and agencies alike, and they are putting allot of talented people out of work, but then you’d know about the out of work condition, having moved from one position to another serially for years now, just as soon as the next shop caught on that the empress had no clothes, designer or otherwise.

You are a ubiquitous fixture on the industry social media sites, but with little to offer of value, except the next concept to undermine the process by making everyone feel as if they can do it cheaper and faster and cut out the people who have spent their careers learning how to do it with intelligence and professionalism. Cost analysis and advice by those who have never actually done the work at a high level is not a valuable commodity.

Please stop.

Terrible article…laughable in fact. Who approves this crap?

I don’t even know where to start so I won’t bother.

This is just flat out ignorant, I can’t believe in this day and age people still pan the creative design industry as something anyone can do.

There is really only one job that anyone can do and that’s blogging.

@hamish – bang on.

pay peanuts, get monkeys

Nathan – you sound like an imbecile.

Advances in digital technology on the production side don’t do away with the need for creative directors, storytellers, image-makers, and designers, anymore than the typewriter did away with writers who had worked in longhand prior to its invention. What Anne is proposing, quite literally is that anyone, a client, an ad executive, anyone can now provide what production companies and their creative teams did prior to the revolutions of affordable digital cameras and editing systems, the 4G mobile phones, pads, the internet in general.

It’s rubbish, inasmuch as the art of getting a performance from talent, editing, framing and lighting, designing, in short all of the creative tool set is still the basic requirement for compelling content. To that extent the tools are irrelevant, and anyone who takes any aspect of her screed seriously and believes that they can produce the creative art that’s required to draw an audience’s/ the consumer’s attention and hold it simply because the technology is available to them to try, is as foolish as the self-builder, self surgeon, self mechanic, etc.

Yes, her rhetoric and that of others like her, accountants/suits who think that the austere bottom line thinking will produce greater economic rewards, is exactly what is destroying the creative industry, the value of advertising, and our entire reason for existence . . . read putting people out of creative work but also destroying the very idea of creativity in a business that was built on just that basic idea, that capturing the imagination of the viewer/listening/buyer was the alpha and the omega.

I have a feeling that the majority of commenters on this thread might be employed by (or own) video production companies. I guess they feel threatened by something they don’t understand (why would anyone want to watch a blurry badly compressed video).

Two points:
Technology will keep getting better, so that the gap between pro and consumer video will totally disappear (arguably almost there).
The internet democratizes everything, people want to be conversed with not spoken at.

BunchOfCryBabies

You have no idea what people want.

In truth, we all want what we’ve always desired, more interesting narratives, more amazing pictures, more extraordinary ideas, more tantalising and seductive and intriguing and beguiling and provocative glimpses at the new.

Technology has nothing to do with any of these desires, except to provide the means by which intelligent, creative, risk-taking, creative beings can provide more of all of the above.

The internet does democratise everything, which just makes it that much more important for those who can to be creatively relevant. People want to be enticed into a conversation, but by and large they do not want to lead that conversation, only to feel as if they are a part of it. This makes it imperative that the creative people are clever enough to have something to say and kind enough to allow others to participate. None of which has any relevance to the notion that anyone with the means to acquire the technology, more and more accessible to everyone, will be able to provide the creative they need, anymore than they can provide for the details of so many things in their world that they rely upon daily.

Creativity is no more the territory of everyone than any other skill, experience, knowledge, expertise. I for one do not want to ‘democratise’ medicine, or construction, or law, or architecture, or bread baking, or anyone’s life work.

Creativity should be equally valued for how much work and learning and time and experience it requires to get it right. Technology has very little part in that equation.

Anne is yet another person who seems confused between the practicalities of making a piece of video and what actually makes engaging content. We all now have a decent camera on our phone, but it doesn’t mean everything uploaded to youtube is worth watching.

As others above have noted, this is rather insulting to all the production teams out there, as If the skill in producing good moving images was just about camera work and gear the networks wouldn’t bother keeping them on the payroll.

Having the tools of the trade doesn’t make one skilled or creative or competent in the use of those tools. This article has little appreciation for the creative professions and little understanding of the skill and art involved in the film making process. By the way, I do not own a video production company, nor do I work for a video production company.

@BunchOfCryBabies

I have a feeling that those who don’t understand what the majority of commenters on this thread are trying to say are incapable of rational thought.

Nobody is disputing that the tools available are improving & becoming more accessible. However it is irrelevant in the context of the article.

The point is that you still need highly skilled operators to get anywhere near the best out of these tools. They don’t operate themselves. And guess what? Skilled people cost money, so to say that brands “don’t need a budget” because “it can all be done for free” is wildly inaccurate.

Buying a Canon 550D and having a copy of iMovie on your Macbook doesn’t make you a videographer.

(btw, I am a client – not a production company – who is happy to pay good money for good video content)

A lot of people here are very quick to attack, obviously without all the information.

Did anyone but @Nathan Hodges and @BunchOfCryBabies actually read the whole article? If so that explains why everyone else is totally missing the point. This is what many clients ARE doing – this is not about what I think and is not what I’m saying any old brand should do. It is real, it is where the industry is at.

Whether you agree or not, the default has moved because technology is more accessible and the landscape of content marketing has changed. Low level production values at times are not a hindrance to a brand if used in the right way as well. My point is that for professionals to remain relevant when this is going on you have to be adding value of some kind – in brand values, in quality of cinematography, in storytelling, in results or even in volume delivery.

@BunchOfCryBabies is likely correct – that this kind of fussing is coming from people with a vested interest in making a mystery of a very basic level of production.

You know what? – I even think some professionals can carve a niche simply by being more mannered and easy to deal with in an industry that has a terrible reputation at the moment. I’m one of those businesses that chooses the right supplier for the right task and matches them to a client, and a major part of my decision making where two comparable services are involved is around behaviour and integrity. I certainly wouldn’t chose a supplier that was so limited in their thinking as some of the above and certainly not so appalling at communication.

Clients are smarter than you give them credit now and they demand a new standard from the professionals. We all should be looking for a new way to engage and stand out from this base level of work now – to be relevant to consumers and also to move a decent brand forward to stand out from this. That’s the point of this article. Step up or step off. There are plenty of ways to do that if we lift our standards and stop justifying our self importance in a space that is becoming owned by internal content managers or simply crowd sourced. Spend your energy offering something of more value than all this.

This is a well written and interesting article, but it contains a very obvious flaw.

Though true on the poly glazed surface, once you scratch the coating, the facts are quickly revealed.

The notion that anyone with a camcorder can shoot quality video, or that anyone with a PC or Mac and the latest pro audio software is automatically a sound engineer, is delusional.

Yes , anyone can front a cam and do an act, and any number of people will watch it once it’s launched on you tube, but this isn’t the advertising industry, any more than a number of those awful commercial adverts screening daily on country television and periodically on “infomercial” slots, could ever be confused with anything remotely related to professional advertising and/or artistic endeavor.

Copy writing and voice overs are also beginning to collapse around us, as we are obliged to hear “A umbrella”… “A accident “… “The awful truth ” and “There’s heaps.” written copy is equally likely to contain such gems as ” I choose this one, rather then the usual brand.”

I am far from pedantic, but I have always been proud of the advertising industry and I cling with passion to its standards.

Bunnings sell paint quite cheaply so I think I’ll go and knock out a couple of Picasso this afternoon…

While its true that the barrier for entry into the video production market has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years or so, the basic skills and expertise required to use those tools correctly still require an investment of time – which is essentially what you’re paying for when you hire a professional in any field.

Remember that Canadian couple (“We make videos!”) everyone was laughing at on Gruen a few years ago? I’m sure they’re stinking rich by now.

If someone thinks they can help their bottom line by knocking out a couple of do-it-yourself videos then good luck to them, but most of the time badly made ‘no-budget’ videos will cost them money, not make it.

And yes – I do run my own video production business!

You don’t need a writer to write an article either, get the managing director/executive producer on it.

As a creative that works across many mediums in many positions over 25+ years (yes including video) I find the idea that because technology is available that anyone can push a button and create something of quality to represent their brand. You might know an app to two but that does not make you a professional in the creative fields.

Video like most other creative mediums is never just about the technology available, or having someone / anyone to push the buttons. This article unfortunately infers no value in hiring a professional in any capacity or at any stage in the development.

But alas audiences will settle for very little in the way of quality at this level of production, but get into a movie theatre, wow! The sad thing is a little of that wow factor could be afforded by many, for even just a little more budget consideration in the video production dept and the hiring of a talented and professional creative rather than the ‘you can do this on the cheap mentally’.

@Hamish – Some good points!

I always remember the “professional” photographer from a clothing company who came in to get film processed (tells you the time frame of this story). They were having problems photographing the darker clothing in the range and getting the detail. After much talking and explaining what they could do without incurring massive cost (basically they needed more light) they went away only to come back a few days later with more film to process.

I noticed the results were much the same if not worse, we talked some more and found out when they got home her partner said the “professional” recommendations wouldn’t work and that she should do X. I again explained the principle of lighting your product and then curiously asked what their partner did for a living …oh he’s a plumber!

This has never shopped me help people get the most out of their equipment and experience but does highlight the lack of value people put in professionals. When that value is unseen.

@ Anne – ” My point is that for professionals to remain relevant when this is going on you have to be adding value of some kind – in brand values, in quality of cinematography, in storytelling, in results or even in volume delivery.” – Anne I think our definition of a professional is vastly different. A professional would be adding these knowledge and so much more to a project by default. My oh my has the professional standard dropped so low that this is not the case anymore!

Hmmm.

Anne

For more than a decade, you’ve championed cost cutting in the production industry, worked with and as a cost consultant for the agencies with the singular task of putting downward pressure on the creative professionals in the business to maximise profits for multinational agency groups like WPP, produced for the infamous Plush which employed a strategy of undermining production companies by using their directors on a loan out basis, cutting the production company fees in half or lower, further worked, albeit briefly, inside the post industry to bring these undercutting costs skills to that part of the business with loss-leading quotes, and most recently engaged in a business model that champions yourself as a professional guide for those agencies and clients who wish to do away with the production company model altogether and take the services completely in-house.

All of these efforts have not only contributed to an environment where we see the closure of several production and post production companies, but also the general watering down of creative values in the industry at large with an emphasis on bottom line retail advertising as opposed to brand building campaigns, in short an accountant’s dream scenario of short term profits, an evisceration of the creative value of the work that the accountants despise because it is beyond their understanding and capabilities, and all this with no long term or creative goal in sight. The invocation of Gordon Gecko might make a useful analogy.

Now that technological advances in equipment and communication have delivered you and your ilk the opportunity to cut into the creative fabric of the industry even deeper, you write this article as a how-to for brands to DIY their advertising and justify the argument by claiming that many are already taking this step toward creative-free work, so we may as well capitalise on the environment and take the trend as a given. It’s the ‘democratisation’ of the industry with an approach cleansed of professionalism, celebrating the lack of experience and training and when one needs the efforts of those who have that special knowledge, just ‘crowd source it’.

All this of course ignores the fact that it was the efforts of you and individuals like you who brought us to this place to begin with. Pretty rich, but you seem to have the unique ability to carry on without the embarrassment that most would feel for their damnable role in this destructive process.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Calm down people. Anne isn’t advocating clients use technology to do all their own work. She’s simply stating the obvious – advances in technology combined with huge cost reductions make producing your own work easier and cheaper. Anne is not claiming the client-created product will be as good as one a production company produces. So, blogs comparing the quality of client/professional produced work are missing the point. As someone pointed out to me recently, all our clients are having to produce their goods and services better and cheaper; maybe the advertising industry would do well to do likewise.

@Anne Just let these people carry-on living in the Eighties. Whilst they do, we will build our businesses.

Right, Terry, the eighties.

In London and Paris, LA and New York, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Portland, Sao Paolo they’re still making amazing brand campaigns with big cinema releases as well as sophisticated integrated applications for the pad and the mobile alike, all with top-flight directors who continue graduating to be the next wave of feature film creators.

These campaigns that we see on the industry blogs and at the international award ceremonies are inventive and original and they don’t come cheaply because the Nikes and Cokes, Adidas, Audi, and Apples, Guinness and Johnnie Walkers of the world understand the value of creative advertising and they insist on groundbreaking marketing to take their brand into the future. They also understand that to cut costs, hire the lowest bidder, reduce their marketing budgets, DIY to lower the bill, anything to make a larger margin today, would mean the death of their businesses tomorrow.

The businesses you and Anne are talking about building are made of paper. They’ll blow away with a strong wind or catch fire in a January heat wave. They look like the phone book in ones and zeros and are a dime a dozen with no creative difference so why should anyone pay for your services, the ever lowering bar of expectations.

It’s amusing actually because your bottom-line mentality has so clouded your judgement that you’ve bought into the notion, convinced yourselves that quality and creativity are a hindrance to value and that the tools of emerging technology have dispensed with the need for creative talent, when in fact those tools have made it imperative that the best be a part of the process lest the outcome looks allot like the marketing landscape that’s fast taking over down under. Cheap and nasty.

Too bad, as this used to be a creative hub, one that the world marvelled at for being so remote, so small, yet so driven and inventive that it always seemed to punch above its weight. Then came the dominance of the bean counters, people like you and Anne, and the results are there for all to see, sadly, tragically.

Many blame leaders like Martin Sorrell, accountants who took over the creative workplace and went global, but the truth is that they couldn’t have done it without the complicity of their underlings who followed their lead and are quite comfortable in writing drivel like “you don’t need money to make video.”

Yes Hamish you are completely correct, please carry on exactly as you are.

Hamish – you’ll need to do better than that. Australia produces great big campaigns.
Dumb Ways To Die is the current biggie that’ll garner global recognition. And as someone who has travelled often to all those places you mention – trust me, there is as much low rent crap on their TV’s as there are on ours.

And just for the record Hamish: Australia has the third most acceptances in this years D&AD. In my book, that still makes Australia a ‘creative hub. One the world marvels at’ .

The author has confused being able to make video content for free with being able to make professional looking video content. She assumes anyone can convey a message in a compelling, clear and engaging way using video now that cameras are ubiquitous and youtube exists.

Having access to tools that were once the domain of professionals doesn’t mean you’re suddenly transformed into Kubrick

A stunningly naive article but great news for the competitors of any company foolish enough to take the author’s advice.

We need to innovate further! Imagine the cost saving possibilities if we invent new software that will digitally convert a black mans skin to white (or Asian to white), then we could shoot everything in Africa (or India or Asia), convert the skin to “white” and only pay third world labour costs (about 1/100) to the hungry, eager, cast and crew. Essentially it’s keeping the flexibility of many technicians, actors, set builders, animators but at 3rd world bargain prices.
We will call it: Digital Race Conversion Technology (DRCT).
And wait, there’s more massive savings. No one needs to fly to the shoot because we will just have a live web cam running 24/7 where you can comment from the cheaper convenience of your office cubicle (or fav cafe whilst latte-ing with the creatives). Lets face it, most of the Eastern European 3rd world countries have been filmed to death and are now familiar second rate substitutions but more importantly these regions are also raising their fees to similar levels of us. No good. This will mean we must turn to the new labour source of the 3rd world spheres with DRCT technology. (Sales pitch is sounding good here. Did u like my use of the word “sphere”. It’s because I want to add a global tone and manner to my social media communication).
Brilliant! All I need to do now is to rely on this comment going viral to eventually lead me to source a genius software coder who can bash out my new DRCT software (hopefully he’s from India, it’s much, much cheaper). Then I will raise several million dollars on Kickstarter, move to somewhere in central Africa, set up an internet connection and roll out a giant green screen.
Eventually, I will be able to offer the ultimate race to the bottom- DIY content produced by 3rd world labour (saving you the actual aggravation of personally doing any DIY).
All you need to do is apply the DRCT software and bingo bango. Content for about 99c a minute and as white as Vanish!
Naturally, all the latest in domestic (DIY) digital cameras will be used so everything will look professional.
DIY video sans DIY. Too easy! And think of the endless savings possibilities.
All made just like everything else we now make. Somewhere else or cheaply.

Can somebody record a ‘video comment’?

Actually Hamish, if you reply again, please can you make a vid, post to YouTube and then post the link to the vid on here?

If you want to remain anonymous, where a funny mask or something..?

wear*

“Until professionals who already produce this kind of base level work start adding more value to their content, companies really are better off making it for themselves.”

No hiding behind that quote. Whether this is a call to arms, or wake up call, it surely tells the ad industry which team this consultant bats for.

I’m with Hamish on this one. I’ve noted Anne’s presence on social media, and this the first article. Smacks of an insider behind enemy lines…someone who does see it as a game of us vs them. Truly naive, and with that history, shameful.

I don’t work in film. I suit.

Dear Hamish,

Ive just re-read comment #16 where you say:

‘In truth, we all want what we’ve always desired, more interesting narratives, more amazing pictures, more extraordinary ideas, more tantalising and seductive and intriguing and beguiling and provocative glimpses at the new’.

On that we agree. But what you seem to have left out of your ‘We all want’ list are things clients all want from their suppliers – ‘cheaper and faster’ being just two.

Anne isn’t claiming that client-produced product is better. Nor is she the flag barer for client-produced work. She’s simply stating the obvious – technology is providing clients more control and access to considerable cost savings [and time savings] in an ever-competitve, tougher, lower margin world.

Whether you and I like the end-product is irrelevant. What we think might be rubbish, they might think totally acceptable.

The challenge for the production industry, like all industries our clients operate in, is to find better, faster, more cost effective ways to produce the products we are currently producing.

That’s the challenge Anne’s article highlights. And its not going away.

So, rather than shoot the messenger, I’d be devoting my time to meeting that challenge, instead of pleading for the production industry to be granted immunity from the ‘better, faster, cheaper’ demands being placed on clients, in every other industry, every day, everywhere.

Oh please Hamish

In one form or another, Anne has been pushing agency-produced and virtual client-produced work for her entire career.

If there were a flag-bearer here in Australia, she’d be at or near the top of the list, or the bottom of the pond, depending upon one’s perspective.

The cheerleading for quicker, faster, and nastier has been the hallmark of any number of her enterprises, and I’d be surprised is she doesn’t sport a ‘RETAIL’ tattoo somewhere on her person.

This article is just the latest edition, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or misinformed or your pseudonym is a mask for Anne herself.

This isn’t shooting the messenger, it’s unmasking one of the ringleaders, and by the way, arguing in a public forum against the capitulation to the demands of clients is “meeting the challenge”, head on.

Just as in “every other industry” when the creators, who are more essential than you believe, push back collectively upon the demands of those who commission the work by continuing to refuse mediocrity and insisting upon producing excellence, the clients of the clients, the consumers, notice and vote with their purchases.

On the other hand, those who role over and play nice dog, may as well be playing dead, because if they prevail, there will be no industry for them to exploit with their self-destructive tactics.

Can I just say thanks to all the people offline, and on here, that are supporting me personally at the moment. I know a lot of people are concerned about commenting publicly on Mumbrella for fear of what can happen with nasty commentary (eg. @Hamish) and I’m getting a lot of personal emails, calls or LinkedIn messages of support – so thanks.

It seems to have turned into a bit of a slagging of me personally from @Hamish here – who by the way doesn’t obviously know me well nor understand the scope of the clients that I have worked on including many, many award winning pieces of work as much as there has been a few retail executions needing some innovative solutions too. It is about the creative at the end of the day for me and I’d like to think that I can solve problems for any client – with it ultimately being all about the idea that really matters. I’m passionate about reducing wastage that DOES NOT harm the creative, actually, and in some cases getting clients on TV when without a clever solution the client wouldn’t be there.

These days I feel the industry is broadening into what is entertaining and that has to be about quality story, quality production, and being a stand out. That’s the point of this article – be better than the run of the mill or you will be blancmange! I’ve said it a few times now, so not sure what it takes for @Hamish to understand the true point of this article. Content DOES need to be better, to be creative to be entertaining to rise above the average because everyone else can do the base level now. Do I need to write this in CAPITALS?

@Hamish is also misinformed about one/some roles I have held. There are times in my career when I have not stayed in a role for certain ethical reasons or the role does not end up being what I was promised, and yet he is accusing me of having principals completely the opposite of what is actually the truth for me and the reasons I left – Making big assumptions and ill-informed in many places over this blog.

Mumbrella can vouch that any time I am commenting here that I am disclosing my name and details – it is a point of integrity that I ALWAYS do and this is the part I take offence to. I have much more integrity than that. Anyone else here commenting is just making good sense I’m afraid @Hamish, they read my article properly in the first place, are better informed, and know what I really stand for.

Hmm… just thinking… could @Hamish be a disgruntled supplier that at some point in my career quoted and pitched on a job for me but someone else got the job? That this other supplier could do the job just as good as you (subjective decision by the CREATIVES and I on the job) but be a cheaper solution because all the wastage/fat was taken out of the budget?

Are you fully aware that a producer works in partnership with agency creatives and that the producer is supporting them all this time? It suggests you’re at a supplier level if you don’t fully realise this.

I do appreciate that I have a few enemies that didn’t get work from me over the years and that would certainly be a good motivation to slag off in the safety of an anonymous profile. Feel free to disclose yourself and perhaps we can look over your job history and make commentary? 😉

Hamish. You sound like a fool, but I’ll assume you’re just naive. And having worked with Anne, I can assure you she is not leading any march to the bottom. So, I repeat my suggestion – read her article again – listen to what she’s actually saying – not what you imagine she’s saying – and learn from it. And whilst you’re doing that – all the grown-ups will get back to working in the real world.

Anne and OpH

When you’re in over your head, stop digging.

Anne, by your reasoning, production companies should be making TVC campaigns for free as well. Why should big brands (most likely your clients) spend big bucks (read inflated budgets) on big fancy ads when they could do it themselves for free with a FLIP camera?

Hamish, you just keep on defending the indefensible and I’ll keep on making a nice living and creating work for the 60+ people who work for me.

@OpH, I think @Hamish is talking about himself here.

As I say to my kids ‘You don’t have to prove someone else wrong to be right’.

The thing that makes me giggle is that Hamish seems to think that he and his brethren have a strangle-hold on creativity and the business model that sits around it.

The world has moved on.

Terry (49), you are 100% correct. Unfortunately, poor, young, Hamish just doesn’t get it. One day he will – but, I wouldn’t expect that day to come soon.

Want better value for your advertising buck? Don’t cut back on production values. Instead refuse to pay for that massive pile of bullshit agencies dish out called “strategy”. You’re paying for words – albeit in flow chart form and delivered by an intelligent English accent. And It’s often ignored by agency creatives because it just doesn’t help in making advertising that works. Now, in the age of planners, the bullshit piles are blocking out the sun. Try something. Ask your agency for just ads – no strategy with that this time please. Call the creatives into your North Ryde offices, demonstrate the products and then make the fuckers talk to the sales people in on the floor. Will cost you two creative teams for half a day. Too simple? Try it on your next campaign. Please. I’ve been in the business for 16 years. I’ve learnt first-hand that production values are everything and strategy is mostly regurgitated buzzwords (like “disruption”) from well dressed, grovelling air kissers who contribute virtually nothing to “the work, the work, the work” .

Spend nothing and make the video yourself = crap (see Anne’s examples above).
Spend some money and get someone else to make your video = varied results – from laughable to inspiring (but mostly mediocre).
Spend lots of money = make another piece of same-same advertising / traditional tvc (pay someone else’s kids’ private school fees).
In other words, you can’t win, but it doesn’t help when Anne devalues the lower end of the industry.

I think Hamish and Anne should just get a room.

O.k so I don’t really read blogs and I suspect this ones prob already dead. I must say its been an entertaining ride. Anne you have made a valid point. Its easy to now days give it a go, be it you are a client or first time film maker. Hamish you are also correct as there is a new move to undermine the expertise of people who know what they are doing, for the basic gain of saving money. What about the new breed of film makers,young people who can edit shoot and direct. I think we all need to evolve to a certain point. Shit I doubt anyones going to even going to read this. Funny this is my way of illustrating I’m a bit behind the times myself, after blogging on something already dead. Anne are u still there? Hamish? Anyone? For me there are still agencies offering fantastic creative that needs money to make it great. Leo Burnett Sydney being a great example. Whats wrong with a production company or Agency making lots of money if they deliver. Isn’t that why we share our expertise and why we are in business. What wrong with a company making money if they deliver be it small or large? Clients , don’t u benefit greatly from experienced film makers and a great campaign be it TV, print or viral? I think u are happy to pay if we deliver yaaa? For me its going to keep changing, look at the new Movi rig now available. So cool. But it will obviously cost some people work. Its not Anne’s fault. I don’t even know u Anne, I hope Hamish is wrong that u are killing the industry. Doubt it? Hamish keep up the passion because without people questioning things we would be lost. Maybe just try not make it so personal as I feel the article was a bit loose and really didn’t encourage clients to do their own stuff. I’ve been working in the industry since 1985 and still get nervous when I have to do everything myself, even though I have the experience and could easily do it. Clients, its defiantly a skill and u should get the expertise u are so lucky to have in Australia, so your brand stands out. We are great film makes and the new breed are truly going to rock our worlds. To the new breed try make some money be stupid if you don’t but I doubt you are even reading this. Lets quickly reflect on the troubles of the world and remember we are not saving lives ( an old 80’s quote ) lets try get on. I admit I’m on my third beer (I tend to lie about my alcohol consumption, an 80’s hang over) . Its been a fun read. Later, if anyone even reads this its my first official blog. See u in Hollywood. Alias Timmy d 🙂 The next director of Die Hard 5 full of product placement. Now theres another discussion.

Enjoy life love you wife husband kids and friends. Aliens are on the way.

I read your post, Anonymous, 30 Apr! Thanks for your terrific contributions to this discussion. I feel bad for the article writer, Anne. Her post just came across horribly. And she’s getting such a grilling. I wish she hadn’t responded, that made it worse. Anyway, thanks again!

An young Aussie lad, with a great sense of humour has ammassed over 400k views of his video in 3 days on YouTube.

Adverts are enabled on his video (with the opportunity for the user to skip them after a short period of time).

Smart lad, quite funny too. (He uses a webcam and edits himself)…

Google and he, make money out of this. No need for a script writer, expensive video team etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grh0tlJtViw

Funny vid. It appears this guy’s been making videos for 5 years, and his next most popular video has 57K views over 3 years. He makes videos every second Sunday.

Yes, he’s smart and the video you mention’s funny. But it’s the content that holds attention, it’s very little to do with filmmaking. Why is that? The answer’s on his YouTube Channel.

His description says, “is a 19yo Australian comedian/actor/musician… entertainer… In 2009 Neel was named Australia’s Funniest Teenager by the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. He performs stand-up regularly around Sydney and Australia, and produces Youtube videos. In 2013 Neel will be one of the youngest ever cast members of the Melbourne International Comedy Festivals ‘Comedy Zone’ – showcasing Australia’s best up and coming comedians.”

This video has says little to say about the article “You Don’t Need Money To Make A Video”. It’s simply a comedian doing his thing. He just happens to present it through a video.

@funny Vid.
I can’t work out if you’re serious but…
This just seems to illustrate why clients (most times) shouldn’t make video stuff. If a client made this they would be in all sorts of trouble.
The only reason it has lots of hits are for all the reasons why a client would/should run a mile from it. And because they wouldn’t make this kind of content most likely will never get those kind of hits.
Pulling stuff from the internet that , while unprofessional , has had lots of hits (even if its good) doesn’t prove much. Most times it will indicate the creator actually does have some kind of imagination or video skills. Things you can’t count on having on-staff.
The other option is you have to employ those people in-house and you’re back to square one.

Blimey, my comment got a couple of mighty chomps on the hook didn’t it!

I might post the Daft Punk video where the characters start dancing at 2.20 (you know the one).

Can you remember the advert that you skipped at the start of the comedians video? I can’t?

The medium IS the message.

Mike Brennan
DP

“Until we accept that clients can make their own content at a level of professional quality”

Anne

Ladies and Gentlemen and Others…

Based purely on what you’ve read here, I ask:

Would you trust the author with your next visual communication project, whatever the level of production??

Please please reply (Hamish, a simple Yes or No thanks)

Never have, never will. Sorry, Mrs. Davis. Couldn’t resist.

This entirely depends on what kind of video you are creating, and for what purpose.

There is no point spending megabucks on an ephemeral video destined for a few hours on social media.

No one is suggesting that Chanel film their latest TVC on an iPhone.

But if you’re a small company, or a start up, and you need video quickly and cheaply, some of these “prosumer” options are very suitable.

I personally prefer to read than watch. But there are some people who are more “pictures” than “words”, and video-ising a Powerpoint may work well for them.

consultants (and here’s where oscar wilde comes in) know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.