Confessions of an Executive Producer

the on going search for the new model

In the middle of a conference call, an ichat window popped on to my screen. It was from Tara. There was no message, it contained only a link. I clicked onto it. It was a news brief from Contagious, an online magazine. The blurb announced the opening of Co., the new advertising collective spearheaded by former JWT CCO, Ty Montague. 

The announcement came on the heels of a provocative piece in Ad Age on the high profile departures of many of the top creatives from major agencies. For the record, I posted about this a while ago. Personally I think it's a great thing to see the sudden trend of entrepreneurial spirit within the industry. Proof yet again that times of uncertainty are ripe for opportunities and innovation. 

I was intrigued about the latest addition to the advertising landscape. I went to the site. This is what I found.

It's not a boutique agency. They don't list any clients. They don't show any work. What they do feature is a list of "co-conspirators". These are a group of companies who are potential resources/partners for Co to draw upon. Each of these co-conspirators offer an area of expertise in a wide array of disciplines including design, branded content, public relations, strategists, and media adviser to name a few. 

If these services aren't in house they are almost always called vendors. Not with this new Co. As opposed to ignoring the contributions of outside resources for fear of minimizing their own value, they have made a conscience decision to highlight them. My perception is they view their associations as an advantages to leverage in securing clients and better servicing them. They even invite vendors to email them to become Co-conspirators. It's a kind of a new wave open source shop. 

After going through the site and reading a few articles I can say it's not exactly an ad agency or production company or some new fangled hybrid. So what are they? In their own words...

The site says it's a brand studio. A new terminology. There is no overt definition but i like their mission statement.  "Less waste for companies. Better experience for customers". It's a bold statement that clearly states the economic and media challanges facing every brand today. Very few words. Big promise to deliver on. 

There has been a lot of talk about new models in brand communication and consumer interaction. This venture may or may not be it. But, it hopefully takes another step in the evolution of our industry. Advertising leaders taking risks and daring to fail. This alone is a great trend. I'm looking forward to seeing it succeeds and others building upon it.  

breaking up is hard to do

My 14 year old nephew was telling me a story about one of his friends. Let's call him Dave. Dave was dating a girl for a few weeks. It seemed to be going pretty well. 

One morning on his way to school, Dave's buddy asked him, "You okay? Heard about you and Sarah." Dave had no idea what he was talking about. Things with Sarah were fine. He saw her last night.

Throughout the day Dave started to hear more rumblings. People were talking that Sarah broke up with him. Dave didn't know where this baseless rumor started but he was going to put an end to it. Dave called Sarah on her cellphone. No answer. He texted her. No return. He asked her friends if they'd seen Sarah. No one had. As he trudged unassuredly through the hallways, he finally got texted. It was from Sarah. "Sorry. It's over. Met someone else. Still friends?"

Being a teen can suck. It's a rite of passage we all must go through. I guess that's why it's called our formative years. We learn how we want to be treated and how we should treat others. Or is it?

Let me share with you, my fellow GM shareholder aka US taxpayer, another tale. One month ago, General Motors announced they were consolidating all of Chevy advertising with Publicis USA. This moved followed their departure from Campbell Ewald, their agency of record for decades. 

Last week, in the trades it was reported that Chevy was leaving their one month old relationship with Publicis to give their brand business to Goodby and their retail back to Campbell Ewald. This decision was made by incoming marketing chief, Joel Ewanick. Many industry analysts hailed the move as a good one despite the timing. Goodby has proven to be successful at branding car companies in the past notably Porsche, Saturn and most recently Hyundai. Lord knows GM and Chevy are in need of massive rebranding. One problem, Chevy didn't tell Publicis before the trades printed the story. Ooops. Publicis should join a support group with Dave. 

Publicis had been working for the last six months for GM on a per project basis and produced spots for the Olympics. They did this during the bankruptcy often fronting the company tens of millions of dollars. Yes, other Publicis agencies have pieces of GM so it was a very strategic decision to play banker. 

What bothers me is not the decision to switch shops, it is how they went about it. It is a sign that as much as GM's economic reality has drastically changed, their culture of arrogance remains the same. It makes me believe they still aren't listening to the consumers or understand the responsibility of the debt owed to the American public. 

I want to root for GM. I really do. It's vital to our national psyche and our economy to continue to be in manufacturing. Like most of taxpayers, I'd like to see GM succeed. I hope it becomes a competitive company that delivers a quality product. My lease is up next year. I'd like to be compelled to at consider a GM car. Why do they keep making it so hard to do so?

'boards RIP

I remember when 'Boards magazine first came out. I thought what a great name. It said it all. They would report on the people who generated the boards and the people who produced and directed them. A decade later the industry doesn't really generate boards anymore. Creative today takes on many forms, rarely do we see the classic storyboard. They appear as decks generated from keynote. Maybe we receive a series of photos hand picked from Getty images. Sometimes it's just a script. 

Just as the presentation of industry creative has changed so has trades who follow them. 

Last week Brunico communications announced it was closing 'Boards magazine. Simultaneously Brunico will close the print version of Playback, a Canadian Film and Production trade publication, and deliver solely an online edition. 

Although the demise of 'Boards saddens me it does not come as a shock. Don't get me wrong, I liked 'Boards a lot. I preferred their website over Creativity. They covered the global production world. They had solid writing. They were innovative with the creation of the Summit. What I liked most is they published my writings and once put in me on their IT list. Those are reasons enough to mourn their closing. So, what happened?

I wrote a post a while back about 'Boards. I suggested they close down the publication and become completely digital. Turn themselves into the Huffington Post of the ad world by aggregating articles from other publications like Ad Age, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Shots, etc. The only original writing would be editorials and special profiles. There is one small problem with my genius idea, where will the revenue come from? 

Boards like all other trades make their money through advertising. They charge more for print ads than ads online. Due to the recession and other factors, it's safe to assume by the sudden closure of Boards and Creativity no longer publishing a print edition, there is a shrinking desire for companies to advertise. Who would've thought Shoot would outlast Creativity and Boards. 

If you are a production company, editorial shop, music house or some other vendor there are more effective ways to garner attention than a print ad in a trade. There are Facebook fan pages, company blogs and twitter fees. Ten years ago none of these were options. Today if your client wants to find you they do it through Google. Your branded by your site. As evidenced by Boards closing the most cost efficient and effective way of getting people there isn't through print ads.

The closure of Boards displays yet another victim of old media unable to sustain itself in the digital age. Trade publications are becoming a thing of the past and not just in our industry. There is still a need for a voice to report on the business. This void is being filled mainly by bloggers and the few remaining magazine that have transitioned to online. 

I do believe that someone will eventually aggregate industry editorial, news and opinion to create a site that not only sets the industry standard but also becomes profitable. I wish that publication was Boards but maybe from the ashes of the old will arise something new. Hopefully it will be a reflection of what we have become not of what we were. 

eyeballs eyeballs and more eyeballs

In the 1992 race for the White House, James Carville, Bill Clinton's campaign strategist, proclaimed famously the plan to unseat an incumbent president. "It's the economy, stupid". 

He identified THE critical concern of the electorate. All other issues be damned. If Carville were to evaluate the war of marketing relevancy in the digital age, I believe he'd say "It's the eyeballs, stupid".

I mentioned yesterday, Tom Dunlap, EP at RSA, was kind enough to ask if I'd be interested in speaking on an informal panel hosted by the Association of National Advertiser (ANA). The panel was chaired by two production consultants and included Tom, myself and Jason Harris the President of Mekanism. The topic was clients going direct to production companies for creative and executional services. 

The meeting was an intimate gathering of brand executives with the emphasis on procurement. These are the people who make sure the clients are getting the biggest bang for their buck. As you can imagine a very popular topic these days.

The panel took place in a small room. There was a series of tables shaped in a horseshoe. In the middle of this formation were three chairs. Those were for reserved for Tom, Jason and yours truly. On first impression it felt like an inquisition but as the conversation began it became apparent it wasn't a grilling but rather an exchange.

The first topic raised was about the role of the advertising agency followed up by what did we offer that was different, better, and cheaper. As I mentioned yesterday, all three of us were relatively aligned in the view that the traditional broadcast commercial model involving clients, agencies and vendors still works. It needs modification but it's effective. The most disgruntled of the clients questioned not so much the agency contribution but the monetary value of their service. This was for them to determine not us. We were here to solely represent our companies and our competitors as another marketing partner they can call upon outside of traditional agencies.  Eventually we addressed the major problem of the day, the ongoing quest to reach the ever allusive consumer and maximize brand marketing dollars. This is reason to go direct.

In short, the three of us on the panel were consistent in the core reason to work directly through a company like Mekanism, RSA or Dandelion. Projects that call for communicating across multiple platforms are better suited to small nimble organization that can concept, design, strategize, produce, edit and seed without layers of internal approval. No turf battles. Most importantly we hold ourselves accountable to attract audiences through entertaining content. 

The clients seemed to be grasping this concept. As the conversation turned toward the per project direct to client model, it became apparent their were some concerns, notably the cultural shift. Whatever issues they have with agencies, it's one stop shopping. Clients don't have to source out people to perform specific functions. This is more work for the brands and more responsibility. The agencies are no longer the keeper of the brand. They are. They are responsible to interact and connect to the consumer in a genuine way. This can't be achieved soley through buying time on "Grey's Anatomy" and the NFL. Paid media is a valuable in supporting the genuine connection but it's in the digital space where the relationship is made and maintained. This is where the new models are filling the void.

At the end of the panel, a client turned to us and said, "Would you be willing to base your fee structure on results?"

My answer was it depends on how we determine success. If it's to move more product, that I can't do. Too many factors that I have no control over. If it's to get consumers to be engaged interactively with your brand, that's something i'd consider. We'd need creative control to deliver quality entertainment. Most importantly, we'd need control the seeding and marketing. Give me that ability and i'll take the bet everyday of the week. 

As everyone is racing toward the same finish line, monetizing digital content, we must provide the one thing the client values the most...eyeballs. It may be agencies or production companies or some hybrid. Whoever does this effectively and consistently will rule the day. 

everything is broken

The most overused term in the industry today is "the model is broken".

Big agencies can no longer get the job done. The model is broken. Production companies margins are going down while their liability goes up. The model is broken. Advertisers are ineffective at reaching consumers. The model is broken.

It's become a catchall phrase for everything that is systemically wrong. What's great about it is you can use it without providing any solution and everyone nods their head approvingly.

Last week I was graciously invited by Tom Dunlap, an EP at RSA, to participate in a panel discussion hosted by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). The topic focused on clients working direct to production companies versus working through their agencies. I'll talk about the details of that exchange in a very near future post. 

The panel discussion opened with the problematic relationship between clients and agencies. No one wanted to bash on agencies so we stuck to using impersonal terms like, you guess it, the "model is broken". The clients asked us what we thought was wrong with the commercial process. My answer was...not much excluding payment and contractual terms. That was met with a few uncomfortable chuckles.

In certain circumstances I can't help being a contrarian. This was one of them. There are two sides to every story. Arguably against my own self interest, I defended the current agency process as it relates to broadcast. I readily admit I have used the term "broken model". No need to go into the archives. I've come to realize that some things don't work well but many things do.

Good clients and good agencies still make good commercials. Talented directors and well managed companies still control the bulk of the finances and the top creative. Competition and technology has lowered the cost of production. The dysfunction of competing agendas keeps everyone honest. In other words, clients are getting greater value in their productions based on good old fashioned market economy and have more affordable creative options than ever before. Agencies and vendors have to work harder for their piece and need run their business more effectively to maintain acceptable margins.

So, what is broken? 

The problem exists in the decline of paid media versus the rise of earned media. Paid media is no longer ubiquitous. Ad agencies built their business models, their corporate cultures and honed their expertise on piggy backing on top of popular content be it programming or popular periodicals. The changing viewing habits and media consumption of the consumer has greatly lessened this power. Therein lies the vulnerability of the model. 

The paid media model has a bloated infrastructure that no longer can be supported by the revenue it generates or the audience it commands. Economic darwinism is already changing this but my guess is the process will remain the same only with fewer hands in the pie. It still works, it just needs to streamlined to realize more efficiencies. 

The core issue facing the clients and threatening the relevancy of the agencies is how to address earned media. We don't have control of it. It isn't an exact science. It's continually evolving. And, the current business model can't be gerry-rigged to adapt to it.  

As I sat in the meeting I began to think, it's not that the current model (Paid Media) is broken as much as the new model (Earned Media) is still being invented. 

More on this tomorrow.

won't get fooled again

Someone once told me that production companies do two things, produce films and manage talent. One we get paid a mark-up for and the other we do for free. 

A major trend over the last decade was the rise of the so called "buying a job" strategy. It is the perfect example of where our skill set of management and producing come into play. 

"Buying a job" is when the agency sends a project that is creatively desirable but under financed. Believing it is a great opportunity to gain a spot for our director's reel, we bid on the project despite the obvious budgetary shortcomings. We're prepared to call in favors, go into the mark-up and even pay out of pocket to finance the production.

Utilizing the "buy a job" strategy presents a fine line between investing in your talent and subsidizing advertising for a major corporation. Often that isn't defined until after you see the finish product. This is where management comes into play. 

We had a job a while back. The creative had potential to be a very good spot. The director was inspired upon first seeing the storyboards. He had a real vision how to plus the creative. We decided to engage. On the initial conference call and the follow up preceding the treatment, everything was going well. The agency was buying the director's take but most important seemed to be a very willing partner. We knew going in the the budget was super tight. We tested the creative waters and now we had a decision to make. Should we start slashing the mark-up? Call in favors? Ask the director to work below rate and forgo participation? Are we prepared to possibly go out of pocket?

We had the conversation internally. All fingers were pointing toward "buying" the job. The directors treatment was great. The efx house we were partnering with was gung-ho and added a lot to the concept. The creative director was supporting the vision. If we took out a whiteboard and wrote down all the pros and all the cons, the pros would be overwhelming dominant. However, there was only one nagging con, the agency itself. 

I raised the question that the agency had no history of producing high quality creative work neither had their client. What was going to make this project different? I said one thing before we made the decision, "If this agency was any good they'd be called Wieden & Kennedy...and there probably is a very good reason they aren't." Not wanting to be unsupportive, we went for it regardless of my misgivings. We submitted a number the client could stomach, clearly stated our creative goals to the agency and soon enough the job was awarded. Off we went with the highest of hopes and the greatest of intentions. 

I will not go into the sordid details but let's say it didn't go as planned. The spot won't go on the reel. And, we discovered the reason why this particular agency doesn't produce quality work. Agencies have lots of problems but do not undervalue or underestimate their creative impact and contribution in producing spots. When deciding to buy in you need to bet not only on your director but also the agency. This determines whether you are investing or subsidizing. 

In the end our story didn't have a terrible ending. The agency and client got the spot they wanted. We didn't. The financial damage was limited. We turned a small profit. Although I would've traded all of it and then some to see the director's vision on the screen and on his reel. 

Lesson learned all around. 

the season is upon us

With the Oscars happening on Sunday, it seemed like a good time to talk about awards.

In a famous scene from "Annie Hall", Woody Allen's character Alvy Singer has flown to LA in an attempt to and win back Diane Keaton. In a Hollywood parking lot, he tries to convince her to reconcile. Annoyed, she tells him it is not a good time to talk. She is on her way to an music awards show with her new boyfriend played by Paul Simon.

Alvy wants to know "What's with all these awards? They're always giving out awards. Best facist dictator...Adolph Hitler." If Alvy thought entertainment industry was awards obsessed, imagine what he'd say about advertising.

In the last couple of weeks, we've been going over our submissions for the annual ad award season. Every time I receive an email listing what we're going to enter, in what category and in what show, I think of Woody Allen. "World's Worst Award Show Entering goes to...Epoch Films"

We are better than we use to be but we are still pretty lame. Even on those occasions where we have won awards, we never even bothered to purchased the hardware. Party of my problem is I'm so critical of our own work I don't think anything is award worthy. The other part is I think awards in general are silly, When I ask our reps, "Do we really have to enter? I mean, does anyone care if we win. Will it help our brand and our directors". The answer is an immediately "YES!". And, I know their right.

The irony is Epoch was once accused of producing a spec spot and entering it illegally into Cannes just to win an award. For the record, we didn't do either of those things but that's a story for another time.

Don't get me wrong. It's great to be recognized for the work. I'm glad the people who strive for creative excellence, who push the medium to a higher lever are honored for their contribution. It just seems there are so many award shows it dilutes the meaning. Maybe I'm too cynical. Maybe I'm bitter because we don't win enough. 

Regardless, our industry loves awards. Most of us don't receive enough credit from our bosses, from our clients or from our peers. Maybe these are the one moments in a year where we actually do. Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all. 

walking through it

When I first started in the business the bid process was simple. We did a conference call and submitted our estimate. If all went our way, we were recommended and awarded. This process evolved to include the treatment. For those of you unfamiliar, the treatment is a written/visual presentation of a director's approach to the project. We submit it after the conference call. It's helps the agency better understand the directorial vision. It's now standard. 

Over the last few years another step in the process has been added, the follow up call. The follow up is what happens after submitting the treatment. The director is asked to get back on the phone with the agency to "follow up" on the treatment. With the exception of extreme cases where your director is clearly the favorite (or clearly not), the follow up call is almost always expected.

Here's my 5 truths on the follow up call:

1. Before setting it up, I always ask the agency producer to provide any specifics the creatives want to discuss. If the producer gets back to to me with "nothing specific...just general stuff", the creatives probably haven't read the treatment and we probably shouldn't do the call...but we do it anyway. 
2. If the creatives ask the director to "walk them" through the treatment without any specifics, chances are they just read the treatment or haven't read it at all. 
3. If the agency creatives are specific, they've read the treatment and we're in the one or two position.
4. At the start of the call if I ask "What did you think of the treatment" followed by a disturbingly long awkward silence, it's an obligatory call. We're the back up at best.
5. If the follow up calls turns into a conversation NOT about auditioning for the job but about producing the job, we're looking very good. 

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the follow up call. If the agency has questions, concerns. areas of elaboration or just want to ensure it's a person they can work with, let's jump all over it. It's their responsibility to their clients and to themselves to get the best available and affordable director.

There are many times, I didn't want to do a follow up call when we are either in the driver's seat, meaning it can only go down from here, or we were the third horse in a three horse race, meaning it's a Hail Mary pass. Regardless, I set up the call. I do so against my better judgment for no other reason than all the other directors are doing it. Lame reason I know. I just feel it may place us at a disadvantage if we opt to buck the process. 

If any creatives and producers are reading this, let's all admit we all hate the obligatory follow up. There is no reason for them unless the creatives really like the treatment, legitimately need clarification or want to test the chemistry.

Like anything in business, we should know the reasoning and goals behind the action. Deciding to do a follow up call because its become part of the process isn't productive. All it takes is a brief discussion between producers on what we are trying to achieve than determine the next step. We should all try to do this more of it. 

reverse sell out

In a recent Friday rant I wrote "Did it bother anyone that VW licensed Grizzly Bear's 'Two Weeks' for their most recent spot? Maybe I'm too much of a purist." A few people commented, not publicly, on what the hell I meant by this statement. Was i questioning the agency choice of music? Did I not like Grizzly Bear? My statement not only rightfully needs clarification but it also sparked notice of an interesting cultural shift. 

Back in my day before their was indie rock or alternative music, there was something call college bands. We're talking The Smiths, REM, The Replacements. These bands didn't get any radio time or video play on MTV unless you include "120 minutes" which aired from 11pm to 1 am on Sunday nights. Pre-DVR so you actually had stay up or figure out how to program your VCR. Getting turned on to this genre of music required close proximity to a cool record store, a hip local club or good reception range from a college radio station. Then, Nirvana happen and it all changed.

In my youth a corporate brand would never consider using college bands. Even if they did, it was doubtful the artists would license their music. There was no quicker way to lose cred and alienate a fan base. The poster child from this era for selling out would be the Del Fuegos. They were an underground band out of Boston that did a commercial for Miller. They never recovered. 

This stigma slowly faded away. The first major breakthrough I recall, ironically enough, was when VW used the Nick Drake song "Pink Moon" for a classic commercial directed by Dayton Ferris. Pretty safe considering he'd been dead for a decade. Regardless, the indie band became acceptable as a soundtrack for capitalism. 

Today there is an abundance of examples. There is the aforementioned Grizzly Bear VW reference. Vampire Weekend and "Sprint". Band of Horses and "Ford Focus". Phoenix and "Cadillac" (and that's TARP money talking). I'd throw in Feist and "iPod" but that doesn't really count. It's Apple. 

My ears still perk up when I hear an indie band on a commercial. I shake my head in disbelief almost as a reflect action. My response is counter to what's going on in the culture. This is why I labeled myself in the rant a purist. Maybe I should've instead said "dated". I began thinking about the evolution for licensing music for commercials. It's gone from certain career suicide to potential career maker. 

I decided to conduct one of my very scientific studies. I walked around the office questioning the under 30 sect about their thoughts on indie rock bands licensing their music for spots. Almost unanimously they didn't care. "You gotta make a living", "Everyone does it", "As long as it's a cool brand". These were just some of the comments.  

The definitive answer was when I asked,  "What did you think when you heard Phoenix on a Cadillac commercial?"

"I downloaded it"

Today's generation for better or worse is less cynical about being marketed to. They seem okay with the favorite celebrities or cool bands working for "the man". It can actually motivate a call to action i.e. buying the single, going to show, purchasing a t-shirt. For the bands, it's just another venue to build a much desired fan base.

What I learned in the end is fhe fans can forgive commercialization. The real crime is not being entertaining. 

worthy of parody

Everyone I spoke to yesterday wanted to talk Superbowl commercials. The vast majority of people trashed them. It's the same conversation every year as if somehow we are expecting this year will be different. 

Let's speak the truth about Superbowl spots. Despite all the hoopla, they generally stink. Even the acceptable ones wouldn't be considered great by industry standards. This is no disrespect to the clients, the agencies or the directors. It's just the nature of the game. Think about. There is lots of money at stake. You have to appeal to the broadest demographic ever. And, there is lots of money at stake. Did I say that twice? 

Stir in all the factors and it is a recipe for mediocrity. The hype and pressure leads to too many chefs in the kitchen and ultimately the lowest common denominator creative. That's okay. It works. America loves it. Who are we to argue. It's only us industry geeks that get off on railing on the work especially if it's someone else's. However, once in a while something comes out of the Bowl that's exceptional. This year that prize went to Google. 

Google took a page out of the Apple playbook. They made a demo commercial that relates directly to their customers life. It was simple, graphic, amusing and most of all identifiable. Google has a distinct advantage over other brands that advertised on the Bowl. They produced the spot in house limiting the chefs. They have a ubiquitous product most every one knows and loves. And, whatever the media cost, they probably earned it back within the thirty seconds the spot aired.

But, the true test of effective advertising is parody. For the Google spot it was almost immediate. Embedded is the first of the parodies of their commercial and I'm pretty confident this will not be the last. My only question is how did this get out so quickly? it does make you wonder if Google did this themselves. It is a genius way to transfer paid media into longer lasting earned media. It's not like they don't control Youtube. Maybe I'm conspiracy theorists but just a thought.