Equipment Nightmares and the 48 hour Film Project

Sometimes I think the whole point of a project is to make you realize that you are not always in control. Such is the lesson I learned this past weekend doing The 48 Hour Film Project. For the uninitiated, this happening is basically a contest where teams of people get an assignment to go shoot, edit and deliver a short 5 – 7 minute “film” (actually video) in 48 hours.

Without going into a mass of boring technical details, I had agreed to act as video editor on a team and had done much preparation beforehand to make sure we knew just how we would do certain things in order to meet the deadline and have a good quality end result. We were all set – or so I thought. Finally, with three hours to spare, we had a final cut of the film. The only thing left to do was to get it into a video file and deliver it to the contest officials. Simple, right?

That is when, inexplicably, my video editing system would not export a video file. Not no way, not no how. “General Error” was the error description – about as helpful as pouring salt into a gaping wound. We tried everything – EVERYTHING – we knew to fix the issue. It was laughable if it weren’t so frustrating. We rebooted the system – multiple times. We cleaned off hard drive space. We trashed preferences (advanced Mac users know this drill). In short, we did everything we knew how and then called others who knew more than us, all to no avail. My system was just not going to oblige. Period. We could watch the film all day long, but we could not export. Backseat editors and video folks probably are reading this thinking “why didn’t you do X or Y?”  Well, we probably would have, if you had been there. But since you weren’t, please understand that we were doing everything WE knew how, and calling others for advice as well. In the end it still didn’t work.

Finally in a “hail Mary” fit of desperation we went into a dark cramped bathroom, set up the equipment, took a videocam that made tapes in the contest-friendly format, ran an audio cable from the system to the camera, and pointed the camera at the screen. It wasn’t the best solution – by doing that there were some other exposure issues that we didn’t have time to deal with. But—we delivered a final tape to the contest officials with 4 minutes to spare. We did it. We didn’t get to look at the final product other than spot-checking it before delivery, and we know it has some issues and is overexposed in spots. But, we did it. We didn’t give up, no matter what happened. We finished the race.

I couldn’t help but wonder if I were somehow cursed when I went home later to diagnose the problem after the project was over – because of course, it exported a file perfectly the first time I tried it. After much more testing, I discovered that it was a combination of factors, but the overriding one was having to power down and restarting the external hard drive – which we didn’t ever do in our rebooting frenzy. When I powered everything down to take all my equipment back home, the drive reset itself thus making the problem go away. Deep breath. Try not to kill anything. Remember that it was supposed to be fun and you signed up for this madness.

All in all, I still feel like it was a good experience. Most of all it makes me realize once again that sometimes, shit happens. There is just no avoiding it, no matter how much planning and foresight you build into the project. Redundancy is good, but not always a failsafe. There are still lots of ways a complex effort can go wrong at the last second, no matter how much redundancy you have built in. The most important thing is how you deal with the crisis. Do you give up? Walk away in shame? Throw the offending laptop across the room? (Yes, I thought about it!) No. You work to fix the problem until you can’t wait any more, then you do what you have to until you have something. You keep running even with a broken shoe. You point a camera at the screen. You DEAL with it. It might not always work out like you hoped in the end – but as long as you did everything you possibly could, you did what you had to do.

Will we win with the final entry we did? Doubtful. Did we learn? I’ll bet more than any other team in the competition.

View the finished edited movie here.

ROI and Web Media – Short and Long Term Strategies

ROI – Return On Investment – is probably one of the most used terms in business today. Virtually nothing is getting done in this economy without a proven ROI. It’s vital to show executives the value of spending any money right now. If you’re not showing a tangible ROI as either an employee or as a vendor, you’re probably not going to be around long.  When it comes to video, there is a significant investment required. This almost ensures that it has to have a solid business need to solve, and that it can provide results.

Calculating ROI for video 2.0 is sometimes difficult, but there are formulas that can be effective. The metrics used vary between marketing and media firms, but it can be demonstrated that viewers did act upon information obtained from web video on products or services. It’s not as nebulous as some might think. The metrics exist with most web-based analytic tools, and it’s a matter of collecting the data and interpreting it properly. The real question is not whether web video can provide ROI, but whether the cost justifies the ROI numbers, and whether you are thinking short-term or long-term.

Providing a good library of product or how-to content is one way to add cumulative ROI to web video. If you have a library of good informational videos to offer, your library is then providing ROI as an entity in itself. There are sites providing great video on the web that are building a library of pay-per-view or even downloadable free content which generates revenue continually – all because they reached a saturation point with available content. For a business video collection to reach that point requires a significant investment in video over a long period with humble ROI at first. But, as time goes on and more content gets accumulated, the library of content can become very valuable in and of itself, and start to generate serious hard ROI numbers over the long term.

The main takeaway from this is that truthful ROI on web media is tricky – you have to also look at the long-term advantages of investing in media content on a regular basis before throwing the baby out with the bathwater when trimming soft costs such as media creation and marketing. You might be overlooking some of your best assets over the long-term.

My Ten Year-Old Could Do It!

People in general don’t like the idea of someone knowing more than they do. It irritates them when they have to rely on someone else to do something. That’s a natural feeling. We all want to be in control. And, especially when it comes to creative endeavors, we tend to want to believe we have what it takes.  When it comes to “soft skills” such as writing/editing, art, media, music, design, or any other job with the word “creative” in the job description, it’s tempting to think that anyone can do it, because there is a part of each of us that knows we could do it (if we took the time to learn and do it!)

However, even though we know we could do something given the right tools and circumstances, most people don’t put in the time and effort needed to really excel. They don’t put the time into learning their craft the way that dedicated professionals have. They could, but they don’t. Yet, they also cling to their notion that “anyone” could do it. I actually had a Supervisor once who argued that all of these “soft skills” were interchangeable and that anyone could do them.  While technically he may have been correct in that we all have the ability to pursue these endeavors, he was completely misguided in that only with time, effort, knowledge and sacrifice will anyone truly be able to do their best work in creative fields.  To think otherwise is to belittle the intense dedication that some people devote to their chosen craft.

So when looking at this idea of everyone being able to do something now that previously only few could do because of the new availability of tools, we still have to face the fact that some people are more talented and/or more dedicated than we are. Some people do draw better than we do. Some do sing better, or sculpt better, or write better, or shoot film and video better. It’s art. It’s all somewhat subjective, but skill, experience and talent definitely do play a big part.  Those skills can be developed, and talent can be nurtured, but that takes time and effort – two things that software or inexpensive hardware can’t give you.

All of this applies very well to video production and editing, since there has been a huge wave of new hardware and software within reach of the average consumer that will supposedly turn anyone into a media pro with the click of a mouse. These new tools are great for doing all kinds of stuff – and they are wonderful learning tools for kids and amateur filmmakers. But – just because the potential to do great work with the tools exists doesn’t mean the potential is realized. It takes more than just a credit card to develop talent. These tools fool people into thinking they can compete with the pros. They get cocky with their newfound ability to do fades and titles. They forget that professionals have dedicated years to the craft. They overlook that what took them 10 hours to edit could have been done by a professional in an hour. That nine-hour difference is experience, dedication, and knowledge that does not come from a box. It may not matter when shooting or editing Grandma’s 80^th birthday footage, but when other professionals and money are part of the equation, it becomes vitally important.

There will be (and already has been) a new crop of talent that has gained notoriety through making video for the web using consumer or “pro-sumer” tools. But, the illusion is that they just bought a camera and a video-editing computer and soon they (or their videos) were Internet stars. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of cases, the producers of these web videos come from traditional media backgrounds, or they have learned the hard way through trial and error and hours and hours of effort – i.e. they paid their dues. They found out the hard way that getting good audio is extremely difficult. They found out the hard way that lighting is an entire art that you could devote years of study to.  In other words, they discovered that there is a world of difference between having access to the tools and actually mastering them. Not only that, but the cases studies bear out that even “viral video” success stories are usually complimented by behind-the-scenes marketing firms devoted to getting content to “go viral”. It’s not just Jr. in the basement uploading to YouTube.  In rare cases it might be, but most of the time it is definitely not. Many viral clips that look like they were amateur were actually shot professionally to look like an amateur clip.

In short, the sentiment “If you wanna play the Blues, you gotta pay the dues” is appropriate. Anyone can buy a harmonica for $10. To play a blues harmonica in one of the famous Blues clubs in Chicago takes a lifetime of dedication. Or consider also the famous quote “How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!”  There are no shortcuts to real talent, knowledge, experience, and creativity. Thinking otherwise is selling everyone short who has ever specialized in a particular discipline.

Social Networking Marketing

Right now there is an interesting phenomenon occurring within companies that market to consumers. Major companies are all practically tripping over themselves to figure out Social Networking – or more accurately, how to capitalize on their popularity. If you’re an expert on Twitter, you’re probably already helping some company utilize the power inherent within. So what constitutes a good online social networking strategy for a company? What makes you stand out from all of the noise? Why are some campaigns extremely successful, while others just seem outdated, outmoded, or just plain out of touch?

There are all kinds of specific ways to connect with your online and mobile audiences, but these are just individual techniques. What is called for is a meta-plan that has incredible consistency across all platforms. This means that the message (and the timing of that message) must be very clear and very accessible. A well-executed campaign that includes an integrated plan utilizing all forms of ad media (and that makes the consumer feel they are getting something unique and valuable) is the Holy Grail of a marketer. Yet, it seems so rare – it seems like the horses are running in different directions when it comes to the various components that should work like a well-oiled machine when using Social Networks to attract consumers. Why can’t various parts of the whole work together to present a unified front that captures attention (the good kind) and creates brand loyalty while not being annoying?

Corporate Challenges in Social Networking

One of the first and most obvious challenges with Social Networking in the context of corporate branding is that Social Networks are not communication vehicles for advertising by design. They are communication vehicles that can best be described as “Chinese boxes” of consumers operating in smaller and larger groups. Getting accurate analytics about all of these groups and which approach is the best to market your brand takes significant research. Knowing your audience is the first step, but there are also significant landmines in the Social Networking milieu that need to be considered as well.

Consumers tend to get irritated when they feel they are being blatantly marketed to via social networks. Corporations must be very careful not to be considered an “unwanted guest” at the party. Given that it’s easy for a corporate tweet to send the wrong message by just clicking that send button, how can you protect your brand from being the party crasher? One suggestion is to market with the consumer’s interests in mind – but more importantly offer something to the consumer that goes beyond a free coupon or purchase incentive. Free stuff is great. Free knowledge is also great. Campaigns that give consumers fresh, great information and more value on a consistent basis are better than campaigns that simply have a one-trick pony to offer such as a sale or coupon.

Also, campaigns that have a very personal appeal rather than a cold corporate feel are going to have more success in the social networking space. There is a key element to this as well – the company must be engaged and responsive in the social networking space. This seems simple enough, but it is something that has to be looked at from the overall campaign effort. In other words, with social networking companies must be willing and able to turn on a dime – to be able to react quickly, swiftly, and take advantage of trends as they appear online. Much easier said than done – most corporations are not finely tuned enough among the various departments to be able to do this.

One reason that companies cannot respond to trends and be more “in the moment” when it comes to social networks is that their hands are tied in several ways. Advertising content or information that is cleared for one platform may not be cleared for another. Rarely do the planets align when it comes to aligning the various teams responsible for the different platforms that all must be addressed together in order to be successful.

Another reason is that different departments have different agendas when it comes to branding and marketing to consumers. Some departments are used to having full control and free reign when making the corporate branding strategy – and they get defensive when they are required to play nice with the folks responsible for online or mobile initiatives. In these situations what may be required is a revamping of the way that marketing ideas are born and shared throughout the organization. Where one department may have had bragging rights in regard to ownership of a campaign idea, now those ideas need to be opened up to scrutiny and planning with the other departments in the organization in order to be successful in a compete all-encompassing campaign. Factions among the various groups within the organization have to be minimized. This is easier said than done as well, since some of these rivalries may have been in place for years. However, being agile and responsive and able to manage a fluid marketing campaign is key to social networking success. Timing is key, and for expert timing to occur, groups need to be responsive.

In a future blog I’ll talk more about some of the other key components to successful social network marketing and new media campaigns. For now, getting the various groups to work in sync will provide more than enough challenges to the average company. Once a company can think and act in a unified manner, they can present a unified message in a social way. Sounds simple, doesn’t it?

Going to “Eleven” and Why It’s Having the Reverse Effect

Okay, so this week’s blog is going to get really, really techie and geeky – but it’s something that does affect everyone – so if you can wade through it, it really is an interesting topic. Basically, I’m proposing something that I’m not sure has been discussed much from a particular angle. It’s the idea that audio compression (as opposed to file compression, which is something else entirely) has gotten so thick and heavy on recordings today that it actually has the opposite effect of it’s intended goal, which is to play “louder” on radio, your stereo, or your television and capture your attention. I think there is something to the way our minds are starting to “tune out” heavily compressed music, as we’ve been exposed to heavy doses of it in the past few years from both the music industry and the advertising industry on both TV and radio. Think of it as “compression fatigue”.

I was working and listening to what I can only say is an ultra-pop group that is at the top of the teen food chain right now (some of my readers might ask.. “why”? But that’s another blog for another day). The music is so heavily compressed that there is absolutely NO dynamic range at all in this record – it’s all either loud or louder. But as I was listening, I noticed a strange phenomenon – I was, even when I wanted to, not able to really distinguish easily between various parts of songs until I actually focused on it very intently – and this is not usually something that happens. It doesn’t help that the song instrumentation is almost exactly the same in each song, but seriously – it’s just compressed so hard that it almost washes over as white noise when EVERYTHING is competing for loudest – vocals, instruments, solos, drum fills, everything.

The conclusion I’m coming to is that our minds are starting to actually tune out heavily compressed audio, and that it’s getting increasingly hard to hear – the exact opposite of it’s intended goal – because our minds are starting to perceive it just as we perceive white noise – which is to filter it out and not hear it. But this problem essentially goes away completely when listening to a signal that is rich in dynamic range and tonal subtlety (neither of which is evident on most anything made after 1995). TV advertising is just as bad if not worse. At least movies are still conscious of dynamic range in mixing, although movies over TV get audio compression either at the network, station, or even consumer cable box or satellite unit level, or some combination of all of those. It’s not a pretty picture even when not compressed at the source, but at least in movies it’s definitely not compressed at the source or maybe only very little. This also goes for many classical audio recordings, and many great albums before audio compression became the way to be “louder on the dial”.

I think that this is something that should be looked into further in regards to our changing ears – which have been consistently exposed to heavily compressed audio for years now. This might be a good research project for an advertiser or media group to conduct with focus groups. Maybe if they see some scientific numbers to back these assumptions up, we can go back to having music and advertising that really does reach out and grab you only during the moments it is supposed to. Right now, the “wall of sound” created by audio compression is just too compressed for anything specific to get through, including our aural perception. I would love your comments on t his topic – please chime in!

Is New Media Really That New?

As we look to the future of media and see all of the different ways in which you can deliver content, I find myself asking one question that seems to glide past many on the way to YouTube or other New Media sites – are we really just repackaging old media in new formats? Is there really “New” in New Media?

I think that in some instances, we can say that the media landscape has changed considerably with Internet video for some of that content to be considered as “New”. But really, there is quite a bit of repackaging going on. Not only that, but media networks seem hell-bent on delivering this media in the same way! Internet video has so many untapped or under-tapped capabilities – the first and most important of which is being able to tag the video content with URL’s, metadata, page flips inside of framed HTML pages, etc… these are tech innovations which seem lost on the majority of web video out there. I’ve yet to see major media outlets really take advantage of the interactive possibilities.

The same goes for mobile video. It seems an absolute no-brainer for mobile video to be able to embed a URL to someone’s phone within mobile video. The technology should be available to do this. There shouldn’t be any question about whether or not it’s possible. Yet there seems much to be desired from carriers who are lagging behind in offering these capabilities to new media vendors and consumers.

Lastly, in regards to copyright, it seems that copyright law and the legal teams involved with media companies are making it even more complex by trying to define separate delivery mechanisms (such as carrier delivery vs. Internet delivery) when these mechanisms are really all just “digital” delivery. The quest to make ever more money from new digital streams just gets ridiculous after a certain point. I spent last week at the Nashville Digital Music Summit listening to various people debate copyright protection. Nobody can even start to agree on the most basic ways to slice up the new media digital pie revenue. Meanwhile, the major media companies and music companies are worried sick that their profits are being eroded through digital technology. And, they may be right.

While Rome is burning, kids and enterprising new artists and media folks are coming up with truly new media – clips and ideas that bypass the normal filters and end up becoming part of the new media landscape. It seems that traditional media companies are just looking for ways to slow down that progress in any way possible while simultaneously trying to capitalize on it themselves. Media mash-ups and remixes and such… most media companies have no idea how to handle these issues, because they don’t fall into the established pipelines set up for monetization. How sad for them! They need to get a grip – the old system is broken, and trying to arrest or sue their way back to it won’t stop the flow.

So yes, there IS new media – if old media can get out of it’s own way, and tech companies can start cooperating instead of hoarding technology. Next week I’ll talk about copyright and why big change is absolutely inevitable, yet probably will be stymied every step of the way.

Success in the Music Industry – Part 2

This week I’d like to continue my discussion on defining success in the music industry. Last week I focused on one aspect of the music industry in regards to age and success, and mentioned how extremely difficult it is to become a “star” after around the age of 30. This week I want to clarify that a bit, because although I do stand behind that statement, I think it deserves more clarification.

There are many, many people who have great success with their music that are above the age of 30. They have good solid careers with a fan base that sustains them. They sell a good amount of records, and they are able to make a living doing what they love to do. There is no denying that it is possible to have a career in the music business at any age and be able to do this. Many artists have and will continue to take this path. I believe it is the most stable and solid path as well, because it provides longevity.

What I am talking about when I mention being on the path of delusion is the idea of becoming a “superstar” after you reach your 30’s. The whole idea of superstardom is for the young. It is about young people relating to another young person – a person who serves as a role model (for better or worse). The artist is usually not too much older than the teens they are performing to, and that is for a very good reason. The record industry machine cultivates the superstar-potential artists at a very young age. The industry wants to have a “superstar artist” be able to attract and keep loyal young fans that will continue to buy the artist’s music throughout the years. The older the artist, the harder it is to attract young fans that will continue buying the artist’s music as they get older. There’s even jokes about the record industry A&R people looking for “fresh young musical embryos”. This trend isn’t going to change any time soon.

However – that does not mean that a singer/songwriter/performer cannot have a career in music. As I mentioned above, many artists enjoy long and successful careers. The difference between them and the “superstar wannabe” who is deluding themselves is that they are not looking for superstardom. They are looking for a long-term sustainable musical career, and they are realistic about the size of their audience and the type of venues they play, and the number of albums they can reasonably sell. It does help if an artist has had some hit music to jumpstart their career, but it is not critical. They have built their audience through hard work performing and making a local, then regional, then national name for themselves – and probably would have achieved this with or without a record deal.

In short, I am not trying to discourage anyone over the age of 30 to pursue music as a career. I’m just pointing out that it’s pretty unrealistic to think that as an artist over 30 years old that you will capture the hearts and minds of the under 20 set, and if you do it’s probably because you’ve been bubbling under blowing wide open nationally for a long time. That’s getting more rare as well, because in order to do that you have to have had a couple of major label releases that did okay – and most labels drop you after your first record if it just does “okay”. So again, the odds are severely against you. You are much better off working slowly toward a solid fan base of your own that doesn’t rely on the support of a label at all – and with today’s distribution technology (the web) and a little marketing savvy this is very realistic and possible.

So… with that I wish all artists the best of luck. And, if you are stuck on being a superstar and you are 30-something, I hope you will come back when you’ve sold out Madison Square Garden and tell me how full of it I am. In the meantime, keep building your fan base and build a career that will last.

Defining Success in the Entertainment Industry

I have a friend who is doing research for a project he is working on ask me if I would contribute by writing about what I define as success in the Entertainment/Music industry. While this may not be directly related to New Media, I think that for many of us in creative fields this question can be adapted fairly easily to us. So, I wanted to share my response to him, and would love your comments as well.

How do I define success?

The question posed is an interesting one at this point in my life, because the current economy and the misfortunes of one particular media company have forced me into actively seeking new work. However, this turn of events has actually led me to go deeper than just a quest for a new job. I’m at a pivotal point in which I’m considering not just a new job, but considering a switch from working for someone else to working for myself. My biggest problem lies not in whether I should do it (and at this point since full-time jobs are pretty scarce anyway it makes sense to go for it) but in what direction I want to focus. I have a few different directions I could take. So, trying to answer this question of “what is success to me” is very, very relevant.

I used to be very certain about what would define success for me. I wanted to be a Record Producer. I wanted to be in the studio, working with artists, making music that the whole world sings (my apologies to Barry). However, over the years I have made other choices in my personal life that have also changed the direction of my career. Some of the things that I would have needed to do in order to achieve that dream on a national or world stage were put aside willingly in favor of other dreams that were, in many ways, more practical (like marriage, family, etc…) I’m not saying that it would have been impossible to have a family and still be a successful record producer – just that those choices affected the speed and intensity of my pursuit. Along the way, that nationally-known producer dream became less important. I still love producing music, and still work with artists in my own home studio – but the drive to be the next David Foster or Mutt Lange has greatly subsided.

There is a line from a Billy Joel song which helps define my current state in terms of success, and it’s from “The Angry Young Man”. It says “I found that just surviving is a noble fight”. I like this line, because I too have discovered that success to me has changed, and that what I thought was success 20 years ago isn’t necessarily what I think of today. Just being able to have a decent home, good neighbors, a great family and a real, honest loving relationship with good communication is a big part of what success is to me now. And, in my current situation, I have also learned not to take all of this for granted – because even as simple as those things might seem on the scale of success, the wrong set of circumstances can make even those things very difficult.

My definition of success now is really just being able to use my skills and talents to support myself and my family. It would still be nice to do nothing but produce all day long, and it would be even nicer to have a song I wrote or co-wrote become a hit song, and I still write in the hopes that it may still happen. But, I’m more practical when it comes to how I’m going to support myself and my family in the short term. I’m willing to accept that a full-time job or doing lots of smaller jobs that have *some* element of creative input are enough to keep me both happy and fed.

So, in many ways, success for me now comes down to a very simple formula – being able to use my talents and abilities to survive and thrive while I’m alive, and to be appreciated for those talents and abilities within the scope of my work. I’m still working on achieving that goal. Right now I’m at a crossroads where I am shifting from having someone else define my work for me to defining my own work and learning how to monetize it myself. Time will tell as far as how successful I’ll be in making that transition, but at least I am now in complete control of my future destiny.

I want to add one more thing that I think is important in addressing the question of success – and that is how the media and our culture tries to define success for us and the negative effect it has on people’s lives. I know more than a few people who – since a very young age – have wanted to be “famous”. They want to be a star. In some ways, who wouldn’t? Riches, notoriety, all of those things seem so appealing, and the media continually perpetuates those ideals. Yet, I also see how those manufactured dreams also hold people back from being happy and from reaching their true potential as artists. There is a time for pursuing those ambitions if you really feel you must, and it is when you are young. But to see others here in Nashville who are still hoping for that to happen when they are well into their 30’s and older becomes rather unrealistic. Yet they still hold on to that dream, even when that dream train has long since left the station. Everyone seems to know it but them. And, it seems the older they get the more upset they get when they are faced with the improbability of their situation. They are not able to be objective about their chances, and slowly start to slip into a world of delusion about their own abilities and dreams. While I’m not saying that it’s impossible to achieve fame and huge success as an artist after the age of 30 – 35, it’s exceedingly, painfully difficult to do so, and very rare. So, it seems sad to not only pin all of your hopes on a career success that is incredibly rare to begin with, but then also to add to that the one hope of being the “dark horse” that still breaks through even against all odds? I would tend to think that there is an element of delusion creeping in at that point. There is a reason that “American Idol” has an audition age limit of 28!

The media definitely does cause some of this delusional thinking. It creates such a desire for fame and riches that some people (especially people who may be insecure about themselves to start with) hang all of their self-worth on their ability to achieve it. Most of us have the ability to continually re-evaluate what our definition of success is (based on reality and market conditions), and adjust accordingly. But being famous almost requires an attitude of self-aggrandizement that also blinds a person to the fact that they are, at some point, not going to achieve that dream. So they continue beating their head against the wall, becoming more bitter and frustrated every day, yet also being very defensive about their own perceptions of whether or not they have what it takes to be successful. I don’t think there is much in this world more sad than that mental state for an artist.

When an artist can accept the reality of their place in the music marketplace and build an audience that can sustain them and their musical endeavors (even if it’s just part-time) throughout their life, I believe they will be much happier and more “successful” than someone who has pinned their hopes on being nationally known and not knowing when that possibility is effectively gone. I think it’s fundamentally more important to do what you love no matter what, than just to be loved for what you are doing. And if you can do that, I think you are successful.

You can read further what others think of this question by going to my friend’s blog: http://www.brentmusiclaw.com/blog and reading the comments there as well. With that, I wish everyone GREAT success, whatever that is for you!

New Media Jobs and the Current Job Market

This week’s blog is about a subject that hits close to home for me – the new media job market in today’s economy. As more companies are looking for ways to cut costs and scale down on staffing, new media professionals are sometimes easy targets. We are considered part of a group of professional workers who have what could be called “soft skills”, or skills that are “nice to have” but are typically not required for business. Other jobs in this category are corporate trainers, usability people, artists, and other people who typically have the word “creative” somewhere in their job description.

Most of us lucky enough to be in these types of roles already know how difficult these jobs are to attain. The competition is incredibly tough. For every creative job there are usually hundreds of applicants. There are so many people wanting those jobs that they drive the market value of those jobs down, and it is always an employer’s market. Creative types usually don’t have headhunters or recruiters banging on their door or ringing their phone off the hook.

In our current climate of corporate panic and staff cutting, the first people to go are usually in our category. Because of this phenomenon, it does bear asking the question as to whether we are truly bringing solid value to organizations, or whether our jobs are just “fluff” that can be disposed of in hard times with little or no serious repercussions on business. Where is the value proposition in what we do? Are the things we occupy our time with and the projects that we are involved with so fundamentally unnecessary that we are always going to be easy targets? The answer depends on what type of business you are in – but on average, the answer is yes, and that will probably not change any time soon.

Without going too far down this rabbit hole in asking why, just think of it from a budget perspective. Which position is more critical in tough times – a key position in the company that generates revenue, or one that is difficult to even demonstrate an effective R.O.I. for the organization? Which is going to save the company – a star developer who writes and maintains code that is vital to the proper running of the organization, or someone who videotapes corporate presentations and company picnics and puts them on the corporate Intranet? (I know some people will have a difficult time swallowing what I just said, but there is much truth in it – I have been tasked to do those very things, and it makes me understand my place in the corporate food chain far better).

I am by no means trying to belittle what soft skill professionals can bring to the market – however, it’s important to be realistic in this current job climate. In order to stay relevant and keep your job at a company, you’re going to have to prove that what you are doing brings not only good value, but OUTSTANDING value to a company. In other words, you’d better be making the company money. If you are not, you are first on the chopping block – every time. You know the expression “if you’re not part of the solution than you’re part of the problem”? Yep – it applies here very accurately. You must bring outstanding value to your company with whatever it is you are doing. And, if you haven’t figured out a way to show your R.O.I. numbers, you’d best be figuring it out – quickly.

These words may sound harsh to all of the young college grads who spent umpteen thousand dollars to get an education in media, entertainment, liberal arts, or whatever. They are not prepared typically for what is to come – a very difficult set of market circumstances awaits them in trying to land a position. Add to that the attitude of some graduates that somehow because they went to college and got their degree that it somehow makes their soft skills more valuable and that there is a sense of entitlement. They are in for a crude shock.

If you find yourself in this situation as a creative professional, there is really only one answer. You must work to add skills to your arsenal that are not just considered “soft”. Learn a programming language. Learn to do spreadsheet analysis. Learn to manage projects and become a leader. Always look at yourself from your employer’s point of view. Could they get by without you? No person is irreplaceable, but you know exactly what I mean – there are people you can always identify in every organization that are most likely never to be let go or laid off in tough times. These are the people who are always adding value, whether in their sales efforts, their management abilities, or in their hard skills that cannot easily be replaced.

Creative types usually cringe at the thought of having to continually learn new skills and new processes to stay valued. Isn’t it enough just to have incredible talent and be a good sport? Um… look around. No. Not in an economy where the unemployment rate is topping 10%, which still may be a low figure. You must add value or be gone. Ironically, creative types are not the only ones who continually have to update their skill sets – Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Programmers, Nurses and all kinds of others have to return to the books regularly to update and maintain their licenses and abilities. In fact, there is hardly a profession out there that doesn’t require some ongoing maintenance to survive.

The bottom line is that it’s just not enough to offer creative services and expect to keep a job in a very tough economic climate. You must have arrows in your quiver that employers really need, ones that make the company money. If you aren’t doing that, you’d better watch your back. It may not be fair, but the word “fair” isn’t in today’s business climate. However the words “efficiency” and “outsourcing” and “value chain” and “Return On Investment” are all thrown around daily. Don’t let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security, especially when you may not have the skills that are most needed.

Make yourself valuable – and not in a “soft” way – but in a REAL way. It may not always save you from the corporate chopping block, but it’s much harder to cut someone who is making money for the company than someone who is costing the company, and that is just simple economics.

New Media vs. Old Media and the Search For Unbiased Truth

This week’s blog is on a subject that tends to get a bit political because of its subject matter. Namely, I’m blogging about the current state of our news media. Why this topic is considered political is probably worthy of it’s own entire blog post, but I’ll save that for another time. If the phrase “liberal media” is something you get very emotional about and you believe it describes most if not all of the news media, then you probably won’t be able to read this article with much of an unbiased viewpoint, so it’s best to stop reading now and come back next week. (You have been duly warned. Read on at your own discretion.) The problem stems from the fact that our news has been politicized, and it’s impossible to have a discussion about it without politics coming up in the conversation.

I ran across a site today that I thought was very interesting – YourNetwork.tv. This site is a new media alternative to mainstream broadcast news. The site goes on at length to show how corporate media has become consolidated and crafted to manipulate viewers and present biased points of view. But, after watching all of their main video presentation on this new form of network, I couldn’t help but think to myself that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to present “news” in a way that is truly unbiased and culturally neutral.

There are many reasons for this, but the most glaring one is that everyone that is “reporting” on anything has an agenda of some kind. It may be to present the most fair and accurate portrayal of news possible. But, even that lofty goal has some problems inherent within. “Truth” still is filtered first through an editor’s assignment to a reporter or journalist as to what constitutes a news story, followed by the cameraperson’s actual composition of shots, followed by the editing of those shots (of which the importance and relevance to the slanting of a story cannot be overstated), followed finally by the reporter’s voiceover and comments around the story itself. Even after all of that, the news anchors can still frame the story in a more or less flattering light depending on their biases.

Given all of those factors, is it even possible to give an accurate news story? For many politically charged and sensitive issues, that all depends on who you ask. Some people intentionally want to believe only one news network over others. Some people believe all television or video news journaling is biased and slanted. Many people only want to give credence to a particular news story or opinion if it happens to agree with their own viewpoint or political persuasion. This is a very sad state of affairs for the general public, because it means there is no longer any objective standard of “truth” for which we can all believe in or agree upon. Is there any form of news media that can be considered unbiased and accurate enough to claim the label of truth? Unfortunately for the public, not any of the six major media corporations that control the content we see can claim that moniker. This may sound like a politically charged statement, but let’s face facts – when news organizations became profit centers (concerned about ratings and sponsorship dollars over truth and real reporting), true objectivity went out the window. It is very difficult (if not outright impossible) to see a story critical of a major advertising sponsor who supports any (or more likely all) of the big six media firms.

None of us like to think that our news is actually only sanitized and carefully-packaged to protect the guilty, but if you realize that all of these news organizations are beholden first to sponsor relationships and profits, that is the only logical conclusion you may come to. Very rarely there may be a story of corruption or malfeasance so blatant by one of these corporate sponsors that the media can’t ignore it – but in those cases the media usually has it’s hand forced upon them. In other words, there is too much to gain in the way of ratings to ignore the story. In the vast majority of cases, if the story critical of a sponsor can be buried without too much noise, it will be.

Is YourNetwork.tv and alternative news the answer to this? Maybe – and maybe not. For example, independently funded news organizations have other issues that prevent them from always accurately reporting news. Issues around access to important people and information, issues around perceived credibility in the public eye, and other factors get in the way of being the altruistic answer to this thorny problem of absolute truth. The fact is, there are no easy answers to this problem. There is no organization that is bias-free. There is no person that is totally neutral when it comes to what is newsworthy. All of these things play a part in making us realize that it may be an impossible task to create a true source of news that is fair, accurate, and truthful in all circumstances.

For my part, I will tell you right now what my opinion is on the big six media companies – I know first-hand that what makes it on-air is manipulated, there is no question about it. Editorial decisions are made every day that determine what people know about and what they don’t. Television (including news) is completely ratings-driven. While some may shout “conspiracy!” regarding what is and isn’t shown on the news, I believe for the most part that there is no big over-reaching conspiracy other than profit (and the occasional pressure by political parties that does hold sway in times of national crisis). Unfortunately, the public at-large does not care, or understand. Many (especially older Americans) want to keep a “Walter Cronkite” fantasy of the media in their mind, a quaint vision of trustworthy reporting and fair, accurate news coverage. (Walter himself was smarter than that – he retired when things started to get nasty and news started to become a profit-driven mess.) Yet people still cling to the network news as a chief source of information.

So what is the answer? The best that I can come up with is to not take any news organization at face value. Gather news from many different sources and see what jives and what doesn’t. Be your own editor of news. This is way too much to ask for many people in this country, and we are collectively paying the price for their self-imposed ignorance and stubborn desire to trust any one particular news organization over the rest. In some ways, some people really do believe ignorance is bliss. It’s a really, really sad fact. It is horrific because it means that those people will be forever led and controlled by interests that are detrimental to their best interests because of their misplaced allegiance. That is why you have people who are continually hurt by a particular political party’s policies, yet still remaining faithful to that party. It makes no sense at all, but they are truly “brainwashed” in the classical sense of the term. These people believe and trust the source of their information, regardless of the fact that they shouldn’t – therefore they are easily controlled. Further, the information source usually tells them exactly what they want to hear, rather than the truth. It’s always easier to swallow candy than medicine.

Again, can New Media cure any of this? Yes, to a degree – and it already has, to a degree. Only to the degree that people are willing and able to seek out independent sources of information. When those sources are cut off, it will be much more difficult. Additionally, people have to want to seek the truth. Many people don’t want to know the truth, especially if it means they actually have to act and do something because of what they discover. Truth sometimes demands action, and many people don’t want to accept that responsibility. Given the average attention span of our society as a whole, and given the stories that people have been trained to accept as “news” in our culture, I don’t see any radical change on the horizon, even with good alternative news sources.

In fact, there is a whole group of Americans who have been literally convinced that any alternative news source is probably anti-American in nature. You aren’t going to change those people’s minds any time soon. They would much rather listen to an entertainer (read: shill) posing as someone who is reporting “truth” – working his audience into a fever-pitched, foaming-at-the-mouth fury over perceived wrongs from the “other side” and sewing hatred, greed, and fear. Why? Because it plays to their emotions, to their reptilian-brain. It feels SO good to channel all of their bottled up anger that has no convenient outlet at something or someone! It’s addictive. It bypasses logical rational critical thinking and shoots straight for the emotional reactive mind. And, it works, all the way to the voting box. I don’t need to cite any of the latest “news” on politicians kissing up to this type of “entertainer”, do I?

Truth does not need to appeal to base emotion and fear to win it’s case. Truth does not need a PR firm. Truth does not try to drown out other voices intentionally. In fact, you can almost identify truth when there is a group of people dedicated to doing nothing but trying to subvert it, squelch it, or otherwise keep it from being told. When someone or some group is afraid of words, you can bet that what they are really afraid of is truth being spoken – because truth doesn’t have anything to hide. When a group shouts and incites fear and hatred and racism and greed and petty emotion, you can bet that they are fighting against the truth being told. That doesn’t mean that truth shouldn’t be shouted – it should be shouted from the rooftops! However, it does not have to use petty emotional appeals to win its case, nor is it trying intentionally to drown out other voices by its proclamations. Lastly, truth does not need laws to defend it. If free speech is not just a convenient theory, than we must allow all viewpoints into the discussion around any given idea. Truth will win on account of its own virtue, not because of a law designed to enforce a “particular version” of it. However, this also is contingent on a news media that is dedicated to seeking the truth first above all else, which we have already deducted is not the case. When the media is sleeping with the enemy (corporate interests and political interests) then truth is the first casualty.

We have laws that protect the separation of church and state (albeit not very effective lately) and we used to have laws that helped create a separation of power between the news media and government as well. But in these days of corporate sponsors and corporate lobbyists, corporate interests and government interests are blurred into one. They worked tirelessly in the Reagan era and beyond to abolish the rules and laws governing the separation of our media from political and corporate interests. And the monster created through all of that is one of consolidated media ownership (which means fewer opinions and more censorship) and interests that run counter to truth-telling.

If real news is to survive, it must divorce itself, first and foremost, from profit centers. The two are completely incompatible. (That is no longer realistic or possible with the major television news outlets.) After that, it must cover stories that people want and need to know the answers to, not just what is expedient for the news organization or for frothing up a constituency. And finally, it must always realize that the more power it gains from being a purveyor of truth, the more vigilant it must be to maintain that objectivity and fairness.

In the end, it is our responsibility to understand the issues and determine the facts as informed citizens. First, a major portion of our society must get over the addiction to a steady diet of poison candy, and be able to take medicine instead.