In the end I chose to go with Premiere over Avid for various reasons I won’t fully get into here – but suffice it to say that I really loved the integration features of Premiere with Adobe’s other products, already “professional standard” apps such as Photoshop and After Effects. I know that Avid is widely considered the only other “pro-level” video editing application for big film and video houses or studios besides Final Cut Pro 7 – but my gut was telling me that Premiere was/is poised to step up to the plate now that Apple has… ahem… “Chosen another market segment to focus on”, shall we say.  Photoshop and After Effects have long been given pro-level status as great tools. Adobe Premiere’s team is listening to their customers and has made great leaps in giving professionals what they want in an edit system.  I have seen many improvements since the late Nineties, when I last used Adobe Premiere on a PC before “going Mac”.  I think Adobe is building a professional base that will grow significantly – especially with so many editors now looking for a new professional workflow.

So, I’ve hopefully expounded enough on why I chose Premiere for my needs. Now for the real question – how was it in a real world first project? Well, first of all, I realized very, very quickly that to run Premiere on a Mac takes a lot of horsepower. Right out of the box it’s a 64-bit application suite.  So, it was off to the memory store to get beefed up. I originally had 14 GB of RAM, which was more than enough for Final Cut 7 – but Premiere seemed sluggish and not really happy with that. So, I added another 8 GB of RAM, which brought me up to a total of 20GB after losing a couple of Gig to memory card slot configuration.  The increased memory did help some. However, throughout my project I found myself still having to stay in ¼ or ½ playback resolution, which is acceptable for general editing chores, but I found myself wanting full resolution at certain times and feeling frustrated I couldn’t get smooth playback without rendering even minor color correction tweaks.

This led me to searching for a graphics card that would boost my system even further. In retrospect one thing I neglected due diligence on was how much I’d need to beef up my system to run Premiere efficiently. There are only three cards that are currently certified/tested with the Mac Pro for Premiere currently – and none of them are inexpensive (at least for me).  They are all capable of using the Premiere CUDA Mercury playback implementation, and they all boost Premiere’s real-time performance.  While I may end up investing in one of these cards sometime in the future, for now I do wish that it isn’t something that I feel is needed for normal editing – but I feel the system is sluggish without rendered timelines.  I love the concept of editing native with no rendering needed, but at least on the Mac side of things, that takes raw horsepower that even my 2.26Ghz Xeon 8-core can’t deliver.  It’s not a deal breaker, but it’s certainly not perfect – editing H264 native files and having them play back in full resolution, smooth as silk doesn’t really happen.  If a client were sitting behind me I’d feel nervous about claiming great real time performance with no rendering (without an accelerator/graphics card installed).

One other thing I did to improve playback is added a RAID-0 drive array to my system for editing purposes. Previously I had a RAID-5 array that I used for editing, but also as my preferred safe-haven for data.  I noticed a marked improvement in playback – not perfect, but better.  I want to say now that Final Cut 7 had it’s own issues on my system as well – not everything played back perfectly on FCP either. However, I do notice more overall sluggishness with Premiere over FCP on my Mac – your results may vary.

Multicam editing on Premiere was the same in many respects as FCP, but different in some ways as well. One small thing that I was used to doing in FCP that I could not do in Premiere was do searches in the timeline itself for clips with a particular title – for example if I wanted to find all of the clips from one camera in a timeline and highlight them for adding an effect, I could do it easily in FCP with the Find command. Premiere does not let you do this yet (I submitted a feature request for this – we’ll see if it happens!) Several people pointed out that if I wanted to add an effect to multiple clips from the same original source in a multicam sequence, I could just go back to the original camera’s individual stream and adjust it there – but that is not always a convenient way to add effects to specific groups of clips, especially when you want to add different effects over different sections of the multicam timeline.  Sometimes you don’t want a blanket approach to adding the effects, you want to be able to pick and choose – and it’s easier to do this with the Find command in FCP. Nuff said.

When it came to syncing the sound using PluralEyes, all I can say is that I wish PluralEyes were better integrated into Premiere as an application rather than manual export/import of XML files.  It worked okay, but I did have a couple of lockups when trying to import the XML created by PluralEyes.  It’s possible that I wasn’t doing something right, but sometimes it would work fine – so I’m guessing Premiere is just ultra-picky about their XML import – and sensitive.

The big time saver – being able to edit natively – had a big extra benefit in the end. My total project size was about half what it usually is in Final Cut, since I am not converting all of my raw footage to ProRes first. Even with ProRes final masters exported from Premiere, my total project size was at least 50% smaller.

Final export to DVDs was interesting.  Because I am a newbie to Adobe Encore I’m still reserving judgment on it, but so far it seems like a very powerful (but sometimes testy) application.  Because it has so many features and configurable options it is easy to get lost in all of the options available. The provided menus and templates are helpful, and got me started quickly. However, sometimes I found myself researching the manual or online forums for answers to questions about animated thumbnails, among other things. Animating the DVD menus in general is not something that Adobe has necessarily made it super easy to do, but it can be done.

As it turned out I did end up with a problem in one of my DVD menus that ended up on the discs I delivered to my client. It was a problem that I thought had been corrected prior to delivery, and one that is particularly hard to diagnose and fix at times. It involved behavior that was related to conflicting end-action commands within the disc.  Long story short, it was sometimes confusing and obviously left me vulnerable to missing a potential problem with the disc.  When I went back to fix the problem the final time, I ended up trashing and recreating the menu/problem in question – and that took care of the problem.

Overall, I’d say my first experience with Premiere since the late 90’s was pretty good, with some caveats.  Just as FCP is native to the Mac, I really believe Premiere has been really tweaked and primed for the PC.  It does run on a Mac, but not as smoothly as FCP for roughly the same amount of hardware investment.  I don’t have the CUDA graphics card (one of only three that are actually approved for Mac use) that would give me the extra graphics acceleration, and I think without that it’s always going to be a bit on the rough side regarding playback, especially if effects are involved.  It’s telling that Adobe has approved a whole list of CUDA-capable cards that are PC-approved, but only three for the Mac (one of which is not being produced anymore).

I will be working more with Premiere, although I will probably be doing hybrid projects for a while as well – using the strengths of both FCP7 and Premiere to my advantage.  Ironically, after boosting my memory and drive configurations, FCP7 is running incredibly well.  Luckily, Premiere doesn’t get a complex, and Final Cut Pro isn’t jealous.  Eventually I may be forced to make a choice to give up FCP7 completely, but until then I can enjoy the best of both worlds – and when I am forced to give up FCP7, I’ll consider making that final $800+ CUDA card investment that promises smoother playback and performance.

So there it is – my first impressions on my first Premiere project from start to finish on a Mac.  I’m sure that there will be some opinions and experiences that differ from mine, but regardless I hope this article has at least given some insights into what to expect if you are a Final Cut Pro refugee.

About Bill:

Bill has been a media junkie since he first started obsessing over Alvin & the Chipmunks at the age of three. Since then he has worked in many different roles doing professional media including audio-for-video engineer, sound designer, corporate multimedia specialist, mobile media producer, and currently a freelance producer for corporate and event video.  He hates writing about himself in the third person, and also hates Wendy’s new fries. You can see his work @ www.billvincentmedia.com and www.firstdancepictures.com.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

Still, it wasn’t until the late 90’s that desktop computer video editing became possible and affordable to the masses, in the form of digital video cameras and digital editing software such as Adobe Premiere, Apple’s Final Cut Pro, and a few others. The general progression of technology toward this was fairly predictable in terms of computers, processor power and the like. But what has really changed is the accessibility of such tools to the masses.

When I went to college in the mid 80’s, I went into the Telecommunications department at Ball State University, the former university home of David Letterman. They had what was considered to be an excellent Radio and Television program there. (BSU still has one of the the best Media programs available.)  But, one of the most significant things about the school at that time is that there were few other ways to gain access to A/V equipment used in broadcast media (other than working at a television station). Handheld portable cameras were still way out of the price range for most students to be able to afford, and video editing equipment was even more out of range, into the thousands of dollars. There was no way for a student to learn the fundamental techniques of video production and post-production (unless they had wealthy parents) other than going to a school that had the equipment. All of these factors combined meant that media was a trade learned either on the job, or through a school of higher learning. There are positive and negative aspects to this.

The positive aspects of limited availability and access were that when you decided to do a media project, you were much more careful and cautious about what you were actually going to do. You planned. You wrote a script. You chose the people to help you. You knew that you were not going to have unlimited access or time to experiment with editing. If you made a mistake, it meant you might not be able to have the time or resources to fix it later. An environment such as this forces you to be creative with the tools you have, and not to waste valuable time and effort on mediocrity.

The negative aspects are obvious – not enough time to do what you wanted, not enough equipment to go around, and the very real aspect of having to compete with other students to get your fair share of time on the equipment. It can be tough for some who have difficulty standing up for themselves or asserting their rights to have access to the facilities to learn and experiment. However, that same problem can also help build character and confidence, helping you to learn to stand up for yourself and for the value of your work in order to gain the needed help and materials.

From my perspective as a media professional, I have seen both sides now. I have lived and worked in an era where only trained professionals were creating and editing audio, video and film. I have also witnessed during this time an explosion of desktop media creation tools – to the point where these tools can be used by anyone, and are affordable to most everyone – at least the basic tools – camera, video editing, and duplication/distribution via the web. What once was the exclusive privilege of people trained in the media field is now available to your average 10-year old kid with a Flipcam and Windows Movie Maker. It seems they’ve made it so easy that “anyone” can do it, right?

This brings up some interesting questions about the future of media education and what the future should hold for institutions who teach media as a degree offering. Obviously the technology has progressed to the point where kids are fairly well-versed in media creation at a basic level in a way that has never happened before. They know how to use a video camera, they know how to edit shots together, and they know how to publish their finished work to YouTube. Given this, you might ask what can a professional media education provide that they can’t already get with their laptop and a good digital camera?

First, let’s make clear right away that just having access to equipment does not make someone a professional in ANY field. Just because kids have a basketball in their garage and a goal in their driveway does not make them Larry Byrd or Magic Johnson. Also, there are accepted standards for any profession that are not necessarily learned by doing homegrown projects. There are, in fact, lots of reasons why just having access to the raw materials for just about any endeavor does not necessarily mean that the end result will be considered professional quality.

In regards to professional media and media creation, one of the first things that professionally trained graduates have over self-taught individuals is the experience of being part of group learning and team efforts, coordinated by a professional who is experienced in teaching the most effective techniques. There is no electronic substitute for this. Being able to share ideas, concepts and resources between members of a group in an educational setting is invaluable. It promotes teamwork, planning and growth opportunities when things go wrong and unexpected challenges occur. How you handle yourself in a professional media situation with other professionals is more important than how fast you are at Final Cut, Avid, or Adobe Premiere. Additionally, most (if not all) broadcast media projects are definitely not one-man shows. They are team efforts, led by experienced pros who know how to handle the problems and challenges inherent in shooting and post production situations.

In both the audio and video media world I’ve witnessed many young gunslingers who are a whiz at editing or at computer-based software, but yet have no clue how to troubleshoot technical problems or know how to handle unexpected situations related to locations, lighting, or any number of other myriad challenges that come up that are routinely covered in educational settings. That kind of experience can only be gained by working in the field with teams, and there is no substitute. With technical problems, the only cure is experience and time – years, in some cases – to be able to understand all of the issues involved and be able to diagnose and correct them. In the “real world” knowing how to handle these issues can mean the difference between wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars. Just knowing a piece of software or a particular camera is not going to be enough to make that difference.

In an educational setting you may not get to work with the latest/greatest hardware and software. You may not be shooting with the best lighting, in a state-of-the-art studio. But you will get experience that will prepare you to handle what will come in the future – mainly the opportunity to collaborate with others and take many projects from start to finish. After the projects are over, you have the chance to be critiqued on them without the threat of losing a client or losing your job. You have the precious opportunity to make real-world mistakes in a much more forgiving setting than the real world. And, your interaction with others can teach you things about yourself that you could never learn just sitting at home with your laptop.

While there are definitely significant benefits to having access to all of these media creation tools at our fingertips and on our desktops, I sincerely believe there is still no substitute for great education in the fundamentals of ANY profession, along with the opportunity for group learning and instructor-led training. What having these tools so readily available does for the student is that it gives them more opportunities to experiment on their own. They can now become even better because they have the tools to work with independently of the learning environment, and can learn on their own. But, it is certainly not a replacement for what a good educational environment can provide.

So kids – have fun with your Flipcams, laptops and iMovie. Learn how to tell good stories. Learn the basics of editing and learn how pace and timing are vital to good media presentations. Learn all you can from working with your own stuff. These skills will benefit you as you progress on your professional journey. And when you are ready, invest in yourself by investing in your professional education. The things you learn, the people you meet, and the opportunities you have will be priceless, and you can’t get any of that from the latest version of your software.