what happened to the director's cut?

There was a time when every spott on our reels were a director's cut. Well, not every one but the majority. The client got their cut. The agency got their cut. And, the director got their cut. Everyone was happy. 

Rarely did anyone make a big stink about it. On occasion we'd have the discussion whether it would be insulting to the agency. They loved their edit and doing our own indicated we didn't. We rationalized it by saying we had the luxury of creating a :43 or they had to make compromises for the client or were forced to lose great moments or shots. It is no longer so simple.

Have the agencies become more sensitive? Are the clients more proprietary? It has nothing to do with ego or procedures and everything to do with distribution.

Back in the day when we edited a directors cut it was only for our reel. No one ever saw it except for the generous agency person who screened our work. It was solely for marketing. Today, if the guy in the machine room decides to download it onto Youtube or the company tape librarian unknowingly places it on the website, it's out there for the world to see. 

The brands are no longer in control of their images, the marketing tools they own and paid for. It was one thing when it was for industry use. It's another thing altogether when it's for anyone with wi-fi and a computer. I can understand the client's refusal to allow director's cut now that the films are available for the world to see with the click of a button.

Whether the death of director's cuts are a good thing or a bad thing is clearly debatable. Some say we should see the director's original intent. Others say its a collaborative endeavor and should remain within the marketing parameters. Regardless what side of the argument you stand on, there is little question director's cut are becoming yet another casualty in the digital revolution.