Confessions of an Executive Producer

the gift that can keep giving

I've been watching with great interest a series of online brand marketing initiatives. Some of those projects I saw in the concept phase. Others I just heard about. And, one I was involved with. I was mostly curious to see if they were able to build a significant audience. Very few were able to. I could create a laundry lists of reasons why starting with they weren't entertaining and ending with no one wants to voluntarily watch films about brands. Even if they were able to build an audience of devout followers, then what?

Maggie Fox, Founder and CEO of Social Media Group, wrote an interesting post about this topic a few months back. I kept thinking about her post as I mined the field for branded content. When creating online content, brands shy away from featuring content on their corporate website, rightfully so. Have you ever visited a company sites for entertainment use? Instead they launch a microsite with some clever name related URL. These sites are where their branded content lives until they run out of content. In her post, Maggie describes how she has been preaching to her clients to stop building these microsites and start building channels. 

So to go back and answer my own question, what happens if a brand is able to successfully garner a large online audience of followers to their microsite? From what I can tell, they use up every ounce of the content they have and then shut down the site. In other words, spend a lot of time and effort building an audience only to let them go. It's like a hunter creating an elaborate trap to capture wild animals for his meal. Having lured a massive number of prey into the pen, the hunter opens the gate releasing them back into the wild then wondering why he's gone hungry.

Like a TV station, the web gives brands an opportunity to broadcast their message and more importantly their image. In other words, Maggie's advice to her client's is to stop thinking like marketers and start thinking like broadcasters. Create content of value. Design a strategy to bring them to your destination. Once they're there keep them there by consistently providing meaningful programming.

Although I agree with this theory completely, there are two major problems. One, creating quality brand sponsored entertainment is hard. And, two it's expensive to maintain. 

To overcome these obstacles you need to address a deep cultural divide. Brands must start to understand that their product isn't of interest but their image is. If I tell you I'm Mac user that drives a Prius, wears Levi's and drinks Miller High Life, you form a certain image. Brands can be an extension of our own identities. They promote a lifestyle. A brand channel can support that without pushing product freeing themselves to create entertaining content. In terms of funding, the cost of meaningful interaction is far less than the cost of mass media. It's a matter of taking the risk of this investment. 

I think were still a while away from some brand committing to a channel and doing it successfully. It's analogous to cable TV in it's infancy. It was cheaper and easier to run syndicated programming than develop quality original shows. Eventually the only way to grow was to create their own content reflective of their channel's following. 

As Maggie said, "attention is an expensive gift - think about how you can recycle it."  

that's entertainment

 

I spent a lot of time this week talking, thinking and writing about social media. At my day job, I've also been pondering social media as it relates to ad commerce. If we believe the stats of the Youtube clip I posted on Wednesday that 96% of Generation Y is involved in social media. That, social media has overtaken porn in net popularity. That, social media is the greatest force since the industrial revolution, then why the hell can't we better monetize this revolution for brands? Maybe I'm just impatient but this is how I'm seeing it.

Every brand/agency is concepting, pitching or producing some form of internet, digital, viral, branded, 360 or whatever moniker du jour you'd like to give it. They are doing so with very few successes. Success being defined as genuine sustainable interaction with a consumer base of desirable size. 

In the last 10 months I have read through dozens of decks by some very talented advertising people. I'm always impressed with the amount of thought and energy placed into these concepts. Most are well designed, some have clever ideas and all are generally underfunded. I keep asking myself why isn't it more effective? Where are we going wrong? We can't just blame the money or the client.

I believe we need to start asking ourselves two questions before formulating a digital strategy or thinking about creative - how are we going to get people to our site and once we do, why are they going to stay there? Recently I've asked these questions at meetings and on conference calls. I usually get the same answers. 

• The commercials/banners are going to drive traffic
• We're going to start a Facebook page, Twitter feed and some other social media applications
• PR is going to reach out to the blog community

Let me get this right. The TV commercials are driving traffic by placing a URL on an end tag. The idea being the target audience is going to stop their viewing experience to get up, go to their computer, type in the URL and interact with some corporate content. Who has ever done that? 

Banner ads. Ever click on one intentionally or even notice them? Enough said. 

Facebook and Twitter. Always sounds progressive but how are you going to get friends and followers? Go with the "Field of Dreams" mantra? Sign up and they will come. 

Bloggers. They love promoting ad sites to their hard earned audience unless, of course, they get paid. And now thanks to the FTC they are legally bound to disclose compensation. I guess they would do it without payment, if it was good. 

Despite my sarcasm, I believe a successful integrated campaign needs all of the above to build audiences. It just needs to be strategically planned to work across all mediums. And, I still haven't answered my own questions. How to mobilize a community and keep them? 

It starts with agencies thinking less like admen and more like programmers. The social contract of TV viewing is based on providing entertainment then breaking for a paid message from the sponsor. In paid media, brands don't have to build followings, they just pay for the privilege of piggy back on top of someone elses. With the exception of pre-roll, this can't be done in earned media.

When creating branded content you have to ask yourself would I pass this onto a friend? Would I spend my valued time watching this? There are many enticements to draw in an audience (free stuff, discounts, competitive games, etc) but keeping them is all about entertainment. It can't be brand focused but rather brand sponsored. 

In the year end issue of SHOOT magazine, they named Goodby Silverstein agency of the year. Rich Silverstein said, and i paraphrase, "We are no longer an ad agency. As matter of fact, we believe no one should be. We need to become entertainment companies." This resonated with me. 

Agencies and production companies theoretically should be the ones to unlock the code of communal and meaningful digital interaction with consumers (actually they should be called viewers). To do so we need to start holding ourselves accountable to building audiences, keeping them connected and providing content of value. We are the natural leaders in advertising innovation. However, just because we're the rightful heirs doesn't mean we'll inherit the future. They're are countless others aggressively pursuing the crown. 

ben & barry's

  Last week, while waiting for a meeting a to start, I was reading the NY Times online. They posted the headline that Ben Silverman, Co-Chairman of NBC Entertainment, had resigned to partner with media legend Barry Diller to form a new venture. A content company yet to be named or outlined in detail.

The NYT article was pretty vague. It primarily addressed Silverman's two year controversial and unsuccessful reign at NBC. I wanted details of the venture especially since Silverman was quoted as describing it as "Warner Bros meets BBDO". I switched over to the LA Times. They gave more details albeit not much more. Fortunately enough to satisfy my curiosity. It said:

"The details of the Diller-Silverman venture are vague, but at its core the plan is to get advertisers and producers together for the creation of what the industry calls "integrated" or "branded" entertainment, in which a product (brand) becomes part of the show in a seamless fashion that does not leave viewers thinking they are watching a commercial."

I thought, "holy shit", their forming Dandelion only with more money and better contacts. Okay, so they aren't exactly competitors but it is a very strong indication of where the industry is heading. I know Silverman was on his way out but who would think that a Chairman of NBC Entertainment would step down to produce web content. I'll be anxiously watching when, and if, this new venture comes to fruition.

When two industry leaders, who have built their reputations and fortunes via broadcast TV, are going to advertisers saying the traditional media model is no longer effective then it elevates the entire branded content space. Not that the space needs to be legitimized but it does still needs to be demystified. Or at the very least be accepted.

Agencies and Networks are trying to unlock the code while trying to maintain profitability and relevance. Advertisers are still scared and baffled by branded entertainment. They are more likely to sign  a 20 million media buy than a 2 million dollar brand content piece even if proven it will reach a large and interactive audience. There are many misconceptions and fear of the unknown from all sides.

Hopefully a venture of this magnitude will create the momentum and investment this space needs.

travels with kirt in the motor city

   As reported I flew in on Sunday night to Detroit. I heard you could buy up large swaths of real estate and the entire automotive industry for whatever cash you had in your wallet. Actually, I went there to make a presentation to an ad agency about the virtues of non-traditional media. In other words, to pitch them the Dandelion business model.

Dandelion is a new venture formed by Epoch Films and Kirt Gunn & Associates. We launched this company in January of this year. By the way, possibly the worst time in modern history to launch a new company. We remain undeterred and are stronger for it.

The model behind Dandelion is simple. We tell brand narratives using non-traditional advertising. This includes everything from webisodes and video games to docu-series and ARG's. It is based on the idea of reciprocity. The brand provides something of value (i.e. entertainment) and in return the customer values the brand (i.e. supports their product). I have written about this often.

Sending and receiving media is in the midst of a revolution. Brands are at loss on how to effectively react to these changing patterns. Paid media is expensive and less effective. Earned Media is a mystery. At Dandelion, we help demystify it.  To market our model we are using a time tested method, spreading the gospel door to door. Yesterday we knocked on Doner in Westfield, Michigan.

Sheldon Cohen, the newly titled EVP Director of Integrated Production, asked me if we would present to various groups within the agency. Our partner and creator of the Dandelion model, Kirt Gunn, accompanied me on the trip. If you have not experience Kirt work a room you should. He has the unique ability to simplify the uncertain world of new media. Through the use of metaphors and relevant historical examples, he disarmingly relays what we do, why we do it and how we do it. Give him 15 minutes and you'll have a provocative new insight into branded content.

We had three meetings. The first with creative directors. The second with a combination of creatives and producers. And the third with the top account people and business strategists. The third was the most positive. Something you'd rarely hear from a someone pitching a creative model.

The account teams are the ones being held accountable for results. They are having a hard time getting them and need to find other solutions. Dandelion provides one. The creatives on the other hand are more skeptical. They view the Dandelion model as infringing upon their turf since we bring in collaborators from other mediums such writers from 30 Rock, The Onion and other major publications and TV shows. Our ideal model works best by combining these creative disciplines to concept with agency creatives. We know they understand the brand better than us but we understand the space better than them. Together we can innovate with the account people paving the way to a successful venture into the unknown.

After the meetings Kirt, Sheldon and myself sat down to discuss the marathon day of meetings. Doner has been a successful independent shop for decades. They are rooted in traditional media. Rob Strasberg, the new CCO, came from Crispin with the goal of modernizing the agency. Sheldon's directive is to find any means at his disposal to help Rob accomplish this task. It's an uphill cultural battle.

We discussed Doner being at the content starting line with 90% of the other agencies. Only a few have a head start. In finding a new way of looking to service their clients and seeking out creative partners, Doner has as much an opportunity as anyone else to crack the code. It just takes one brave client, one ballsy account guy, one inclusive creative director and one great idea. Sometimes it take someone from the outside to help you realize that.

As we drove on the highway from Westfield to the Detroit airport, we saw signs of the decimated auto industry. Rows of dilapidated buildings. Countless office spaces for lease. No traffic at rush hour. This is an area surrounded by the daily visual of an industry that believed a hundred year old business model never needed renovation. It took bankruptcy and the devastation of an entire regional economy to force it to do so. If that isn't motivation enough to innovate and try new models, I don't know what is.

Believe it or not, I hope to be back in Detroit soon.

content on the cheap

Back in the good old days ad agencies went to production companies to solely make TV commercials. It was a simple model. They concept a spot. They bid a few directors who have the right sensibility. We interpret and bid the concepts. And, if we are the choice, we produce it. When the agencies needed to make a film that was not for broadcast they were called industrials. There was a separate vendor pool that produced that work. It was done much cheaper often non-union and with less agency oversight. Then, the internet happened and the rules changed.

What has been increasingly happening over the last 5 years is the agencies concept non-broadcast films, not the good old industrial type, but something entirely different. It has many names. Long form. Content. Web films. Viral videos. I call them cheap commercials.

The agencies don't view them only as commercials but something more. They view them as much as programming as advertising. Short pseudo-programming for the web. They are no longer just ad creatives. They are in the entertainment business. It's kind of true in that to capture attention on the net the content needs to be captivating otherwise you can't build an audience. No matter how we define it, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then it's an ad. It's paid for by a client looking to get some type of result related to their brand or product.

I'm in the commercial production business. The agencies are my clients. They ask me to make these films. It is advertising. I make advertising. I need to service my clients. If I don't service these jobs someone else will.  Herein lies the dilemma.

These projects have one fifth of the budget to deliver three times the amount of content.  To eke out any margin and succeed in delivering the number of films, the production process should be more indie film or cable episodic than TV commercial. But it's not. Everyone applies the old broadcast model despite the obvious differences. There is an opportunity on a few projects to get something for the reel or maybe build young talent or use it for the company portfolio to help diversify. The problem is that almost every production is some kind of investment, either financial or by cashing in favors. The truth is our union agreements prohibit us from producing under a certain cost per shoot day. When we produce under that cost it is in violation but for the moment every turns a blind eye because there is so little money.

It is a difficult situation. We need to meet the demands of our clients. But, by meeting the demand we develop high volume deliverables/low profit businesses. It requires the same or more effort than broadcast commercials while simultaneously undercutting our core profit center (commercials). Still, they aren't going away. These projects are more prevalent than ever due to the recession.

For the moment both agency and client understand the difference between web advertising and broadcast. One is seen on 48" plasma and the other on quicktimes. One has millions in paid media behind it. And one does not. This is the reason for the cost differential although unfortunately the process remains the same.

Maybe as convergence of TV and computers creep closer, technology may solve the very problem it created. Until then the goal is to find a way to serve both masters while maintaining workable margins. Yet one more code to crack in the ever changing media landscape.

liquid awesomeness

There were many Twitter feeds last week linking to an article in Mediapost. It talked about the NBC Universal Digital division focusing on branded entertainment. In the article they announced a new show sponsored by Nestea in partnership with NBC called CTRL. It's based on short film that debuted at Sundance.

The premise of the CTRL is that it follows an ill-treated office worker who discovers that with the aid of Nestea and its "liquid awesomeness," he has the ability to manipulate reality. I can hardly wait. Sounds like a hit. I'm a believer in branded entertainment but a show built around the "liquid awesomeness" of Nestea seems like a lot of brand and very little entertainment. 

In the article they also mention the amazing success NBC had with another branded show called, "Gemini Division". They proudly incorporated five sponsors into the storyline, including Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Acura, and UPS. I gotta see this. I Googled the title and went right to the website. Unfortunately it was so successful it is no longer available on NBC or Hulu.

As stated I'm a big believer in brand sponsored entertainment. I'm actually betting on it. For it to be successful, the brand must give the consumer something of value (i.e. an enjoyable viewing experience) and in return they create a relationship. Product placement is one thing but entire storylines revolving around a brand feels like one long extended commercial. Commercials work because they are short and transparent. And, work best when they are entertaining. TV shows work because they aren't commercials. And, work best when they are entertaining. This idea of NBC seems like the worst of both.

I'm no network exec but making a product the star of their own sitcom doesn't sound like a successful solution to branded entertainment. It sounds like a last ditch effort to keep the slowly disappearing advertiser interested in the network. Maybe NBC knows best. I'll withhold judgment until the premiere. It could be the awesomest show ever. 

listen to the youth

When I was growing up I wasn't a particularly good student. And I'm being kind. I was, however, really good at watching TV. Unlike today's youth, I was limited to only 3 networks and two local channels but there seemed to be no shortage of something to watch. I was non-discriminatory. Sports. Soap Operas. Sitcoms. Dramas. Old reruns. Loved it all. My mom told me if I didn't turn off that darn tube and start studying I'd never amount to anything. Lo and behold, I run a company that makes TV commercials.

My brother in law posted an excerpt last week from Peter Hirshberg's talk at the 2007 TED conference. It's a group of 14 year old girls talking about TV. It further illustrates what we already know. Kids not only prefer their computers to their TV's but, with the introduction of Hulu and other quality programming sites, they see little separation between the two.

TV is primarily ad supported i.e. brand subsidized. No one seems to have cracked the code yet on how to monetize net content on a large scale. There are many models and innovations but it appears as if brands and their agencies are slow to embrace or invest in them. If they don't do so soon, they are in danger of losing the ability to market effectively to an entire generation of consumers.

At Dandelion we were speaking to a major content provider about a possible project. The project involved an idea we developed that would be brand sponsored content. We wanted to partner with the content provider to use their platform. We explained a brand was already attached to fund the project. Although these were the type of deals they were seeking, they voiced concern. They expressed that in the past, brands and their agencies, often tried to apply a broadcast model to their service. In other words, they wanted to interrupt the audience experience rather than enhance it. This lack of flexibility or understanding was more of a deal breaker than the financial negotiation. Although the content provider was eager to reap the rewards of brand association, they were more aware that a short term monetary gain would result in the long term loss of their audience if it placed advertising ahead of the site experience.

After several conversations, we put them more at ease. They felt confident that we were an honest broker acting in collaboration with an agency and brand but with sensitivity to their audience. It's still an ongoing conversation but I hope our clients will remain opened minded and continue to embrace a new connection with their consumer. If not, maybe I'll just anonymously send them the link above.

In the meantime, I need to get my daughter off that darn computer. She needs to go study.

how i learned to stop worrying and love branded entertainment

A vivid childhood memory recently came back to me. It was of my Dad tuning into the live radio broadcast of the Metropolitan Opera. It was religious. Every Saturday afternoon without fail no matter if it was coming from the car radio, home stereo or a transistor while crabbing off the docks of the Chesapeake Bay. I remember hearing the rumbling of the crowd stirring as they waited for the orchestra to end their warm up and cue the onset of the performance. Right before the curtain went up, the radio announcer quietly but firmly said, “Texaco is proud to present La Boheme”. They would broadcast the entire first act uninterrupted. At intermission, they’d play a Texaco radio spot followed by a quick discussion of the performance. The crowd would hush again and they would continue with the, again uninterrupted, second act. When the performance ended the announcer would speak one last time “Please join us next week as Texaco presents Aida“ They’d play one more plug then proceed with the next regularly scheduled show.

Near where I grew up in Bethesda, Maryland was a shopping mall. At the far corner of the mall were two gas stations directly next to each other. Oddly enough, they shared the same entrance. One station was an Exxon and the other was a Texaco. One time we stopped for gas. There was a line at the Texaco but a couple empty pumps at the Exxon. My dad pulled into the Texaco. I asked him why he didn’t just go to Exxon. There was no wait. My dad responded without hesitation and said, “Because I want to keep getting the opera.”

     EQUALS    

What brought on this memory was a series of discussions we were having with Kirt Gunn. The discussions entailed Epoch partnering with Kirt to form a new brand entertainment entity that eventually became Dandelion. I had been skeptical about the entire trend. I saw it either as product placement or a narrative killer. Kirt showed us his case studies. He explained his business model. He talked about the strategy. He was very persuasive but I wasn’t completely convinced. Then he said something that struck. He said (and I paraphrase), brands want to connect with their customers they need to stop interrupting the experience and start providing the experience.

My dad understood this concept innately. Back in the day so did brands. Somewhere along the way they stopped trying to earn loyalty and started buying it. Today’s generation and the next have too many tools and too many options at their disposal to avoid unwanted messaging. The only messages that will get through are the ones that provide real value. You give me something (entertainment) and I’ll give you something (time/loyalty). It’s a fair value proposition.


Brand content is in its infancy so I cannot predict in what dominant form it will be but I can say with certainty that history repeats itself. So give the audience a good web series they can pass around to their Twitter followers and they may just opt for the longer line.

media companies and food preservation

I wrote a post a week ago titled, “Please Don’t Jump” in response to people expressing their deep concern, understandably so, about the future of our business. I wanted to convey a positive message as oppose to perpetual doom. My intent was to encourage innovation and the belief that uncertainty creates opportunity. On this topic, Marc Rigaux commented providing an insightful correlation. I thought it was worth sharing:

“If you made iceboxes during the turn of the century, you were out of business when someone invented the fridge. But if you were in the business of "food preservation", then you were not only working on the fridge, you were also likely working on the portable cooler, tupperware, and a host of other ancillary revenue streams.”

        

This comment resonated with me. It was analogous to the recent transformation of Epoch Films. For those of you who don’t know, Epoch Films is a commercial production company. Over our 20 year history, we built ourselves into a top production house. We have been able to maintain long term relevance in a business built on 30 second attention spans and the never ending quest for “new and improved”.

Our business model was not complicated and certainly not revolutionary. It was similar to many of our competitors. Build and maintain a roster of talented directors. Remain creatively and financially competitive. Nurture agency relationships. Keep overhead low. Spend less on the production than the contracted price while not compromising the quality. What separated us from our competitors was our taste level, our ethics and our culture. We viewed ourselves primarily as TV commercials producers (i.e. iceboxes). It was comfortable and profitable. Then someone invented the fridge (i.e. the internet/dvr) and the tide shifted.

As I mentioned yesterday, we need to broaden our perspective of who we are and what we do. In Epoch's case, we wanted to evolve our business from a vendor based production service model into a media company.  We made this shift through a lot of painstaking work and conversation. The first part was reworking our partnership and each our roles. From there we were able to complete a series of  deals. We created an affiliation for US representation with Rattling Stick, one of the top European production companies. This deal was followed up by the acquisition of Kirt Gunn and Associates to form Dandelion, our branded content company. After that we invested in a new production entity, Imperial Woodpecker, headed by one of our top directors and a long standing executive producer. Compile these changes with the production of our second feature film “Gigantic” and moving into a new office space in NY.

 

This all took place in the last 12 months. These deals and alliances changed the direction of Epoch. The most rewarding personally has been our ability to change our "hands on" management style. We empowered the people who worked for us in production, sales and accounting. We gave them more responsibility. Held them to higher standard and included them in our strategy. I learned that no matter the scale of our vision it will not succeed without the support and management of the people who do the work.

Believe me this transformation is very much a work in progress. Unexpectedly, our greatest challenge has been timing. We opted to leverage a 20 year brand by investing in a new business model during the worse economy any of us may ever know. We can only control what we can control.  We still believe it was the right thing to do. After all we'd rather be in food preservation than making iceboxes.

ad age conference / theme of the week

On Tuesday morning Fred Wilson, a venture capitalist, is giving a keynote speech at the Ad Age Digital Conference to open the two-day event.

      

If you don’t know about Fred you should. He is the founder/partner of Union Square Ventures in NYC. Over his 20 year career he has dedicated himself to discovering the next tech breakthrough, determining a company's viability and deciding whether to invest. He has a long history of success and the quintessential resume for this arena, MIT undergrad in engineering and Wharton Business School. The perfect blend of technology and commerce. You may ask yourself what the hell does this have to do with advertising? Nothing and everything.

Whether you are in the creative department or post production or account services or manage a production company and anything in between, we need to realize what happen in the world, in particular in technology communications, impacts our business. Living in a bubble is no longer an option. Everything is converging TV, films, PR, talent management, social networking, etc. They overlap one another and are racing toward a similar finish line.To remain relevant, we need to view our careers, our business and ourselves in the broadest possible terms. Defining (or re-defining) what we do and who we are is my THEME OF THE WEEK. How does this specifically relate to Fred?

As mentioned above Fred is a VC investing in a variety of tech firms. Two of his companies are Twitter and Boxee. These two companies may significantly alter (if they have not already) the way we send and receive messaging and content. As communicators, it is imperative we understand the technology, the business models and the impact it has on our culture.

                 

Fred’s topic is officially titled, “Bridging the Gap: How Venture Capitalists and Marketers can Create Meaningful Relationships and Innovation”. Truthfully, I have no idea what that means. What I do know are two things:

1) Fred will focus will be on the rise of earned media and the ebb of paid media. This is a significant trend that will effect all of us in communications.

2) If you have tickets to the conference don’t oversleep figuring no need to catch the first speaker. If you don’t have tickets, I'm sure someone on twitter can find you a transcript or you can download it on boxee.