HERE'S SOMETHING YOU WON'T LIKE

[Rosenblum]

Just did an interesting experiment with the BBC. We used laptops to cut stories in the field and then fed over WiFi from Starbuck's back to the station. Pretty awesome demonstration. Also, used live videophones (handhelds from Motorola) to do lives over wireless. A little raggedy, but its coming.

[cameragod]

Why wouldn’t we like that Michael? Do you assume that we are all rabid anti technology? Just because we see kiddies with handy cams as a step backward doesn’t mean we can’t see the advantages of new ways of getting the story back to base. To be honest I’d start milking the BBC for all you can because I think Sony’s new XDCAM is about to kill VJ’s deader than the Dodo.

[Rosenblum]

I played with a prototype in England last week. It is certainly impressive - particularly the optical disc (who knows if this will catch on or not), but the problem, as usual, is that it weighs a ton and costs a fortune. How many can any given station afford? one? Two? Still better (IMHO) to have 50 cameras in play than one admittedly unbelievable one. If I were running a taxi business, I would rather buy 30 Crown Victorias than one Porsche. Wouldn't you?

[cameragod]

Your thinking is so last year Michael. If you want to make it in the consultant biz you are going to need to move with the times :) XDCAM opens a whole new world of possibility that Mini DV will not be able to compete with. You think the cameras are heavy and expensive, I don’t accept that but even if they weighed more and cost twice as much, News will still have to jump at them. We work in an industry were speed is king and the new king is XDCAM. I can shoot edit and send back to the office all from the camera before you have even finished digitized your tape. And by the time you have finely done that your pictures will look like uncle Arthur’s home video compared to mine.


Have a look around London at the taxis there. The most expensive taxi for a company to buy is the black cabs. More than forty thousand pounds to buy as opposed to the three thousand pound heaps that the mini-cab firms buy. Do you see any black cab companies going out of business? People prefer to ride in a black cab for two main reasons. Quality of ride and the quality of drivers trained to an excellent stranded. When I lived in Kensington a friend of mine drove for six different mini-cab companies over two years as they each went bust. Yes they were cheap but the margin was tight so the cars were unpleasant and competition fierce as any idiot was allowed to do it.

As for you car analogy instead think of a PD150 vs XDCAM as an old model Scooter vs a new BMW 7 series at half price and you still haven’t got a clear idea of just how much better XDCAM will be.

[Rosenblum]

If I understood the Sony guy right, (and correct me if I am wrong) what you actually produce in the field is the EDL. Then you need the field deck to do the real edit. Is this right, or have I missed something. And I thought the quality of the images and the field editing, by the way, excellent. What cost did they quote to you for the camera. Because I remember it was going to be very very expensive.

[cameragod]

About $20,000US for the PDW510, $34.000 for the PDW530P. Less than a London cab. You can edit and send the proxies straight from the field using the camera and a laptop connected to the Internet.

Equipment price is irrelevant anyway, the Bean counters have never had any trouble forking out money for assets. It’s always been about staff that is a liability as far as they are concerned. Your model has been attractive to them because the three-week wonders are cheap and easily replaced… in three weeks in fact. If the News companies want to benefit from the quality of image and the speed XDCAM offers then they will need real cameramen who don’t think the cameras are too heavy.
New Zealand is often used as a testing ground for many industries, what we do here today the world usually follows and I’m not sad to tell you that the VJ experiment is over, dead and gone.
I see our New Zealand market going completely XDVCAM within the next two years.

[Douglas]

If I were running a taxi business, I would rather buy 30 Crown Victorias than one Porsche. Wouldn't you? Your analogy is crap. A Porsche is a nice car, but unsuited as a Taxi cab. I'd rather have one Crown Victoria than 30 rickshaws. I'd rather have a few quality cameras & crews, and than 30 jackasses with substandard gear. Why do you think that more is better? That baffles me.

[Nino]

Oooookay, here we go again, welcome back Michael.

[NewsMan]

No kidding... people get so pissy at the guy.

[Nino]

No kidding... people get so pissy at the guy Wrong NewsMan, nobody got "Pissy" at Michael.

"It was strictly business".

When I said "welcome back" I ment it. Actually, with all the heated exchanges that we had with Michael, we should all be grateful that (although I'm sure wasn't his objective) he warned us and gave us the inside about a new and well organized wave of shooters (VJs)that could seriously effect our business and our future. In few words it was a wake up call. For us veterans we either step up and widen the gap or step down and join them.

[NewsMan]

I know... I gues the "analogy is crap" type of comments is what I refer to. Personally, although I see where most of you are coming from, I look at Michael's insight as the inevitable. People making fun of Rosenblum and saying "if you're going to make it in the consulting business..."... blah, blah, just seems silly. The guy does more in a month than most of us do in a year. Fact is, he has made it in this business and does quite well. For me this whole discussion is making me rethink my freelance status. Mainly because I feel there is no way in hell to keep up with the changes. That's why I'm now conteplating looking for a "steady" job until all this new gadgetry comes and goes and the new format and direction is a bit more clear. Hard to tell what's truly "cutting edge" right now considering that "edge" changes faster than most of us can keep up with. Damn pessimism!!

[Thomas]

I started thinking about the taxi cab question/analogy. My answer seems to indicate I have a problem. I don't know how much a Porsche costs, but I'll bet it's far less than 30 Crown Vics. Let's say it's three or four times the cost. I'd rather be the cab company guy with neither car. If we're talking money and the best way to divide it to create a business, I'd rather be the cab company with two BMW 5 series, 4 doors; something flashy and self-expressive.

Likewise, in the video production business, I'm not an empire builder. I'd like to work with good equipment and make quality images for quality stories.

But I get the feeling that thinking this way makes me a dinosaur of sorts.

And, the reason Rosenblum gets people angry is because he represents the stress we are all under to change. Personally, I don't want to change to fit Rosenblum's image of the future. Unfortunately, if I don't change, I may have no future since the Rosenblum vision must be enticing to these corporations who need costs to come down in order to justify the continuation of television news production.

[cameragod]

Good grief for a guy who calls himself NewsMan you seem a bit thin skinned.
For a start look how Michael started this thread, “HERE'S SOMETHING YOU WON'T LIKE” he’s not looking for a reasoned debate, he wants to play, for the first time in months I’ve got a free weekend between home handyman projects, so I’ll play. The consultant crack was an ironic statement in the same tone as his opening line, I even put a smiley face at the end of it to highlight that, sorry if it offended you sensitive nature :)
Look no offence but you seem to prove my point, you are a freelancer who embraced the PD150 model and now things are so bad you are looking for a staff job. I’m a freelancer that would only use a PD150 to shoot his kids dance class and I’ve had the best financial year in 20 years. Ok so I still don’t make as much as Michael but then none of the people he indoctrinates in his dojo will either. Their future is not too bright as the only thing they have going for them is they are cheap. This industry seems to go in cycles and after a period where selling the cheap and more is better model, I bet it won’t be long before Michael is selling the speed and quality angle. That’s how consultants make money, by follow the trends from the front.

[Bodhistaava]

I can't stand ya - Rosenbleum. You small like a cosultant to me. Your one of the reasons journalism is "cheapening" and why I'm getting out of the business.

[Bodhistaava]

PS - sorry I spelled your name wrong. BTW if you have time please enlighten me on WHY you think what your doing is a GOOD thing for TV? Money aside if you can f&*%*&^ do that...okay? Money aside...why?

[Bodhistaava]

Oh ya, you are a consultant..........

[Rosenblum]

First of all, I can not believe that I only have four starts while Mr. Bodhavista has five. Never the less, I was going to write in response to Cameragod that I really enjoy the give and take on this site. For the most part, it gives me exposure to the best professionals in the business, and these are ultimately the kinds of questions and issues I have to deal with in my work all the time. I have enormous respect for you guys, for your depth of knowledge and your devotion to quality. To answer Mr B's question, I do this because I believe in the democratization of television. that more than anything else. Television today, for the most part is terrible. It is terrible in terms of its intellectual content (not technical). It is for the most part vapid, banal and insipid. When you compare it to the world of print it is tragic. The average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. The average American reads one book a year. So what is on TV is important. And what is on TV, the range and depth is a function, in my opinion, of who has access to trying to make it. Television will not suddenly get better because Les Moonves wakes up one day and has an insight. Television will get better when millions of people try to make it...and only the best get published. This, after all, is how writing is done. Millions of people try to write a novel, and only the best get published. If we ran the world of print the way we run the world of TV, you would walk into Barnes and Nobles and all the best sellers would be by Katie Couris, Dan Rather and Matt Lauer. What kind of books would we have? What kind of vapid culture would we be? And TV is VASTLY more powerful and pervasive than print. So THAT, is why I do this. OK?

[cameragod]

The problem I have with that Michael is that no matter how many people try and make TV it still has to get past the same small taste impaired group that program TV.
More is not better, better is better.
I must admit I enjoy our chats to, It is good to think deeply about more than just the technical side of what we do every now and then even if I believe you are wrong at lest it helps me sort out what I think as to what I feel.

[imported_blank]

Hello Mr. Rosenblum. I can tell you that no one enjoys you here more then I. You defend yourself very well against the army here. Gotta respect that. But until you admit the real truth as to why you do """THIS""", until then -- "WAR".

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
I do this because I believe in the democratization of television. that more than anything else. Television today, for the most part is terrible. It is terrible in terms of its intellectual content (not technical). It is for the most part vapid, banal and insipid. NO!!!, You do this because you found a way to make a lot of money for as long as you can! You are good at that, no doubt. I agree with you that there is a lot of terrible TV out there, including reality shows shot with "IMX CREWS". If everyone did "their job" then all TV should be good, as for content some women like watching soaps, some guys like watching football and so on. NO one person will like everything. As long as everyone does their job TV should be good.

It is terrible in terms of its intellectual content (not technical).

Michael, with all due respect - what you're doing is making the technical part banal and very amateurish as well, that is the problem most of us have with you sir.

only the best get published
The problem is YOU are consulting for non qualified personnel to do network pieces (technical banal) !!!! I will come back and tell you more of what I think. Gotta go do things - I left you a cartoon at the uncensored :D , check it out.

Welcome back Mr. Rosenblum.

[NewsMan]

No thin skin, no offense taken, no PD-150. The problem with my town is population. I stay for my wife. That's the only reason why I'm not doing "bigger and better" things. I also do not "embrace" the small time thang. I do understand that it is what appears on the horizon and I don't want to fight it. That's all.

[Rosenblum]

Hey Ivan.
Many thanks for the cartoon. Now I feel like I belong. If you get a chance, check out my wife's latest series, WORLDS APART on National Geo. Again, all shot by my VJs with PD150s. Lemme know what you think.
best

[Ken]

Micheal, welcome back...
I don't have answers for the ills of our poor industry. But I am curious that you feel that part of our problems stem from the lack of participation by anyone who feels the urge to pick up a camera and start taping. I may disagree with you on that because I think they do. But first, how interesting that you state that
only the best get published. This, after all, is how writing is done. When I see much of what is published by the print media, I see many camps, just as in TV, ranging from liberal to right wing and from intellectual to the lowest common denominator to just inane. The world of print media is no better or worse than television as far as I can see. It has the same stratification. Look in the magazine section at your local newsstand. They are even some of the same players in both print and TV like your friends at NYTimes TV and the folks we liberals love to hate…Fox and their sister newsstand rags. Television will never be democratic…nor will print or radio. It is business. Democracy doesn’t work in business. The editor decides what stories will run in the newspaper. The EP will make that decision on the TV show, no matter how many times the staff may "vote" that story be done differently.

Now back to participation. Maybe you should explain what you mean by "democratization of television". I do know that pretty much every town in America has access for its citizens to actually make TV in their local public access stations, you know, the ones that carry the really poorly covered town meetings and the Thanksgiving Day parade. That is democratic television. Anyone can get access and make TV and pretty much say and do what they want outside of hard porn and bomb making instructions (and KKK meetings). However, I don’t see too many people clamoring to do it and exercise their democratic right to make it. And those who do are pretty bad at it (look at all the Saturday Night Live sketches that are based on local access TV)…though I give them credit for having the balls to at least try.

I think that the difference in making good TV and print comes down to the individuals who become the professionals in these fields. Those who want to make a good quality product will find a way to do it, whether low budget or high budget. I’ve seen some incredibly excellent very low budget TV as well as some amazingly putrid high end TV. I do my best to try to make the best product I can and to attempt to work on projects that may inform and make a difference in peoples lives. Using the best equipment I can get my hands on will make a difference in how the product looks. I’ve been lucky to be able to do that. I also have to shovel some sh*t as well to pay the bills. It’s great that you are trying to implement changes in this industry. We need people like you. But it would be so much better if instead of trying to implement a change that creates lots of crappy quasi-vjournalists (occasionally there will be a few that shine), you worked instead at making your clients understand that quality (both in production and information) is better than quantity. I truly believe that is the case but as I said, I don't have answers for the ills of our poor industry.

[dhart]

I'm old enough to remember the other "end of the world as we know it" discussion and that was the transition from 16mm film to video produdction. To be honest I predicted that any chucklehead that could zoom and focus a video camera would enter our business and they did. Many in our business decried the newbies inability to figure out "exposure","color temperature" and how to light a scene. And after a while most of those newcommers discovered there was a little more to it than met the eye and the good ones figured it out. Things like lighting, composition and really trying to tell a story rather than rearrange magnetic partials on the tape. The price of "entry" into this business has been dropping since I entered it some 30 years ago. The price of staying in this business has not. You gotta get good and stay that way.

[Tippster]

Television will get better when millions of people try to make it...and only the best get published. This, after all, is how writing is done ...hmmm...visions of MANY monkeys...with MANY typewriters...

[Rosenblum]

HMM. Many Monkeys. Ever hear of a woman named JK Rowling? 38 year old single mother, on welfare, unemployed, never wrote a thing in her life. She wakes up one day and has a passion to write a book. Harry Potter. She does it more as a way to try and feed her kids than anything else. She starts in pubs and writes on the back of cocktail napkins. Pretty soon she's home on an old typewriter in the kitchen. She's no 'professional' writer. Never did it before. The technology to write is cheap and easy to use. Are there lots of other people who sit down at typewriters and crank out junk? You bet. Can you predict who the next JK Rowling will be? probably not.

If we ran the world of print the way we currently run the world of TV, JK Rowling would wake up and feel the urge to write Harry Potter. In order to do that, or course, she would have to get a job at a big publishing house, cause that's where they make books. She would go down and interview with the head of HR and they might say, "I don't know JK, you never wrote a book before, you're 38 years old, a single mom, unemployed. you're not the kind of person we generally hire here at Random House". But JK is persuasive. She has an idea. So finally they relent. They give her a job as a receptionist. "You'll answer the phone and file things and make coffee, and if you're good, in a few years you can become a researcher. If you're good at that, in a few more years you can become an assistant writer. You help the real writers out. In a few more years, you'll become a writer, but of course, you can only write what the marketing department feels will sell. And really, you'll get to work with some of our big name writers like Katie Couric and Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer. You'll write. They'll put their pictures on the cover. What do you think?"

And so JK Rowling says, screw it,, and goes back on welfare instead.

Great literature does not come from corporate decisions, and it is generally not written by 'professionals'. It is written by people have a passion to tell a story. Yeah, there are a million monkeys out there with typewriters. Most of them will never write Harry Potter. But one of them did. That's what makes literature so rich and powerful. Everyone gets to try.

If typewriters cost $80,000 and had to be operated by professionals, JK Rowling would never have been able to afford to hire the crew to carry out her vision. But they don't. They cost very little. And the skill of running one is not so complex. Can anyone write Harry Potter? No, of course not. But would it have gotten written without the mess of a 'million monkeys'? Odds are totally against it.

A free press is messy. Up until now, TV has not been a free press. This technology has the potential to allow that. But yeah, they're messy....but you know what? That's generally a good thing.

[Thomas]

Geez, Mike, do you really buy that analogy? I mean, JK Rowling DID have to find a publisher for her book, afterall, and it took time for the book to come out where the possibility that the public might not have buy it loomed awfully large. Someone INVESTED in her in a different way that one invests in television productions.

I agree that the price of making video is vastly greater than that of writing a novel. But that's because the intial equipment costs are higher. I understand that what you are attempting to reduce is that introductory cost. However, if you look at both processes more closely (and more honestly) you have to admit that there are traditionally a lot more people and cost upfront in a television production (even a cheap one) than there are in writing a book. In the end, though, both endeavors are very expensive.

It's probably true that one person can conceive, produce, shoot and edit a video production much in the same way that one person authors a book. Yet you are asking the television auteur to be competent in at least three disciplines while the writer need only focus on one. Once the video production is made, one still has to peddle it, just like the book. But, ultimately, the TV program is FAR more temporal. It lasts in our consciousness for a nanosecond unlike the lifespan of a "Harry Potter" which sits there week after week on the best seller list, mocking parents for elevating its creator far beyond the means those middle class fools enjoy alone, outside the pyramid built for her on their collective wealth.

I disagree (if it can be called that) with you on one issue: You say you are working to democratize access to the television medium. But the television medium is falling apart. The advertising pie is getting sliced too thin and the corporations that control the larger television networks are trying to maintain profits. We (photographers) see the coupling of market weakness and the shift to the video journalist as a threat to overall quality in television production -- not just from a photographic standpoint, but from an editorial position as well. It doesn't add up that things will get better in your paradigm. We see them degrading even more.

I know you have proven that one person can do all of the tasks of making a television production. But, damn, who would want that? It sounds so lonely to me. I enjoy the collaboration which, even now is really only three people: the producer, me and the audio guy. Also, after your legion of production loners is developed, how long can they sustain themselves and what kind of "vision" of the world will they serve us? Here they are, basically alone, in far flung lands, following different cultures, burrowing into peoples' lives with no real lives of their own, no colleagues, no friends, no competitors, no lovers, just the PD-150 and a laptop and a lot of pressure to make something relevant and worthy of remuneration. I know it's working for you. But you are the tip of the spear. At the middle, I'll bet things aren't as rosy.

And, finally, JK Rowling is an abberration. For every JK Rowling there are ten thousand hopeful authors with overburdened hard drives. The cost of writing a novel is INCREDIBLY high. One has to devote so much time, effort and emotion, it's barely worth the effort when the rate of success is honestly appraised. Maybe a laptop is cheap, but a year, two years of your time is extremely valuable. Also few are able to finish what they start, so the time can be a complete waste. Even if they do cross the goal line and get the book sold, first runs are notoriously low and there are many phenoms who have written that great novel first time out of the blocks only to sink into obscurity: professor of English at a state college in a remote part of the intellectual wilderness.

Maybe it's a good thing that we don't make this stuff all that easy to do.

[cameragod]

Nicely said Thomas and you didn’t even have to bring up the issue of weather JK was a plagiarist or not.
The thing I see here is that already anyone can write TV (and seems to) it’s getting a “publisher” to back you that sets up barriers. Making the method of delivery to lower unviewable standards is not going to change anything except send more people to the DVD store.

[imported_blank]

Originally posted by Ken:
I do know that pretty much every town in America has access for its citizens to actually make TV in their local public access stations, ...Anyone can get access and make TV and pretty much say and do what they want... Very good point Ken. For over 20 years now, I have been telling people who want a start in TV to get involved in public access television. I also tell them not to expect to get a job at the CBC as a producer/editor/shooter/sound tech/live truck op/correspondent after only three weeks training on a handycam -laptop combination.

I'm not sure how public access works in the US but here in Canada every cable company that has a certain amount of subscribers (this includes all mid and large markets) must provide public access to all community citizens, subscribers or otherwise. In fact, some Canadian community programming rivals or even exceeds some regular TV programming - they have experienced staff members as well as newbies. Many have BETACAMS and good support gear. But that is not the important point. The important point is that out of those community newbies, a few will take all the "long term" training to heart and they will move on to bigger and better things, some all the way to network level. (in the real sense)

You see Mr. Rosenblum, most of us are NOT against newbies getting into TV production, on the contrary, many of us including myself see a need to bring new blood into television. The problem with your way Michael, you just want to put people through some fast three week assembly line - collect your check and tell them that they are prepared to make quality television. To make sure you keep getting new clients -- you consult the programmers, telling them that using quality crews with real gear is an archaic waste of money. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME DIG UP SOME OF YOUR ACTUAL CONSULTING WORDS. (words you preach when the cameramen & other techs aren't around)

A few bean counters only see $$$$ signs through your smooth talk and will hire one or two of your VJs. Then you claim this is the future and the proof is in "a network hiring one of your three week trained monkey wonders". What you DON'T want people to know is that in some cases, many cases, your VJs are actually costing the bean counters MORE MONEY & TIME. Due to the fact that they have to resend a REAL CREW to clean up the mess. I have seen this on the BBC, I have seen this on NBC. Unfortunately, in television sometimes you can't re-send a crew cause the story is long gone and the network is stuck with some God-Awful footage. I have seen this too. You also refuse to tell anyone that 99% of your VJs will never ever see any gig, some may get a gig but will ruin their REP cause they jumped-in improperly trained or prepared!!!

The real cameramen and other techs? You throw us some BS line, telling us that you are doing this to democratize television, to make it better. Don't know about the others here, but I ain't buying your smooth talkin' *.* You are NOT democratizing television. You are cheapening television to the point that there won't be any distinction left between HOME VIDEO and PROFESSIONAL VIDEO.

If you really wanted to make television better then you would offer proper training, you would offer proper gear and proper amount of people per crew. Of course that wouldn't be in your own financial interest.... If you really cared about the quality of television --you would NOT throw newbie VJ monkeys all by themselves to do everything.... No industry I know of does this.
I would have no beef with you - if you just fessed up to the truth and quit givin' everyone your excuses and made up stories.

Michael,
You don't see me writing much about "content" here. The reason is that it's not really my job, for the most part I take the CONTENT the producer(s) throw at me and I do with it visually the best that I can. Sure there are many occasions were I may have to find the content (editorial, visual & sound wise) there are times when I may have to EDIT the CONTENT, even do a bit of researching myself - but for the most part I just concentrate on my part of the job. I know, in your mind this is very archaic... :rolleyes:

[HDTV]

I'm still trying to figure out how my 50 VJ's are going to get to their stories (we only have 8 cars).

Also trying to figure out who produces my newscasts since all my producers are now out shooting stories.

And just who answers the phones?

The newsroom secretary has a hot lead on a 6-year old's birthday party.

Everyone may have a story...but it takes someone special to tell it.

[Rock]

With reference to Mr. Rosenblum's JK Rowling analogy. No doubt there are "diamonds in the rough" out there. However what you fail to state in your analogy is that for every JK Rowling out there, there are thousands of "monkeys" producing absolutely horrible novels that either
1 - never make to print or
2 - if they do..... end up on the 99 cent discount table almost as soon as they hit the book store.

The same goes for your Television production "monkeys" One in every thousand you crank out may be that diamond in the rough... but that sir... does not make the ideology a success.

[Rosenblum]

Well, it certainly is a pleasure to be back! Always enjoy this particular forum. So much to respond to. But let me say this: First, I think we have to make a distinction between 'news' and general TV production. The greatest difference, of course, is that news, at least for now, will be produced in-house. This is to that news sources can defend and protect their content as their own. They can not trust their brand and integrity to outsiders with cameras. (I should say outside VJs or journalists), Of course, as in the world of print, there will grow to be corps of trusted freelancers with whom the stations have a long term and trusted relationship (just as your clients have with you now), but the 'democratization' of television is a far broader subject.

Let me deal with the news issue first. Ivan is right, in that, cost cutting pressure will inevitably drive news organizations to find ways to..cut costs. This is going to happen. It is a natural consequence of the 600+ cable environment. Every new cable channel fractionalizes the existing advertiser base, generating less dollars per hour, because there are overall less viewers per hour per channel. This is true with news as with everything else. For you guys, this is a problem and an opportunity. The problem is the natural pressure to cut costs in diminishing revenue environment. The opportunity is hundreds of new potential clients ready to purchase your services.

Again, back to news. I find comments like 'how am I going to have 50 VJs with only 8 cars really really funny. It reminds me of when computers first came into offices in the 1980s, and replaced typewriters..and incidentally, typists. How am i going to have 100 computers in my office when I only have 8 plugs! Answer that one, huh! Jeez. OK, lets say for lack of creativity, your station can not figure out how to handle 50 cameras on the street every day. You decide to sit with 6..or 8,. But your competitor figures this one out (like paying miles for use of private cars. (how do you think newspapers handle 50 reporters? Do you think the paper has 50 newspaper cars?). but enough of this. OK. your station sits with 8 cameras on the street, The competition goes to 50. Really...who do you think gets more breaking news stories? Who gets more enterprise stories. Who has more coverage? You tell me. (I LOVE this. What about the cars? Great! Gotta work that one into a speech next time).

OK. Now, you guys all smell trouble. And for good reason. Yes, this is going to happen. This business is going to change. But there is also OPPORTUNITY for those of you who can manage to see where this change is headed. All of those 600 channels are going to need...in fact DO need programming..and LOTS of it. Where do you think the content for most cable channels comes from? It comes from independent small production companies. And what is a production company. It is you! You already have the gear. you know how to make TV. You DONT have to do it alone. Team up with other people. Get together. Channels like TLC pay $200,000 and hour, plus for programs. Isn't that better than what you are making now? This is the future...and you will find, if you let yourself go there, that it is a far brighter future than the present.

You know the story of the American railroads? They were the economic powerhouse of the 19th century and the people who owned them thought the party would never end. In the 1950s, when the Eisenhower interstate highway system was built, the railroads went into steep decline. It was just cheaper to move things on trucks than on trains..and vastly more flexible. Most of the railroad people went broke. But they went broke because they forgot what business they were in. They were so busy defending railroad transport rates....that they forgot they were in the business of moving things from one place to another. You are in the business of making content for TV. Look at the marketplace. Look at the realities of what is happening. Adapt and prosper. (This, by the way, is what I get paid for...not degrading the quality of TV. It is for looking at the interface between the marketplace and technology and making an assessment of what I think it will mean). You can take it or leave it.

[cameragod]

So realizing he lost the first argument Michael moves swiftly to the next, except we already had this one and he had lost that too. I just can’t wait till next year and Michael has moved to selling the exciting new quality, speed model to management, “Less means more!” including the 6 week get the VJ’s up to speed on big cameras dojo.

[Rosenblum]

What was the first argument that I lost? I think I missed that decision.

[Nino]

Channels like TLC pay $200,000 and hour, plus for programs. Michael, Which one of the programs (30 min.) that you produced with your VJs, or produced by other using the VJs style, cost TLC $100,000

[Lensmith]

I wrote a smart mouthed reply to Michael yesterday, read it, then deleated it since I sounded too much like an ass.

I agree with Michael on a few points. We should be more involved in producing product. I've got several irons in the fire here in Central America doing just that.

Still...the newspaper/tv newsroom comparison doesn't work. Newspaper people don't haul a bunch of camera gear around. Even if it is smaller and lighter. They also don't have the never ending deadlines television does. Web sites don't count since none of those generate revenue.

Even with smaller cameras the support gear, takes space, has value, and doesn't get covered by most personal insurance policies. Paying for milage instead of supplying vehicles doesn't balance the costs.

Mr. Rosenmblum has his agenda. It's not about creating a new and better way of television. It's about getting people to pay to take his classes at his school.

Take a look at the success stories he promotes on his web site and you'll find people who did one or two projects...then nothing. No more work.

Those are the success stories! Imagine the majority who never get any job!!!

NY-1 continues to be an example of how the Rosenblum theories fall apart when put into the real world economic formula for survival. Michael was there in the beginning. Selling the same theories. They failed.

I give Mr. Rosenblum credit for not giving up but...over and over again, the results are the same. He points to programs on the BBC 24 hour channel and other off market cable shows as proof his way is the future. I feel it's an indication his way is second best and can't cut it wth the big boys where the real profit is ;o)

[Rosenblum]

I appreciate the civilized debate, but I just want to make sure we get the facts right. First of all, it is not the BBC's 24hour news service that i am converting, but rather their national domestic network. All of it. I am also working with ARD in Germany, RTL in Germany, TV4 in Sweden and TVL in Belgium. More, I am sure, will follow. I also did Voice of America TV and Oxygen Media in this country, NY1 was a long long time ago and a very different technology was in place.

As for the programs that have been shot and produced by my VJs perhaps you have seen some fo them:

TLC: Trauma, Life in the ER (Emmy Award Winner)
Paramedics
Police Force
Code Blue
Maternity Ward
Labor and Delivery
Breaking News
Baby Story (Emmy Award winner)
110 Stories (Emmy nominee)
Killer Virus (Emmy Award winner)

Discovery: Surfers
Las Vegas
Cheerleaders

National Geo: Doctors Without Borders
Worlds Apart

enough? There are more, but I can't think of them at the moment.

[Nino]

Channels like TLC pay $200,000 and hour, plus for programs. As for the programs that have been shot and produced by my VJs perhaps you have seen some fo them:

TLC: Trauma, Life in the ER (Emmy Award Winner)
Paramedics
Police Force
Code Blue
Maternity Ward
Labor and Delivery
Breaking News
Baby Story (Emmy Award winner)
110 Stories (Emmy nominee)
Killer Virus (Emmy Award winner)

Discovery: Surfers
Las Vegas
Cheerleaders

National Geo: Doctors Without Borders
Worlds Apart

enough? There are more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Michael, do I understand that you or your VJs have been paid $100,000 by TLC and NG to produce each of these 30 min. segments?

[Rosenblum]

No no no. We developed and produced the shows for TLC etc... The VJs shoot and edit the shows. The point is that when we started, my wife and I shot and edited the first shows ourselves out of our living room. You can do this too. You've got the gear and you've got the know how. Cable channels pay anywhere from 50K to 300K per hour.

[Rosenblum]

Let me make this even clearer. Yes. TLC and Discovery and Food Channel pay YOU (or me) for the delivered show, and yes, they pay those kinds of numbers.

[HDTV]

Michael:

Please fell free to quote the car issue in future speeches. Any thinking individual who is listening will immediately see that your VJ method has holes in it big enough to, well...drive a car through.

I still can't stop laughing at your comparing a car to an electrical outlet. The operating expenses of putting massive numbers of people in the field, no matter how "creatively" you do it (short of screwing over your employees), will quickly eat up the capital savings of buying low cost equipment.

As far as producing programming for cable nets, I totally agree that we should all be doing that...I just don't agree that VJ's & PD-150's are necessary to do it.

[Nino]

No no no. We developed and produced the shows for TLC etc... The VJs shoot and edit the shows. The point is that when we started, my wife and I shot and edited the first shows ourselves out of our living room. You can do this too. You've got the gear and you've got the know how. Cable channels pay anywhere from 50K to 300K per hour. Michael, isn’t this misleading?
You just drop the $100,000 for a 30 min. episode down to $25,000, that's a big gap. $25,000 isn't much for any decent 30 min program. Why do you even bother to mention the $200,000/300,000 per hour when none of your VJs will ever even get close to these types of productions. For the high budgets programs, clients will hire experienced crews with real equipment.

Also, aren’t most the above shows produced and edited by your wife’s production company? How many of these shows are produced by individual VJ editing on a laptop in their living room.

Let me make this even clearer. Yes. TLC and Discovery and Food Channel pay YOU (or me) for the delivered show, and yes, they pay those kinds of numbers. You are generalizing the industry to make your numbers and VJs look good. I'm not quesioning how much a cable company is willing to pay for a show, I know that already because I worked on many higher budgeted shows. Those high budgets are reserved for well trained and skilled professional using real production methods and real equipment, not for your VJs.

I'm quesioning how much are they paying for a VJ style produced show. Are any of the above shows, produced entirely by VJs, anywhere near the high production budgets that you keep bringing up.

[Photog Cowboi]

Michael:

Can I work with you? I love using technology in that manner. If I could...I would use a Dell Laptop with a Wireless connection, a firewire connection and avid xpress to cut stories fast!

[Thomas]

I love the contrast between the two posts above. Beautiful.

Mike, you're a patient guy. Thanks for lighting the board up again. Have a great holiday -- same to everyone as well.

[Rosenblum]

Ok
Lemme explain both these points very carefully. First, with respect to the 50 VJ newsroom model. This is NOT theoretical. I am already doing this with the BBC (not 24 hour news, but local and regional newsrooms across the BBC), and it works. And we DONT buy 50 cars either! Really, it works like a newspaper. Very cost effective. And as you can imagine, not everyone does one story in one day. That is one of the advantages.

Second, the cable rates. OK. Listen carefully. For VJ produced programs, (and I have done more than 300 of them), the rates that cable channels pay average over 100K per hour. Average. Some are less, some are more. They run the spectrum from 40K for a half hour on the low end to more than 300K per hour on the high end. All of these shows are done by VJs. Can I be any clearer?

And you don't have to shoot these with PD150s, it just makes it easier to get into the business if you do. Since you guys all own rigs, (and you can edit on FCP or DV Express - no one seems to argue this...but i guess that is because this is a shooter's site, and not an editors. if it were an editors, we would hear ad infinitum how FCP is not Avid. Fine. It still delivers the product. In any event. All you guys own rigs. You all know how to shoot. All it takes is an idea (or several ideas), and a pitch meeting...which any of you could get. You all have sufficient creds to get one or many. And you have sufficient creds to get a deal to produce programming.

Cable DOES NOT CARE if you shoot with a PD150 or with digibeta, so long as the show is good.

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

[Rosenblum]

And photog cowboy. Feel free to contact me offline. I am always looking for people who can shoot and cut and have strong technical background. Always.

[DFW Nights]

Originally posted by HDTV:
The operating expenses of putting massive numbers of people in the field, no matter how "creatively" you do it (short of screwing over your employees), will quickly eat up the capital savings of buying low cost equipment.You have to compare apples to apples here. Stringers, freelancers, and other contractors are not the same as staffers. Stations have been creatively screwing those stringers for many, many years now.

It seems like some of you are more concerned with protecting your precious turf than anything else.

[Lensmith]

Originally posted by DFW Nights:
quote: Originally posted by HDTV:
The operating expenses of putting massive numbers of people in the field, no matter how "creatively" you do it (short of screwing over your employees), will quickly eat up the capital savings of buying low cost equipment.You have to compare apples to apples here. Stringers, freelancers, and other contractors are not the same as staffers. Stations have been creatively screwing those stringers for many, many years now.

It seems like some of you are more concerned with protecting your precious turf than anything else. I wasn't aware that Michael was promoting making everyone freelance? I think we can agree he wasn't...at least not yet ;o)

However when it comes to the equipment used to produce the product, the freelancer with the better gear produces the better product and gets the better clients. Period. I'm experiencing that right now. More calls are coming in from people not wanting little camera packages. The freelancers here in my area who've dumped their Beta gear and offer PD-150 packages are not getting the calls they used to. The calls they do get are bottom dollar clients looking for cheap and not paying enough to make the investment worthwhile.

I know Michael has cleared up my earlier misconception that he was involved in the BBC 24 hour channel. One of my long time freelance friends here signed a deal to use a PD-150 for the BBC 24 hour channel. He's regrets it since the money and time involved is not working to meet his needs, even with the lower camera package overhead.

It's not a matter of protecting turf. It's a matter of understanding the playing field and knowing what will and won't fly. "Fly" in the sense of having a career and making enough to live on. This is a guy who used to shoot for ABC net for years. He too bought the "little cam is the only future" fairy tale and is now suffering.

I'm not saying the future isn't in smaller gear. However quality is what still counts the most with the serious clients. When the gear gets to the level of quality expected then you'll see more of a switch...yet the small gear continues to ignore technological realities.

HDTV for one. An overall, top quality video image for another. Looking "almost as good" isn't the same as "good".

I had to smile when Michael mentioned the Final Cut Pro/Avid debate. It's a good example of something with a lot of bells and whistles compared to a more basic product that gets the job done.

You can expand that thinking somewhat into the camera gear. It's all a matter of what clients you are going after and how little you can accept as payment for your hard work and gear investment.

We all know just buying the best camera in the world doesn't automatically mean you'll have clients banging down your door to hire you. The same is true if you buy a small, less expensive camera and lap top editor.

Success is all about meeting the needs of the clients available and choosing whether you want to offer a McDonalds level of product or something which elicits a higher payoff and more respect which leads to more work. Building a cycle which generates more work and more profit.

There's always room in the world for another fast food restaurant. As long as you accept you'll only make a fast food level of profit for your efforts.

I could never take much pride in my work wearing a paper hat and pushing a third rate product ;o)

[NewsMan]

Scenario:

Medium market shop that uses Sony Beta SP and has shooters that don't show so well.

8 Cameras on average, 2 are down at all times.

Price to repair each camera - $3,000-$5,000

Yearly repair bill - $50,000 (minimum)

Number of PD -150's for $50,000 = 17

To me, it seems that using PD-150's as a DISPOSABLE camera would be more cost effective by far (bean counters take notice). It also seems to me that a PD-150, in an average shooter's hands, will produce much better picture quality than if they had a BetaCam (theory is that it is much easier to white balance and iris in the PD-150 than a BETA. Not to most of us... but you know what I mean - "It's not the camera, it's the shooter!). I also imagine the number of man hours on sick leave for sore backs would go down (at least the complaining would stop). Not only that, but it makes the ability to do multiple camera shoots much easier and quicker and all reporters could be issued cameras "just in case".

Something to ponder. Would this work? Dunno. Is it practical? Could be. What do you think???

:confused:

[Lensmith]

Originally posted by NewsMan:
To me, it seems that using PD-150's as a DISPOSABLE camera would be more cost effective by far (bean counters take notice). The sad reality is they never accept the idea of "disposable". They buy cheaper and then expect them to last as long as the higher priced gear built to last.

Your idea has legs until those same bean counters start having to replace the "disposable" cameras. Then they complain. Probably blaming the photogs instead of the less durable gear which was never designed to take the beating of day to day shooting.

[Rosenblum]

I see we are all escaping kitchen duties in the same place! I agree with Lensmith. The freelancers will be those with the best skills and the best gear - increasingly the gear that the stations will not make the capital expenditures to purchase. When they buy PD150s, while not thinking of them as disposable, exactly, they do tend to think of them as having a limited, probably 3 year, lifespan. In the BBC conversion, 2 have been stolen and one destroyed so far (out of about 400 in play at the moment). the reaction of managament, a shrug of the shoulders and go out and buy another one.
Have a happy.

[Austin Reeves]

Originally posted by Douglas:
quote: If I were running a taxi business, I would rather buy 30 Crown Victorias than one Porsche. Wouldn't you? Your analogy is crap. A Porsche is a nice car, but unsuited as a Taxi cab. I'd rather have one Crown Victoria than 30 rickshaws. I'd rather have a few quality cameras & crews, and than 30 jackasses with substandard gear. Why do you think that more is better? That baffles me. Quantity over quality, must be up for a promotion to management.
:)

[cameragod]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
When they buy PD150s, while not thinking of them as disposable, exactly, they do tend to think of them as having a limited, probably 3 year, lifespan. In the BBC conversion, 2 have been stolen and one destroyed so far (out of about 400 in play at the moment). the reaction of managament, a shrug of the shoulders and go out and buy another one.
Have a happy. That’s funny because the ITN experience was of the first 12 mini cameras they bought only 3 were still working by the end of the first year and none of the radio mics were. That was largely because they were in pool circulation, always a bad idea.
As to the maintenance cost well Sony say that XDCAM is maintenance free. Digital Beta quality, no running costs… suddenly those disposable cameras look a bit more expensive.

[cameragod]

Look no offence to BBC local news but it’s not that they are expected to make a stellar quality product. They do a 15 min show, paid for by public funding, that doesn’t need to rate. RVO’s of cats stuck up trees, court appearances and art gallery openings not exactly real day to day news. But I bet the 6 camera coverage of Fluffy’s rescue makes it all worth while.
:)

[Rosenblum]

Escape from the table: the camera kits are all personal issue and we find that people take very good care of the gear. And hey, the local TV news is just like and just as good as the local news in the States. In some cases better. Come on man, its the BBC, not public tv. and its not 15 minutes, but just like in the states, breakfast cut ins, lunch, half hour at 6:30 and another half at 11. Come on, watch it if you wanna talk about it. Off to the bird.

[imported_blank]

So much info here - so little time to respond, so I will only touch up on a few issues....

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Cable DOES NOT CARE if you shoot with a PD150 or with digibeta, so long as the show is good. What does that mean????
I think most of the freelancers here do shoot for cable every now and then. Personaly , I don't produce the whole product by myself (as mentioned earlier I'm a shooter) but most producers I know (for high-end cable) have very, very strict GEAR standards. Not just the camera but all support gear and just as importantly ALL POST PRODUCTION GEAR. Along with experienced folks running this gear.

Michael, even digi-beta won't cut it for some DISCOVERY-HD programming. Nino does a lot of work for ESPN (cable) why don't you ask him what kind of a camera package he needs???

Sure, there are some show producers that skimp, but for the most part these are """one non hit wonders" whom in the first year ruin their rep and never get a real gig again.

Take "COPS" a show that uses real betacam crews, a show that has been on network PRIME TIME for over seventeen years. On the other hand take some cops type rip-off handycam shows, they come and go....and get replaced by "RE-RUN COPS" episodes -- on CABLE!. Why the hell do you think the producer of "cops" has been using real beta crews for 17 years. Why doesn't he hire your VJs, or some other handycam VJs for $5 per hr instead???

I grant you that there may be a need for some low budget programs, to fill the non prime time cable programming void. Also, I am in favour of first response stringer footage to be purchased by the networks as well. How ever they don't need your ( $ third party $ ) vj service for this.

The problem is, you want all level programming to take a dive. You want the networks to dump their international betacam play-outs, in favour of sending footage via cell phone - (soon to be SL11 CARTOON) . You want to get rid of international beta crews doing stand ups, in favour of a three week vj monkey doing the stand up all by him/herself, taking care of correspondence, camera/sound, all the way to your cheap way of play out - see your starter thread post!. Tell me Mr. Rosenblum, if all these positions and gear are so archaic, a waste of money, why the heck should they pay guys like you so much. What will happen when the next Mr. Rosenblum comes in and says that your way is archaic and he/she wants only $1,000 per hour of cable programming??? It will happen. Some consultant will tell cable that paying anything over $500 per hour of programming is archaic and a huge waste of money. It will happen.

I know L.A. producers that produce low budget shows, they buy first response video for some episodes, but you know what? The stand ups are done using experienced beta crews and the post work is taken to REAL Los Angeles post houses. So maybe the show takes in $65,000 per hour (finished) but NO ONE PERSON sees that money!!! You look at the show credits and you will find that many people were involved in the show, INCLUDING REAL BETA CREWS and REAL POST HOUSE work. The first response VJs take in an average of $500 per half hour finished episode & the producer has a HUGE POOL to choose from.

Yeah, the producer I mentioned, the money he gets - he can't keep to himself. He needs to hire crews and pay for post production, etc, you on the other hand charge a little less, but you keep most of the money instead of paying for proper pre, production and post production people/gear...

Of course, the product will lack in quality and the cable guys aren't gettin' such a deal after all, not to mention slave monkey labour....

LAPTOPS
Originally posted by Rosenblum:
...this is a shooter's site, and not an editors. if it were an editors, we would hear ad infinitum how FCP is not Avid. Fine. It still delivers the product. In any event. Michael, sometimes I find it amazing that you used to be a CBS network producer for so long. You seem to be so --much out of touch--. First of all, not all laptops are created equally (some have only cheap consumer dv codecs - some can have fully un-compressed D1 level codecs) BTW - both AVID and FCP may have cheap dv codecs all the way up to D1 uncompressed codecs.

I will grant you that the mid-level laptops may be good enough for quick eng-news quick cuts-only edits BUT you are talking about posting a whole one hour program (graphics and all) on these. You are so out of touch Michael.

Take a CBS network program like SURVIVOR. Did you know that they fly into location half a dozen or more FULL SIZED AVID packages along with AROUND THE CLOCK techs and FULL TIME editors???? I bet they need a 747 jumbo jet to take in all the post gear. I know, I know, how archaic! On top of that they have another half a dozen FULL SIZE avids & BROADCAST QUALITY GRAPHICS in Los Angeles doing the final post work - gees Michael!!!

YOUR NUMBERS
Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Channels like TLC pay $200,000 and hour, plus for programsMr. Rosenblum, let's be realistic here. Those numbers do not represent the amount of money one of your three week trained VJs should expect. Those numbers may represent a finished product but I doubt that one VJ with a handycam-laptop combo will make that kind of living.

The problem with you is
A) You want to charge the network 35 percent of what a show like cops charges
B) You tell the network, you are saving them 65 percent of costs
C) Your actual saving is 95 percent due to the fact that you produce the show using a monkey vj with a monkey camera and monkey post production methods. (You keep all the savings while your vj makes $5 per hr.
D) The network sees lack of viewership due to lack of quality and cancels the show
E) You move on to the next project while putting another nail in TV quality.
F) You justify this by saying less dollars per hour

Soon, the cable folks are gonna catch on to you. They will realize that they don't need you. They may need the 5 dollar per hour handycam vj monkeys to fill the void , but they will keep the profit themselves thus they won't need you.


The BBC
I watch BBC world and for the most part they use FULLY experienced real camera crews along with broadcast quality satellite play-outs. They use first responce content stringers too. Once in a blue moon they will use a VJ filler and I can spot the lack of quality within 2 seconds. This is were I seen 'em re-do stories using real crews, I swear!

Thanks for the laughs (again) Mr. Rosenblun, hope you and your family had a wonderful thanksgiving.

Truth is, without the experienced techs and corresponds and producers, to hold your monkey VJs hand or clean up their mess your VJs would be totally non existent.

Keep tellin' the naive how after three weeks they can rake in $200,000 per hr off cable... :rolleyes:

-----------
sorry for being so brief :D

[Nino]

I think I have wasted enough of my time on this subject and it’s about time to put a lid on it.

Michael is not a consultant, he is a salesman, He throws around big numbers to give the impression (to the impressionable ones) that they can share the wealth of an industry that desperately needs programs by simply getting involved with a minimum equipment and training, especially if they take the 3 weeks VJ training course.
He reminds me of those commercial at 3 am: “Be part of a multibillion dollars industry, take our screenwriting course, scripts sell for as much as $2,000,000.00 Get your share of the wealth”.

When someone asks him more detailed budget questions, like I’ve been doing for the past six months, he gives those evasive answers that usually start as: “Listen to me carefully” and tells you about one success story without even mantioning the other 100,000 failures. And Michael will usually ends with “is that clear?

Trust me on this one, anyone under the illusion that you can spend 3 weeks taking Michael’s VJ course, buy a PD150 and a computer and potentially being paid, even the smallest cable company’s budgets to produce your program, then I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you for a very good price. You stand better odds to make money if you sell the PD150 and the computer and buy lotto tickets.

To start with, if you are a nobody in the business you will never even get past the receptionist, never mind seeing a production executive.

Providing you have a uncle in the business and make it thru the receptionis, to pitch your idea you will need to produce a good pilot program for a potential series. In order to create a good program you have to be a good producer, cameraman and editor. You will also need lots of cash because producing a decent 24 minute pilot isn’t easy or cheap. Unless you have a very exceptional idea, if you pitch any program on paper make sure to use the soft and gentle kind so you can put that paper to better use. Remember, cable companies are inundated with ideas and programs, on the contrary of Michael wants you to believe, the supply far exceed the demand.

Unless your idea for a program is very unique and proprietary, you have no protection whatsoever. Nothing will prevent the cable company from taking your idea and run with it, or commission a production company like the one that employs Michael's wife to produce the series. Let’s face it, no cable company will trust or give any production money to an individual that have no experience or proven track record.

The other reality is that most cable companies do not pay for most of their programming, even big ones like ESPN use a barter system, and if you are lucky and have a proven record they might share some of the production costs. This means that your program must have commercial value to them. If they have accepted and you have successfully negotiated running times and gathered all the demographic and audience information, you must find one or more sponsors to pay for the production and generate your profit margins. In exchange the sponsors will receive a number of advertising spots in that program. The cable company will sell the rest of the spots and that’s how they make money.

And finally, good cable companies do not use VJ styles of productions. Remember “The Season” on ESPN, right Michael? It doesn’t take a production genius to know that a good and well equipped crew using standard and organized production methods will produce in 2 days what a VJ will do in one week, so when you put numbers together, good is cheaper, this is not my opinion, this has been proven by production executives over and over. This is why Michael doesn’t answer number questions about budgeting and this is why quality companies like ESPN or Discovery do not use VJs.

[Rosenblum]

wrong. cable companies do not barter with production companies, they commission completed programs on a work for hire basis. wrong also. I would never recomment producing something without a commission. you are just wasting your time. I am happy to answer any of your questions about how to do this if you want to learn. But I don't think you want to learn anything. I think you just want to rant.

[HDTV]

Michael:

A few questions.

Roughly what percentage of the cost of a show is "above the line" for management, etc. and what percentage is for the actual production?

Is it necessary (or advisable) to partner up with a company already providing shows to a particular net?

Is an agent necessary...and if so, what kind of $$ are they looking to get...retainer, flat fee, cut of the show, etc?

Getting a foot in the door seems to be the most difficult part of this process...agree?

[Rosenblum]

First, never use an agent. The cablecasters almost never buy from agents. Agents, such as William Morris can be useful later on in your career when you are packaging materials and projects particularly for larger clients, but not agents to begin with. If you are going to make a sale it cable it is because the cable broadcaster believes that YOU can deliver, that you believe in the project and that you understand what they want. the nature of the personal realtionship here can not and should not be underestimated.

Getting your foot in the door is obviously the hardest part, the first time. This takes time, and again is a based on developing personal relationships. Most cable companies have fairly small commissioning and acquisition departments and you can get a pitch session with them with a little personalized effort - ie, emails, letters, calls. The first thing it to target specific people, not go generically. If you can't get to the top VP for development, you can generallly get to a producer somewhere in the company. Take a look at the credits for a show you like and write some letters - google the person first so you know something about them, then write. And write a lot. People who have been producers often become VPs for development. For example, Steve Schwartz who was the show producer for Changing Spaces is now the head of the style channel. You guys are all freelancers, you know what it is to build a relationship with assigment desks or news directors or producers, this is the same thing. This is not a mystery and it is really no more diffiult than what you do now, just slightly different.

Do not partner with a production company. They will steal your ideas (the cable company will not, they dont have in house production capability). it may be that if you pitch an idea that they like and they are uncertain as to your ability to deliver, they may partner you with a production company they feel comfortable with the first time. That is fine, but get a lawyer and get the details in writing.

The above the line, below the line division is difficult to clarify. It depends on the show and how it is done. Clearly many reality shows don't require that much in the way of staffing, if you can sell a good simple concept, and for the pilot you are probably the shooter and the producer. if you get fortunate enough to go to series, well that is another story entirely. Then it gets more complicated.

Let me emphasize that this is not easy but it is not so hard either, and it happens every day. The thing is that most of you guys already have the skills and most of the credentials to get started in this business. You have more experience than you think when it comes to this kind of stuff. What you are lacking ithe know how of how to get started. You know the freelance camera business really well, but this is no more complex or difficult than that is, just a different approach. But it is a growing market and it can be done.

[Nino]

wrong. cable companies do not barter with production companies Wrong Michael, very very wrong. There are plenty of production companies that produce programs for cable using exclusively some sort of barter system arrangement. I know it because I work on many of these programs. Most outdoor shows such as fishing, hunting, boating, etc. are produced this way, programs running on ESPN included.

Bartering comes in different shapes and sizes, in fact when you hear “this program is brought to you by……” good chances are that it’s a bartered program. Even golf tournament and other major sport events are produced within a barter system.

For a cable company, there are many benefits in acquiring programs by bartering television time. The most obvious of course is that they don’t have to outlay any or very little cash for productions. The sponsors usually have available all demographic information about the targeted viewers thus making it easier for the cable company to sell the balance of the time spots.

Producers and sponsors of these types of programs can also benefit from a strong aftermarket life of the program. In fact, edited version of the program is often advertised within the program itself.

One word of caution, advertising and marketing people of potential sponsoring corporations are accustomed to high quality and experience. Show up with a PD150, a notebook computer and little training or skills and they will laugh you right out of the door.

But I don't think you want to learn anything. I think you just want to rant. I’m not ranting Michael and I haven't stopped learning yet and I hope I never will.
Unlike you I have nothing to gain by spending my time here, I’m just offering over 30 year of experience to anyone who wants to learn and I also hope that I can prevent someone from making some stupid and expensive mistake. Our is still a business and it should be handled as a business, when the numbers don’t add up, something is definitely wrong.

You keep telling us that your system is the way of the future and is cheaper to produce, you might be right, but give us the numbers, we are big boys, we can figure it out, and if you're right you'll be a hero.

[Rosenblum]

OK Nino. Here are the numbers as best as I can give them to you, based on my having made, produced and sold several hundred hours to cable. Personally, I have never even run into anyone who wanted to barter, or anyone who wanted to talk to me about sponsorship. That, in my experience, is solely the province of the cable company. All I have ever done is pitch concepts and produce and deliver shows.
All work I have done has either been work for hire or deficit. I did deficit when I ran NY Times TV, because they had the pockets to deficit and wanted to retain rights. Other than that, it is always work for hire.

Once you get a client interested in an idea, they will give you some sense of what they are willing to spend for an hour or half hour of programming. There is some flexibility in this, but they have a pretty clear range. Again, it runs the spectrum, from 50 on the low end to 300 on the high end for an hour. They will expect you to submit, along with the written proposal, a detailed budget. This is all in. Your fees as producer, the camera crew or VJ, the editor, rental of editing gear, rental of camera gear, travel, meals, rental cars, phone. Everything. If you are doing a great deal of the work yourself, you still put in the budget lines for each item. For a one-hour this is possible. If you want to work with someone else, or a few other people, that works fine also. As someone here pointed out, it is pretty hard to do an hour alone, and very lonely as well. You'll need support. PAs, research, editing, whatever you feel you need in the way of support. Pay them. Once everyone agrees on the budget and the proposal and the timeline for delivery, you are in business. Payment is generally 1/3 onsigning, 1/3 on completion of primary shooting, and 1/3 on delivery. Pilots also generally include graphics, music, narration and so on. All of this is budgeted for. From a budget of 100K, how much can you pocket in the end? Its a function of how much of the work you can carry yourself, and how much you want or need other people. Can you make a nice living at this? I think so. Is this doable in todays cable market? I think so. Can anyone do this? no. but some people will find that they can. Many who might have thought that they could not. Someone, after all, has to fill all those hours on cable every day. Does it matter if you shoot this with a PD150 or a digibeta? No. Not really, so long as it looks good. (OK Ivan, i know). Does it matter if you edit this on an Avid or final cut pro? No, again so long as the final product looks good.
is this helpful?

[NewsMan]

Is to me, Michael. I see validity from both sides. I believe production like the FORD Truck commercials, 60 minutes, and Dataeline will be the job of experienced crews with top-notch equipment. For the rest who don't have the money (yet) to buy a 100k worth of gear that will be outdated before it's paid off... they will fill the ten trillion hours of video needed by the ten billion cable stations. Seems simple enough to me. I see the market as having room for both, making this tit for tat argument relatively moot.

[Nino]

Michael, I really appreciate you trying to come clean with numbers, but you know darn well that these are not the number that I’m looking for. What a client pay for a program is meaningless; the bottom line is what’s important and you can arrive at that only after you have added all your expenses. Costs are the numbers I’m looking for.

Why do I take this argument so personally? Because I take a great deal of pride on what I do and you made a bold and arogant statement way back that I did not appreciate. You told that us, the fully educated and well-equipped veterans with our traditional method of production are obsolete and if we want to stay in business we better change to what you preach or we’ll be history. Well, after learning what you do, how you do it, and have calculated those few bits of budget info that you have divulged, and most importan seeing the work that you do, I can prove that you are absolutely wrong. Experienced and educated production people with real equipment can do a job more efficiently, infinitely better and most importantly we can deliver the finals product faster and at a much more price effective that your VJs can. The main difference between you and us is not the cost, you are a salesman and you aggressively market your product while us as a group has always failed to do that in a correct business manner. We rely heavily on our reputation for the phone to ring.

Let me explain to you why we would come way ahead and you would be the obsolete one if we would only add a little marketing to our services, listen carefully, this is business. I (we) work with a high and well deserved profit margin, my 200K package is all paid for and what I’m charging now for it goes into the bank for anticipated purchase of future technology. I have built-in latitude. I will never do it because I don’t really want those type of jobs at this stage of my career, I turned down 4 separate offers to go to Iraq and I’m not about to spend three weeks in a jungle, for me roughing it on the road is when I don’t find chocolate on my pillow at night. But if needed and I want the job bad enough I can meet your price and offer clients a considerably better product, and still make a good profit. You and your VJs are already giving the best you have to offer at the lowest cost, that’s your trademark. Simply, you have no place to go.

[Rosenblum]

Nino,
I don't know what other numbers you want. The costs are the VJ salaries, (which are around 2K-3K per week, the editor, who runs about 2500 per week, the equipment rentals, (which is your own gear, for hte most part, just amortized), airfares, car rentalsk hotels. A 15% production fee is standard, and after that, profit margins run anywhere from 20 percent upwards, depending on how much of the work you do yourself, how tightly the shooting is done, (saves time on the edit), how fast you can turn around the edited version, and so on. So for a 100K budget project, how much can you pocket? 15K if you hire everyone and just take the production fee to a good chunk if you shoot it and script it yourself. Are there any specifics you want to know. I am not trying to hide anything. Also I agree with the above, there is always going to be room for the high end FORD commercial or 60 Minutes shoot, but there's lots of room opening up in the rest of the industry.
And I agree with you about Iraq, I have two of my own VJs there now, Scott Anger who is shooting his third Frontline there, and Mark Perkins. Makes me damned nervous. Anger's wife is my assistant. All very tense these days. He called yesterday and said some a**hole drove by in a car and tossed a hand grenade into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel which is where all the journos are staying, betacam or PD150, that place is damned dangerous.

[Photog Cowboi]

Look....if we are going to get nuts and bolts about this...A PD150 with DV Xpress is a nice and easy way of keeping sh*t simple. It's less weight (God...carry one of those 10 Grand Sony's that feels like a 50lb sack of crap). Keep it quick and simple, small and durable camera...and a laptop loaded with Xpress or FCP. And no...I don't own my own rig just yet...I'm working on my first post-college gig!

[Nino]

Look....if we are going to get nuts and bolts about this...A PD150 with DV Xpress is a nice and easy way of keeping sh*t simple. It's less weight (God...carry one of those 10 Grand Sony's that feels like a 50lb sack of crap). Tell me Cowboi, when you round-up a herd of cattle, do you ride a regular horse or a little pony because it's cheaper and easier to ride

[Gil]

Doing more with less...

I have a great BBC story...

I was covering the anthrax scare at the Brentwood Main Postal Facility in Washington in late 2001. I was shooting some b-roll, and then just hanging out 'cause the desk didn't have anything else going on.

A cab pulled up to the Post Office and a woman got out. Out of the truck, she grabbed a camera, stix, run bag and a folding cart.

She then shot some stuff, got kicked off the PO property like the rest of us and came across the street, where I was, to shoot wides.

Her and I struck up a conversation...she was from the BBC and from London to boot.

Given that BBC always had big entourages even to shoot simple b-roll, I asked her, "where's your soundman, grip, producer"? She looked at me, laughed, and said (in a thick Cockney accent),"...those days are gone, Love".

The point being, our employers will be squeezing us harder for more. Like the "embeds" the cable networks like MS are using, reporter/photog/editor...

I hope some of you are near retirement.

[Photog Cowboi]

First Off...

My horse was cheaper and nicer than the pony at the auction. Second, I am too tall for a pony and third...I worked in a production company that did shows for ESPN, and let me tell you one dang thing...I learned a lot in my 2 months there. They were using Premiere, beta cameras and the money was average to say the least. I like Avid and the PD 150 because it is quick and effective, plus...for those who are not computer nerds...your graphics card can also alter your codec quality. Premiere uses a sh*tty set of codecs yet because of the card...it was clean and was airable. There a lot of things that affect video quality on a laptop...hence I love Dells, Apples and Alienwares because they are built for video editing and durability. And Nino...point in case...Spielburg was using Dell Laptops with Avid for Minority Report and the film was kick ass!

[Lensmith]

Originally posted by Photog Cowboi:
...point in case...Spielburg was using Dell Laptops with Avid for Minority Report and the film was kick ass! Oh really? He used Dell Laptops and PD-150s to shoot the film?

Or maybe, just maybe, he used quality cameras and crews to put quality material into a non linear system to produce the final product. ;o)

[Tippster]

Originally posted by Gil:
... She looked at me, laughed, and said (in a thick Cockney accent),"...those days are gone, Love"... So's she. They moved back to the UK last month, I believe. Too bad. She was kinda hot.. ;)

[Photog Cowboi]

Lens...

Yer a funny one... :D But yeah...he was using Dells with Avid on them. Not sure about the cameras though! :cool:

[Tippster]

Originally posted by Photog Cowboi:
Lens...

Yer a funny one... :D But yeah...he was using Dells with Avid on them. Not sure about the cameras though! :cool: I almost hate to do this, since she's so passionate...

But in the interest of truth and honesty:

I’ve never cut a film on Avid. I still love splicing the film and I like to see the tape go on it. We do the whole thing like we’re an old-fashioned handmade factory operation.”

Will the director ever move to digital editing? “Never say never but right now I don’t see it,” he stated. “The Coen brothers and Adrian Lyne still also cut on film, but we’re the last holdouts in Hollywood. Why? Because I like to see the chicken that hatches the egg.”
From the article Spielberg’s Prognostications (http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/2002/07_jul/features/spielbergsprog.htm)

Sorry, Cowboi, but this is the wrong forum to hawk hearsay on. Not to be a curmudgeon, but you're not only new here, you're new to the profession - by your own admission. I would recommend relaxing and gleaning information for a while, rather than trying to up your post-count on a daily basis. ;)

[Photog Cowboi]

Thank you!

[Nino]

Thanks Tippster, I've been biting my lips with this kid.

Cowboi, I met enough kids in my career with caves under their noses and peas instead of brains, they all ended up going nowhere.

Nobody learns by talking, you only learn by listening, and you have a lot of listening to do.

There you go, my fatherly advise for the day.

[Photog Cowboi]

Originally posted by Nino:
Thanks Tippster, I've been biting my lips with this kid.

Cowboi, I met enough kids in my career with caves under their noses and peas instead of brains, they all ended up going nowhere.

Nino...I would rather have someone be blunt and not bite their lips with me. Be blunt and set me str8 so I can go somewhere!

[Nino]

Nino...I would rather have someone be blunt and not bite their lips with me. Be blunt and set me str8 so I can go somewhere!
Done it already kid, you just missed what I wrote.
Nobody learns by talking, you only learn by listening, and you have a lot of listening to do. Make this your golden rule and you'll go places.

[Photog Cowboi]

Where could I go?

[Gil]

Tipster, you are right, she was premium British Bird.... shweeeeet