Just some observations

Focused

Well-known member
Agreed. One of the hardest things I find doing is locating quality education materials and courses to better myself.

Think kodak would survive bankrupsy if they sold good subject videos again? I know i'm in the market.
 

joecam147

Well-known member
Nino,
Listen I agree with you 100% and don't want to be mistaken as pro-rosenblum but there is no denying the flood of inexperienced people that do the job as well as the clientele that all want to get as much as they can for as little as possible can be a bit daunting. This is especially true in the region where I work frequently. There is also a different agenda and things to do on a shoot other than make great pictures. I have not shot tape in awhile so its more akin to shoot, dump, upload, backup in addition to the crafty things like blocking, lighting, setup and wrap and then tweet about it, in some cases crew members are doing this during the shoot...all just a distraction but when your producer is 25 he or she identifies with that and almost expects it...me, I'm too busy w-o-r-k-i-n-g for a lot of that but the hip factor in some cases can be the deciding factor in 'more' work...it comes down to the old fart with the grey hair who can light but wants to eat lunch or the young dude who can shoot and tweet and will skip lunch...maybe its just a reality show thing, I don't know but Doug hit it with a lot of the things that have always made a shoot successful just aren't appreciated because of the emphasis on speed, quantity and immediacy...high end clients who do it right in my world are hard to come by and when they do its not with enough frequency to fill up enough time...in the meantime there's this new approach that takes some getting used to.
 

Nino

Well-known member
I hear you Joe, but it isn’t just in your area, it's everywhere.

When all this started with Rosenblum about seven years ago and this new wave of prosumer started making a lots of noises I gave several warning on this board to freelance professionals. The days of doing business as usual will end. These new wave, although with inferior quality and equipment have nowhere to go but upward. Soon or later they’ll catch up and those of us who stood still will be overtaken.

Granted, our work is better, but is there enough difference to justify the higher cost we charge? This is the question I asked to many professionals who back then were saying that clients will never go for that cheap quality. Apparently many did and many professionals now have fallen on hard time. Once a client gets the taste of cheap it becomes addictive.

If we try to compete with this lower form of production we’ll lose. “We are better, our work is superior” is no longer a valid argument with clients, not when cost saving has become a priority.

The only way to survive and still prosper is to put enough distance between them and us.

We have to reinvent ourselves. We have to create new services for our clients, something that the cheap competition can not do. But quality alone will not do it, the magic word today is value. Value doesn’t mean cheap, it means getting something better to our clients for their money, something that the cheap wave of productions can not do it. In order to do this we have to go to the root of the planning, once they’ve already hired a 25yo producer it’s too late.

Keep in mind that our business is not alone in this fight, every industry is facing the same challenges. The venerable “yellow father”, Eastman Kodak, who got this thing called “photography” off the ground just filed for bankruptcy. Cheap competition and not doing anything or very little about it is a killer for everyone, big or small makes no difference.

Don’t think for a single second that because I do most of my work for ESPN and all their divisions that I’m exempted from the budget cuts. They just came out with new rules that have their regular shooters across the country up in arms. They’ve dropped the rates they pay for run n’ gun SD crews to $1200 per day, down from the $1450 to1650 that they were paying, that’s for SD only. Apparently for “non important” stuff they intend to keep SD going awhile longer. This is for camera and sound and SD has to be 16:9.

Features and most of the stuff I do for them remain untouched so this new rule doesn’t effect me too much. Yet this is the result of having thousand of out of work newsguys and the new wave of cheap shooters that for them anything is better than an unemployment check.

This is textbook result of supply exceeding the demand.

Actually the new rule is welcome to me. I have a few out of work newsguys that are more than happy to work. I put a separate SD package together for them and ESPN doesn’t expect me to be doing the run n’ gun work that I really really hate. Not to mention that at 66 I look kind of silly running n' gunning, but I still can do it.

Let’s talk about reinventing ourselves.

This is just one “reinvention”. In reality it’s nothing new, it’s new because very few freelancers can offer these type of services, never mind the new wave of cheap newcomers.

Five years ago a producer came to me with a problem, they wanted to do a panel discussion but had no budget to fly everyone to Bristol, get a studio or hire a grip truck. Could I help them.

My answer is always yes, then I stay awake at night trying to figure how the f**k I’m gonna do that.



We built a studio in a hotel suite. Very small space, took us a day to build the set but we were able to get everything in there that was needed. Most important for the client was that we did it within the standard crew budget. The client was extremely happy and grateful. I had no idea back then what will develop from that.





Apparently ESPN and other clients saw the potential of what I was doing more that I did. Since then we’ve worked on several series of shows. These shows would originally be done in their studios at a very high cost. Don’t forget that these talents get multi-million dollars annual contract for a set number of days. Each of the talent might cost the network over 30K per day, so if they can save two days of travel plus the expenses (and they don’t travel coach and rent cars) whatever I charge them is still a bargain.

This is a chapter about large set-ups on the new EFPLighting.com that I’ve been trying to complete for awhile but time is in short supply. It will go back to subscription once I’m done with it but for now it’s free.

http://efplighting.com/2012/01/05/large-set-ups-step-by-step/
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
This trend did not start w/Rosenblum. It is caused by the Internet and digital technology. Inexpensive production gear paired with a means to reach a large audience to find cheap labor. Before either of these if you wanted professional results, you hired a pro and paid for it. Now you advertise that you want a "pro" and get what you pay for.
 

Nino

Well-known member
This trend did not start w/Rosenblum.
We we meant was when Rosenblum started making noises on this board.

The cheap evolution actually started long before the introduction of NLEs. In 1986 JVC introduced the SVHS format, and in 1989 Sony introduced the HI8. A number of inexpensive cameras as well as editing VCRs were made by Panasonic, JVC and Sony and referred to as "industrial format". Turnkey operation could be started for as little as a 6K investment, and of course that's also when cheap video productions started.
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
We we meant was when Rosenblum started making noises on this board.
Thanks Nino - got that.

The cheap evolution actually started long before the introduction of NLEs. In 1986 JVC introduced the SVHS format, and in 1989 Sony introduced the HI8. A number of inexpensive cameras as well as editing VCRs were made by Panasonic, JVC and Sony and referred to as "industrial format". Turnkey operation could be started for as little as a 6K investment, and of course that's also when cheap video productions started.
I think we need to differentiate between "cheap" with its connotative meaning of "low-priced and lousy" and either "inexpensive" or "affordable" which might include lower quality gear but still someone who is working with high end production values within their price range.

In my life I've worked with $50k cams and done network live shots. I've run live trucks and been able to make the call to send sat trucks running to remote locations for breakers. That was then.

One of my closest buddies had his own video production company doing both event and industrial videos which he began in the 1980s with gear similar to what you describe above. What he could do with that gear was nothing short of amazing. A trained artist with a technical background, he at one point was the lead in starting up a crime scene unit with a local police department. Far from a bottomfeeder.

These days I have neither the wherewithall or physical health to haul around the big guns...but I still can't stop shooting and editing. I chose to go prosumer rather than give up something I love. I price myself to fit the demographic that has needs a price point below the top guns but still wants quality production.

I consider myself a professional. I suspect there are many out there in the same circumstances as myself and my buddy above. Professionals with a lower demographic and less expensive (not cheap) gear.
 

Run&Gun

Well-known member
...the magic word today is value. Value doesn’t mean cheap, it means getting something better to our clients for their money...
That is exactly how I have started putting it to some clients. I tell them that they are getting a great VALUE and then back it up with the end results that they couldn't have gotten with a Flip-cam. Perfect example is a corporate client that I got introduced to a few years ago. They were shooting things on little cameras, Flip-cams, etc. and then decided to step it up some and called me. We initially were shooting 16:9 Beta, one-man-crew and then they were dubbing to mini-dv for their editor to ingest into his FCP system. I started suggesting HD and going tapeless to improve the quality and shelf-life of the footage and save them time and money(VALUE) by handing them a HDD ready to edit off of at the end of the shoot(and removing the cost of tape). I also suggested we add a sound guy. They accepted all these suggestions and were very happy with what we gave them. I have a shoot coming up with them again in a little over a week. Last time was a two-day shoot schedule and this one is the same. They try to do a lot in that little amount of time. I suggested that we add a grip to the crew this time to allow us to set-up and move quicker and be more efficient(VALUE for the client). They said "yes". So it may just be one client in a sea of many, but I feel I have done a small part to help put "quality-over-cost" back into production.


Don’t think for a single second that because I do most of my work for ESPN and all their divisions that I’m exempted from the budget cuts. They just came out with new rules that have their regular shooters across the country up in arms. They’ve dropped the rates they pay for run n’ gun SD crews to $1200 per day, down from the $1450 to1650 that they were paying, that’s for SD only. Apparently for “non important” stuff they intend to keep SD going awhile longer. This is for camera and sound and SD has to be 16:9.
I've been waiting for this to come out... I received the same email/letter at the start of this year. There are a lot of un-happy people. That SD rate is taking us back 20 years. If you do the math and separate out the gear and labor, the photographer is making less than the audio guy. What Nino didn't post was that they also cut HD rates, too. I'm not sure if it's any consolation, but there are a lot of producers that are VERY un-happy with this as well. They have already heard from some of their preferred crews that have said they are going to start passing up these types of assignments. And some of the nice "extras" that crews provided before, for no charge, that made the shoot just a little better or easier, probably won't be coming out anymore at the reduced rate.
 
Last edited:

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
Thank you both Nino and Runandgun for the word "value", which can cover all ranges of production. (and I'm sorry to hear about those cuts)
 

Nino

Well-known member
I think we need to differentiate between "cheap" with its connotative meaning of "low-priced and lousy" and either "inexpensive" or "affordable" which might include lower quality gear but still someone who is working with high end production values within their price range.
Cindy, there’a a big difference between the two, or at least it should be.

CHEAP is the guy who goes around saying I can do the same thing that his competition does but for less. That’s the Rosenblum theory that it’s the same if done with cheap, little or no skills and a minimum of gears. As I own many cameras from the cheap to the very expensive I can tell you with some degree of authority that a 2K camera can not do the same as what a 40K camera can do. Those who say it does are totally ignorant to what a quality image is or how a quality image can be obtained. It’s the fix it in the computer generation, but they can only fix what they know is wrong, and they don’t know that. That’s the definition of cheap.

AFFORDABLE is discretionary. A half million dollars production might be considered affordable to some client and outrageously priced to others. It all depends on the client, the requirements and of course the budget. This is what I’ve been saying for years, we are here to serve clients, all clients.

Having said all this, the line between cheap and affordable is very blurry, I seriously doubt that anyone who would be classified as CHEAP would go around and market himself as cheap, they’ll go to clients and say that they are just as good and very AFFORDABLE.

We are also talking apples and oranges here. You are talking doing productions from beginning to end, I’m talking about working on production as a day-hire. I haven’t done an entire production for clients in year, in fact most established photographers do not want any part in doing end to end productions, it just doesn’t pay. Isn’t worth the time dealing directly with client when they can get over 2K per day as day hire.

Now let’s talk about artistry or how artistry works in the real world. You and I can look at a video and really appreciate the effort that went into doing it. A good producer would too. As far as the end clients goes, especially the low budgets ones, if you talk artistry might as well say it in Latin because unless you can show them the very same image side by side, one done by a good artist and the other by a schmuck with a 2K camera, and prove to the client how the better artistry can benefit his business, be assured that if you talk artistry he wouldn’t know what in the world you’re talking about. Whatever that client needs are, as long as it is well lit, everybody has a nice smile and everyone’s hair is neat that’s good enough for him. When it comes to small businesses costs will always take priority over artistry, the lower the cost the better, this is where the definition between cheap and affordable gets blurred.

Large clients with good budget operate differently. They would never hire a “jack of all trade” photographer for their production needs, only small clients with limited budget do that. Large clients will hire an established production company or an established independent producer and many times they will let their advertising, marketing or PR agencies take care of everything. The producer in turn will evaluate the production and delegate/hire the right people to do the job based on skills, budgets and requirements. He will hire photographers depending on the complexity of the shoot. Even within the same project a producer will hire different photographers based on the complexity of each shot, the rate and skills of each photographer.

These days I have neither the wherewithall or physical health to haul around the big guns...but I still can't stop shooting and editing. I chose to go prosumer rather than give up something I love. I price myself to fit the demographic that has needs a price point below the top guns but still wants quality production.
I fully understand why at this phase of your career and life you don’t want to be bothered with heavy equipment, believe me, I’m 66 and that phase of my career is just around the corner. I’m authorized by most of my clients to hire a grip to help me with any heavy loads, and if the client do not want to pay for a grip I pay for it myself. When I’m going to scale down I will do it because of “age adjustments”. But what I don’t understand is why young people insist on remaining at the bottom of production even thou has been proven over and over, day after day that there’s no way to make a living at that level.

When I started my career over 42 year ago my goal was to grow and make as much as a decent living that I possible can in this industry. It took a lot of hard work, discipline and sacrifices but I have achieved that goal, everybody can do it. The good business is still there, it’s overshadowed by the mass of crap we see everyday on the web and on youtube, but look at any national programs, they are still there and they pay top dollars to be made, yet nobody here is good enough not they are making any effort to improve in order to gets a piece of that action.

Get better young men and go after it, in that order, you can’t go after unless you get better.
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
Cindy, there’a a big difference between the two, or at least it should be.
CHEAP is the guy who goes around saying I can do the same thing that his competition does but for less. That’s the Rosenblum theory that it’s the same if done with cheap, little or no skills and a minimum of gears.
I would say to some extent your definition of cheap is true...if you mean the exact same thing as regards both the technical and aesthetics. I beg to differ regarding best possible production values within set price point of equipment. While I could never say I can do the same thing as you (due to both expertise and equipment differences) I CAN provide the best possible value for what I have - and a hell of a lot more than others in my price range (having worked with real equipment and knowing how to tweek what I have to its limits).
To me, cheap is the guy who doesn't know what quality is but insists he can provide it without the knowledge of either good production or how to use what he has properly.

AFFORDABLE is discretionary.
Affordable is another gray area - again I think we basically agree. But affordable varies...and as you pointed out, there is no price point. It could be $500 or $500,000, depending on the client. But...by the same token...I wouldn't call the lower price cheap.
(Oops...here comes a lecture from the English teacher) We're talking the difference between connotative and denotative meanings here. Denotative is the literal meaning - what it says in the dictionary generally. Connotative is the emotional response the word elicits. Inexpensive and cheap pretty much mean the same, but one implies well-built but not expensive and the other shoddy workmanship.
And Nino...I would NEVER call you affordable. I would say (emphatically) that your give amazing value for what you charge. You are at the top of the food chain. The connotative meaning of affordable leans more towards meeting the needs of someone with a carefully scrutinized budget that is probably in the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars...not in the hundreds of thousands.

[QUOTE-Nin;258990]We are also talking apples and oranges here. You are talking doing productions from beginning to end, I’m talking about working on production as a day-hire.[/QUOTE]

Groan...ya caught me. I LOVE storytelling...from start to finish. Spent most of my life running the camera and editing, but got snagged when I had to run a bureau alone when the reporter took off on vacation, etc. After seeing what clueless PAs would do with critical stories I fed up (they really didn't give a **** beyond writing the story and passing it off to an editor who probably gave it even less thought) I figured I could do better. Turns out I did it MUCH better. Anchors and reporters would track and feed back to me to edit and a new chapter in my life began...just as I left the biz.
I've done the day hire bit in the past...I no longer run on adrenilin but more on wanting to craft meaningful stories.
Yes, we are two different people. That's what makes the world such an interesting place to live in.

Now let’s talk about artistry or how artistry works in the real world.
Nino...I would love to meet up you and have some long discussions (over a jug of wine). Once again, my view is our work is divided into the art and the craft. Craft is more technical. Art is both learned and the vision of the individual. Both depend on on being able to self-analyze as well as take constructive criticism and learn...and never stop learning. I'm still learning from 14 and 18 year old students who see the world differently...their vision is added to mine, giving me more insights in to an everchanging world.

In summary - you are working in a different world than I (and others) are. I respect what those both above and below me on the food chain do...but only to the extent that I see reason to. Someone who is higher up would not earn any respect from me if I felt they were not giving their all...if they cut corners...if they scammed their client. Same goes for those below me. I expect the same respect back.

And I started my career a little over 40 years ago...and we diverged. Your goal seems to be a select group of clients who can afford you and give you the challenges you enjoy. You serve your clientele well. My goal right now is to seek out challenges and do what I love most - visual storytelling. Edcuating the client is a big part of this...as you well know. And while you are established, I am just starting out. Again. (three decades in TV news/onedecade in education)

We all have different goals...when you said anyone can do what you have done, you are wrong. It takes a certain mindset to do what you have done. And realize it is extremely difficult to break thought the ceiling to the room you work in. I am sure there are many working hard who will someday be at that level...it take time to get the experience, the contacts, the gear.

Get better young men and go after it, in that order, you can’t go after unless you get better.
Don't forget those YOUNG WOMEN too!!!
 

jajack71

Well-known member
In my line of full time work value is not what people want they want content. That's why shows like TMZ are giving local news a run for their money.
 

Starman

Well-known member
I am straddling both worlds here. I have worked day hire as a photog and crew provider with no post work, and I have also shot and done turnkey work, including post-production for some ongoing TV shows who are my regular clients. When I am double booked, I have a couple of shooters that I know well and trust to do a good job when I send them out with my 2nd gear package. I stay busy, and am very thankful for the workload.

I am pretty much building a production company that provides for hire crews for other companies, or provides turnkey services from script to screen. Right now, I am a small operation, but I am growing. My work varies. Some days I am in the field shooting, and then there might be a few days of editing and post production. I am very thankful for the blessings of consistent work. I see the need for media growing every day and new opportunities for creating new content popping up everywhere. We now have smartphones, iPads, web TV, and many other content sources.

I agree with Nino, it's not the same as it has been in the past, and some people are cutting budgets, but I am also excited about all the new technology and media sources out there, and I am embracing it. Going with the flow.
 

Nino

Well-known member
In my line of full time work value is not what people want they want content. That's why shows like TMZ are giving local news a run for their money.
You are comparing apples and oranges. I fully agree that content is king, but when we as freelancers talk value isn’t about content is about providing monetary value to clients. Although indirectly viewers pay our bills we get hired by clients and producers. We have little or nothing to do with what goes into a program, by the time they come to us the programs is already done on paper and the estimated marker penetration is already done. Our job it to convert what’s on paper and in the producer’s head into the best images we can in order to meet the client's needs.

This is the time when value comes into play, we have our rates and those who are busy stick to it. Regular clients who have established working relations with crews know what the rates are and they can budget those shows without shopping around. WE NEVER lower our rates in order get the gig, that’s the fastest and most direct way to self destructions, it’s a slippery slope. If the producer wants to play “who’s the cheapest” game he will always find plenty of contenders, that’s where the “no/low pay” term generated from.

I have close to a quarter of a million invested in equipment and most is in my van and comes with me on every job, that’s stuff that producers drool over it but budgets restrict the use of much extra stuff, however, there’s always a little extra for the unforeseen. We want to get that too. This is where negotiation takes place and this is also where value comes into the picture. We can give them whatever they need at a reduced rate or even throw it in if it’s a good client or if it’s a multiple days gig when they would normally ask for a discounted rates, but most important to us is that we want him to keep coming back. Either way we both win, we got the job without discounting our rates and often we even get more than our rate and the clients got the extras he needed at a very good rate or even for nothing depending on the job.

Let’s talk a little about “equipment investment”. I wasn’t born rich and I never had a rich uncle. Since the first day I started as a freelancer, 42 years ago, a percentage of my sales went into an equipment fund, just like I do for taxes. This assures my clients that whatever will be needed to make his job the easiest and the best it will always be there. Of course in order to accomplish this your rates have to be a little higher, if you can just about make ends meet each month than your business is undercapitalized and you will never grow.

Capitalizing and reinvesting in your business is one of the most important lesson I learned in business school. When I need something the money is always there. 42 years later I still do that. On the other hand, undercapitalization or not having the money needed to grow and be competitive is the number one reason for business failures.
 

SimonW

Well-known member
Nino, once again, a great post but it will fall on the deaf ears of the people who need the advice the most.
Indeed it is a good post. Though it does paint a rather black and white image of things. The UK must definitely be an island (well it is literally). But having spoke to quite a large number of owners of larger or more successful video production companies here, it appears that the majority of them are going through very hard times indeed. Large firms that used to go directly to them are now putting out competitive tendering and are going for the cheapest options instead of the one that gives them the best value and quality.
 

cameragod

Well-known member
I think the problem is the drop in post production cost. It used to be productions could save money by spending more in the field. Post was so expensive that the less needed to "fix it in post" the better... and the best way to do that was to hire the best field crew you could afford.
Now post is cheap and the new generation of directors/producers actually feel more at home there huddled over a glowing screen than out in the field. They are not only willing but would prefer to spend days with an edit fixing something that could have been done right in a matter of moments with an experienced crew out on the shoot.
What I wonder nowadays is the amount of time the directors/producers have to pay themselves to get the post done. Is it coming from out of their "profit" or have they found a way to pay themselves more for the time they need working on a project?
 

freedom

Well-known member
anybody notice that things got quiet here around the time I chucked it and went sailing? Coincidence?
 
Top