On Qantas flight QF9 to Singapore from Melbourne last night, the in-flight entertainment system failed. They resorted to playing "classics" meaning films you have seen a hundred times before. I was about to pull out the computer when I remembered that I had sync my new Apple iphone with a whole load of podcasts from thebestadsontv.com and had not had time to watch them.

On itunes, you can subscribe for free and get the best six ads on tv downloaded to your ipod or iphone each week.

From the Superbowl this week was this ad for Careerbuilder.com by Wieden+Kennedy. I am sure we have all felt like this at some stage.

So there I was, with 18 episodes of the best six tv ads of the week from around the world. And sitting there 36,000 feet above the earth I had several insights:

Continue reading "The best ads on TV thanks to Qantas" »

So says Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the writers and directors for Crank. Check out the comments on high definition digital video using the Red One camera by some of the world's leading film directors here

So why do so many commercial film directors still insist on shooting on expensive and outdated film?

For all those production companies and agency creative people who still insist on shooting 35 mm film or 16 mm film instead of high definition digital video, this latest posting on YouTube from AH Films puts another nail in your coffin.

Holding on to out-dated practices long after the rest of the industry moves on is not innovative, is not leading edge and is not creative.

Imagine you have a script with a voice over to be recorded and this same voice over is going to run in six different versions of the commercial for the same brand or product on a national campaign for 12 months. How much is the voice over talent fee?

Interestingly, according to the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) Award for voiceover talent it depends on the medium. You see, if those six versions are radio then the cost is $360. But if the same voice over recording is applied to six 30-second television commercials the cost is six times $650 or $3,900.

Continue reading "Should voice over fees be paid by media or execution?" »

In the MEAA Award for voiceover talent there remains what appears to be an old-fashioned anomaly in regard to talent fees.

The Commercial Voiceover Award details the minimum agreed fees for voiceover performances on television, cinema and radio, and includes loadings of double the total fee for the following:

1. Political advertising
2. Alcohol advertising

Why are these two categories of advertising singled out to require the same level of fee loading as if the performance was used in the UK or the USA?

To download the MEAA Award click here.

Continue reading "Is loading talent fees for voice overs a load of rubbish?" »

This is not the story of the old bull and the young bull, except that in the end of both stories someone will get screwed. No this is the story of the difference between the old school of Art Director and the new school of Art Director.

The wise and talented old school art director

He walks into the art studio with the layout he has drawn and briefs the finished artist on what is required. He has selected his shots, selected his fonts and knows exactly what is required. The briefing takes about 20 minutes and he agrees with the finished artist as to when he should return to review the work.

He returns a couple of hours later at the appointed time and takes away a print out of the finished art, returning later with any changes marked up. He sits and discusses with the finished artist the changes he wants and the process may happen two of three times more while he explores tweaks to the finished art to increase readability and visual impact.

The whole process takes perhaps four hours of studio time, three or four A3 print outs and no more than two hours of art director time. Total cost = $1,200

The hands on new school of art director

Meanwhile the new school of art director walks into the art studio and sits with the finished artist. He has his layout mocked up on his own computer but rightly they have to start again because none of the specifications are suitable for publication.

He sits with the finshed artist for the next three - four hours selecting fonts, making decisions on leading and kerning and positioning the images and logos for both location and size. They have printed out three or four copies to see how it looks in printed form because you can never really judge print on screen. They sit and talk about the job, the agency gossip and plans for the weekend, while the copywriter pops in and out of the studio to see when the art director will be finished and to re-write a coupel of lines to make the copy fit the layout.

Eventually, perhaps four or five hours later the art director leaves the studio with the finished art he wants. The whole process takes perhaps four hours of studio time, three or four A3 print outs and four or maybe five hours of art director time. Total cost = $1,800 - 30% increase on the old school!
So who gets screwed?

There is no need for an art director to sit with the finished artist for all of the process and yet that is what so many art directors do. The problem is that it consumes resources and drives up costs, which the advertiser ends up paying. There are more effective ways of managing production for both print, television and digital. The problem is that it is often seen in agencies as old school.

Why?

Cynically to increase cost and revenue.

Or perhaps because in the eletronic finshed art world many art directors cannot direct the finished artist to do the work for them, like the old school does, and so they end up sitting there next to the finished artist doing it by proxy themselves.

Author: Darren Woolley

Often in the process of engaging P3 the advertiser, marketer, finance or procurement professional will ask us to commit to how much this process we will provide will save them. They are looking for an ROI against our fees.

As we always explain, we cannot determine savings, if any, until we have undertaken the benchmark study, because not every relationship will yield savings. In some cases, problems with the service provider will be caused by under remuneration, leading to poor resourcing and therefore dissatisfaction with the service.

In the majority of cases, identifying poor practices, structures and processes on both the client and agency side and then addressing these have achieved significant savings. In our experience undertaking the benchmarking process and making the remuneration more transparent, with little or no impact on the relationship, have achieved moderate savings of 5% - 15%.

In fact, a more transparent remuneration will make the relationship stronger because it reduces the suspicion and fear many marketers have about their communications and creative providers.

In this way we often talk about P3 being an insurance policy first and an investment second.

We do not guarantee a return on investment, but we do guarantee peace of mind by providing an understanding and transparency into the complex and sometimes mysterious world of remuneration.

We have developed practices and benchmarks that have been tested overs many hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts and hundreds of relationships between major advertisers and their communications and creative providers.

And yes, in the majority of cases we have delivered opportunities for savings and a return on investment. Usually in getting better value in the form of a higher level of resource and service, rather than simply cutting costs. Because the easiest thing in the world to do is reduce cost - just cut your budget, but then you end up getting less for less. With P3, our clients can make cuts and know what they are getting less of in a way that it does not adversely affect their business.

Author: Darren Woolley

In a recent TV production estimate review, we noticed that the agency producer had allowed an extraordinatry amount of supervision hours on the project. There was a large post production, visual effects component spanning several weeks, but we thought "surely they do not intent to sit in a darkened effects suite day in and day out watching the effects being developed?"

How wrong we were.

It turns out that not only was the agency producer sitting through five long weeks of post, so was the creative team. This was 600 head hours of time. 3 people x 5 weeks x 40 hours per week. Perversely the creative head hours were covered in the retainer, so it was not costing anymore to have the writer and art director sitting through the whole process.

Not that they had to, as the best practice is to brief the visual effetcs company and then attend daily or twice daily work in progress meetings instead to review the work done and discuss the next step. This is how it is done in feature films. And it reduces the time from 40 hours per person per week to around 10 hours per person per week.

But back to the agency producer, who was charged out at a relatively high $240 per hour, this meant that having them sit through every hour of the visual effects added $48,000 to the production cost. This is on top of a senior copywriter and senior art director also attending. We asked the agency producer why were they attending as well and they said "Because the creatives cannot be trusted to not blow the budget". In anyone's terms that is a very expensive baby sitter. Luckily that does not happen every day.

Author: Darren Woolley

A recent post on Forbes website has a creative approach to addressing the declien in effectiveness of the 30 second spot provided by Ken Krimstein, Creative Director at Seiter & Miller Advertising in New York City.

His options to address the decline of the 30 second spot in the face of TiVo and other PVRs are:

1) Embed the programming in commercials.

2) Beat TiVo at its own game.

3) Now the most radical solution of all. MAKE SOME GOOD COMMERCIALS!

As Ken points out, option 3 is not easy. It takes creativity and risk-taking on the part of both clients and agencies. But then again, neither is coming up with great five-second silent commercials to fulfil option 2.

Author: Darren Woolley

Receiving undeclared kick backs, payments or commissions from "third party" suppliers.

Similar to the below, it is often seen as more insidious by advertisers because it often appears to be an elaborate grab for margin and profit. This practice includes undeclared volume discounts with third party suppliers that encourage the agency to recommend or select one preferred supplier rather than undertaking a tender process. It could also be considered a secret commission.

The other area of concern for advertisers is where companies within a group provide services to each other. As a collective of related bodies corporate, if one negotiates a volume discount on behalf of the group and then marks this up as they pass this on to a member of the group, this may not strictly be a breach of the external costs at net clause, but it is seen by most advertisers as outside the spirit of the relationship as they see that the benefits of the agency being part of a group is not being passed on to them as the client.

Author: Darren Woolley

Entering into agreements on the clients behalf without the authority.

Advertising agencies are still called agencies, but few contracts actually bestow the agency with the role of an "agent". Instead, agencies are often classified within contracts as contractors or suppliers with no legal right to enter into contracts or agreements with third parties on behalf of their client without specific written permission.

This means that if the agency enters into an agreement with talent or a film company or a photographer, where the third party supplier supplies a contract, the agency is in breach of the contract if they enter into the agreement on behalf of the advertiser without the specific written permission of the client.

A classic example of this is the standard SPAA agreement. Under the terms of the SPAA agreement the agency does not even have to sign the contract for it to be binding. In fact, just accepting the contract and commissioning the work makes it binding on the agency. Yet the cleint never sees the SPAA agreement. In fatc they are lucky to see the film company quote.

An agency may believe that the approval of the estimate is the permission they need, but if the client is unaware that a contract is being entered into on their behalf how can they provide that permission?

Author: Darren Woolley

Undertaking a tender process while providing an advantage to a preferred participant.

The expectation of most advertisers and their agency contracts state that the agency will procure the services of third party suppliers in a way that provides the best value for money.

Obviously the best value is not just the lowest price; it is also balanced by the less quantifiable attribute of quality.

For many, this would include an agreed process of tender for services over a minimum threshold.
Therefore, when the tender process is either ignored or corrupted through a lack of rigor and integrity to produce the result the agency wants, the client will often feel cheated or manipulated.

While obviously very hard to prove, the suspicion of this behaviour can significantly affect the relationship.

A prime example of this is the practice of "Check quoting" in television production, where the preferred production house is asked to quote and one or two others provide a falacious quote slightly higher to make the preferred quote look acceptable.

What is your experience with regards to agencies procuring third party suppliers? And what processes do you have in place to ensure this is undertaken in a professional and rigorous manner?

Author: Darren Woolley

While most agencies and many film companies will tell you that 35 mm is essential, we will briefly take you through the differences between these two formats and the cost implications.

35 mm film

35 mm is considered the optimum film format used for television commercials. The name indicates the size of the area on the film the image is exposed. It is generally considered that the greater the frame size the greater the image quality as there is more image information captured in each frame.

35 mm film is used to shoot most feature films seen at the cinema, but increasingly High Definition Video is becoming more popular (Think Miami Vice, Collateral and Star Wars Episode 1 - 3).

35 mm requires a significant number of specialist crew and the camera equipment is expensive to hire.

16 mm film

16 mm film is suitable for most jobs where 35 mm could be used.

16 mm film also provides nearly double the shot length for the same number of feet of film compared to 35 mm. This and the lower cost means that 16 mm is less than half the price of 35 mm to purchase and process.

Because of this lower cost, 16 mm film is the preferred alternative on jobs where lots of footage is required, such as shooting children, animals and vox pops, or for high speed filming where more film is used to shoot the subject in slow motion.

A 16 mm camera is smaller and lighter than 35 mm and is often used when the cameraman has to physically hold the camera for a length of time, or if the space for shooting is confined.

Generally the cost of hiring a 16 mm camera is half the cost of an equivalent 35 mm camera.

The limitation of 16 mm film is in achieving extreme product close ups and possibly the increased amount of frame float which needs to be removed for visual effect work.

Summary

Film formats are simply that - formats for capturing moving images. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. In the hands of skilled technicians high quality results can be achieved with both of these formats.

The choice of which format depends on the job at hand - the lighting, budget, location and subject matter.

Just as there is no reason to shoot everything on 35 mm, there is no need to shoot everything on 16 mm. A better approach is to select the format that will achieve the results required cost effectively. But increasingly High Definition Video is becoming the best alternative to both 35 mm and 16 mm film.
P3TV provide independent advice and recommendations on the right format for your shoot to ensure a cost effective result without compromising the quality of the final job.

Author: Darren Woolley

It is amusing when discussing talent fees for television commercials that many in the industry represent these costs as if it is fixed and non negotiable. On top of this you have talent roll over fees of 100% of the original fee sprouted as if they are chiselled in stone.

What are the facts?

What the Union says...

On the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance website, you can download a pdf summary sheet for the Equity Rates Summary Sheet 2006 which provides an overview into the rates and conditions for actors appearing in television commercials in Australia.

The minimum rate for an actor is $109 for a four-hour call, which equates to just more than $200 for an eight hour day.

The payment of the hourly rate covers a minimum performance fee only. Any rights to be purchased by the producer are strictly negotiable. Fee levels are largely dictated by the market and an actor's agent will give a better indication of a performer's fee.

This area of work is highly competitive, and many factors influence an actor's decision to perform in a commercial.

Who sets the market rate?

Now, the interesting thing is who in the market sets the fee levels? Is it the actors? Their agents? The casting agents? Or the agency?

It certainly isn't the clients who pay these talent fees, as they are constantly amazed at the rates they are charged.

Naturally the talent agents have a vested interest in obtaining the highest possible fee for their clients as their cut is usually a percentage of the total. Creating an acceptance of higher fees makes it easier for them in the negotiation. Add to this an apparent lack of hard negotiation on the part of the film company and agency, who have no vested interest in the final cost, and there you have the resultant market rate.

Everything is negotiable...

But ultimately this is a negotiation and many actors want the work. Even the Alliance states that the area of work is highly competitive. The best way to get what you want from a talent agent is to have alternatives to your preferred talent.

Any agent that gets a hint that their client is the chosen one will go in hard. If you have more than one string to your bow you are the one that can go in hard and get a much more reasonable cost.

An agent that has to fight for a role for their client is far more considerate than one that knows they have what you want.

Guidelines are a starting point...

The bottom line is that while the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance supply guidelines for talent fees, these are negotiable. The issue for advertisers is ensuring your agency is working in your best interests to negotiate terms and rates to meet your needs, not just conform to the guidelines set down for the industry.

P3TV not only monitors and benchmarks the current talent fees being charged, but we also have strategies and processes to ensure you obtain more effective talent negotiations

Author: Darren Woolley

Copyright ownership and rights is an increasing issue in business, especially in terms of securing these rights. Yet often advertisers and their agencies often mistake copyright with talent rights fees.

Copyright in Australia is defined by the Copyright Act 1968 and applies to certain types of creations by a person or company, and provides a reward to the "creator" (the author), by way of money, recognition, and control. It requires permission to allow copying or performing in public or future alteration of a "creation".

It Applies to:
* Artworks, eg painting or photo or sculpture.
* Literature eg plays, books, and the spoken word arising there from.
* Music, and any subsequent re-arrangements / adaptations of the original.
* Choreography as in dance, calisthenics, acrobatics
* Theatrical shows - Copyright covers all items, such as the plot, words, music, songs, scenery, costumes, choreography.
* Recordings eg audiotape, cd, video, film. Represents several copyrights, one for the actual recording, others for music, for words or songs, and any physical artistic works.
* Printed versions of literature, music, songs. The book itself (typesetting, layout) is copyright, as well as the "creations" contained within (music, lyrics).
* Computer programs, web pages and designs, etc.
* TV and radio broadcasts.

Therefore, IP clauses within agency / advertiser contracts cover all IP where copyright, trademarks and patents are involved. This includes the tangible materials generated by the agency in developing the idea, through to the final materials such as photographs, typography and design if the print materials and the film, video or the final television commercial. It does not cover the "idea" as no copyright exists in the idea and it does not include the use of talent, such as actors or models.
Why?
Because the performance rights of the performer in the Copyright Act are superseded by industry agreements such as those outlined in the SPAA and MEAA agreements on performer rights.

These rights are negotiated based on media or channel, geography and duration. The Award offers guidelines only and the rate is open to complete negotiation. Therefore advertisers can negotiate the terms they require, including a total buy out coverage such as world-wide, all media and in perpetuity for an agreed amount.

For more information on copyright in Australia go to Australian Copyright Council who have extensive publications on the application of copyright in Australia. We would especially recommend Publication G022 on Performer's Rights.

For more information on talent negotiations and agreements check out this article we did for our e-new bulletin.

Author: Darren Woolley

There are two standard payment arrangements supported by the SPAA when it comes to paying for advertising film productions in Australia.

1. Pay to Estimate - the most common method.
2. Cost Plus - an alternative many are unaware of, or have heard disaster stories that make this seem only for the brave hearted. Let's define the two alternatives.

Method 1: Pay to Estimate: The agency briefs the film company on the project and the film company comes back with an estimate to produce the scripts. On approval of the estimate the advertiser pays the agency 50% of the film company costs prior to the shoot. (You may also be asked to pay 50% of the agency's estimated costs up front.)

Then the 50% balance is invoiced on delivery of the final master, to be paid within 30 days. With this method, the agency and advertiser cannot audit the film company or claim a rebate for any unspent funds once the estimate is accepted.

Advantage: The film company declares their profit margin, which resides under the heading "production fee" on their estimate. With this method you know what the film company's cost is before you start. This does not mean that the final cost will not be higher if you make changes to the brief during the production, but it does mean the film company will carry the cost of any unforeseen problems that may arise.
Disadvantage: Any film company that has been in business more than a year knows the idiosyncrasies of both agencies and advertisers and will factor a margin into their estimate to cover these predictably "unpredictable" factors. However, trouble can also arise when the film company has a profit share incentive above and beyond the standard director and producer fees, which encourages extra profit taking. Take the film stock budget. A prudent director can shoot well under the allocated film stock by exercising restraint. Using less stock than estimated means less processing cost, less telecine cost and less digitizing costs. The result is the film company profit increases.

Options: Ensure that before an estimate is approved it is thoroughly and critically reviewed. Identify all contingencies within the estimate and ensure the film company and agency justify any excessive costs.

Method 2: Cost plus: This alternative has the film company quote the job with an agreed markup or profit margin. On completion, the film company has to disclose all their actual costs then the mark up is added. In this case the advertiser and the agency have the right to audit the film company costs.

Disadvantage: It's in the film company's interest to spend as much money as they can with their suppliers, as this will increase their own profit margin. A savvy director can shoot well over his or her allocated film stock budget to drive up the profit.

The stock budget overrun (along with the crew overtime required to do so) is often justified with "We had to do sixty takes to get the magic we were after".

Of course, the advertiser never gets to see the fifty-nine takes that weren't quite "magic" enough. Nor do they get to make up their own minds as to whether the "magic" is all that "magic' after all, whether it was worth all that extra cost, and whether it makes the communication any more effective?

Advantage: At the end of the day you only pay for what was spent on the production plus the pre-agreed profit margin for the film company.
Options:

The only way an advertiser can win with the Cost Plus method is to have their own watchdog at all stages of the production, questioning unnecessary costs. It goes without saying that the watchdog has to know production inside out and that some tension in the process is inevitable but manageable.
Conclusion

Many of the production choices made not only have a huge effect on budgets they are also incredibly subjective. The best way for an advertiser to curb costs is to articulate precisely what they require and leave nothing up to subjective interpretation, because many suppliers making a subjective choice on the advertiser's behalf will always chose the most expensive alternative.

Author: Darren Woolley

The agency has convinced you that U2's "Joshua Tree" will make your TVC an anthemic masterpiece. And let's say U2 actually sold the rights to their music for advertising (which they don't). And let's suppose they (unlike The Beatles) sold both the publishing and master rights to anybody with enough money to buy them. What happens next?

The agency contacts the company that has the PUBLISHING rights to the song. They inform the publishing company what product you're selling, duration of the campaign, territories the campaign will run in and mediums you intend to use (TV, radio, cinema etc). They also contact the company that owns the MASTER recording rights to the track.

Here things can sometimes become tricky. The Beatles for instance will sell you the publishing rights to their music but not the master rights. So you can buy a song and get someone else to perform it, but they are not allowed to sound like the Beatles (this is known in the industry as "passing off" and is legally prohibited).

Or let's say you have chosen a track that has both the Publishing & Master rights up for sale and you negotiate one fee with the publishing company and another fee with the holders of the master rights and at the end of both written quotes are the words "Most favored nation rights apply" which means if one fee is higher than the other then you have to pay the higher fee to the holder of the other rights even though they quoted you a lower price.

Also when you purchase the rights to a piece of music it is usually non-exclusive beyond your product category. So you may find that your car commercial is sharing the same song as a shampoo commercial (although this is not a common occurrence and is directly related to how much you spent on the rights in the first place).

Ultimately, music negotiations can take some time so if you want your agency to get the best possible deal make sure they have reasonable lead time. Let the publisher know that their particular composition is one of a few you are considering (competition real or imagined always leads to keener pricing).

Music can quite often drive a TVC and become synonomous with a product or company, so it is important to get it right. Don't let your own emotions drive your choice or expenditure without finding out exactly what your target demographic thinks about the proposed piece. Then you need to consider what the options are, and what is the most cost effective.

Author: Darren Woolley

Many advertisers like to attend the shoot of their latest commercial.

Here is an example of how it can horribly wrong which you can view on YouTube.

It is part of a short film called "The Reel Truth" which is available on DVD from Amazon.

Worth viewing before you attend the next shoot.

Author: Darren Woolley

One of the biggest problems faced by advertisers in relation to production costs is the judgment call on quality.

It's like selecting wine in a restaurant. Most people who know nothing about wine and are afraid of being exposed as ignorant or uneducated to their fellow guests (or even an intimidating waiter) will chose an expensive wine believing that cost equals 'best'.

If someone else is paying, then the "It's not my money" syndrome comes into effect. This has been known to affect an advertiser's own staff just as much as the agency or film company.

At the center of this is a culture that believes the best product is made from the most expensive ingredients.

The truth is that the best product is made with the right ingredients, not always the most expensive.

Without any research, quality control or benchmarking, many people resort to applying the wine in a restaurant rule, and who ends up picking up the tab at the end of the meal?

The advertiser.

Author: Darren Woolley

This case study is an amalgam of incidents we have encountered and illustrates how an advertiser can spend more than twice their budget on a tv production.

The brief
: The client provided a brief for the development of a major tv production to be utilised over the next two years. A production budget of $300,000 was specified.. The on-air date was 12 weeks ahead.

Creative development
: The agency developed a numner of concepts over the following three weeks that were presented for approval. The advertiser accepted one concept and rejected the others as they were off-brief. The agency was asked to develop additional concepts as the current practice of the advertiser was to concept test before committing to production. The agency developed additional concepts over the following two weeks, which were presented and all three concepts went into research.

Research:
After two weeks of testing, the results of the research indicated that the original concept was clearly the one preferred by the target audience. This concept was then approved to proceed to pre-production.

Quoting:
The agency provided the showreels of three directors for approval. These were approved for quoting. An estimate for $750,000 was presented almost two weeks later. The competitive estimates were within $20,000 of the recommended estimate. There was now just 4 weeks to the on-air date.

The options:

1. The advertiser asked the agency to obtain further quotes. The agency responded that this would take time and already the production schedule was tight. The agency maintained that this concept required a highly skilled and therefore expensive director to do the concept justice.

2. The advertiser asked the agency to re-look at the estimate and see what saving could be negotiated. The agency returned 48 hours later with a $25,000 reduction, declaring the estimate had been cut to the bone.

3. The advertiser concidered asking the agency to prepare another concept that was within budget, but rejected this as it would require research. In the end that advertiser had no option but to approve the production at $725,000 and bought forward funds from future media to accommodate the difference.

Recomendation:
There are a number of steps the advertiser could have taken to manage this process more effectively. The three most obvious are:

1. Have a schedule prepared at the time of briefing and before media is booked, that takes into consideration the time required for all stages of the project including: concept development, research, approvals and production to avoid running out of time and options.

2. Ask the agency producer to provide a "Ballpark" production estimate at the time the concept is presented or at least before any concept research. Inform the agency producer that you will require the "ballpark" estimate to be within 10% of the final estimate.

3. If the agency believe the solution cannot be achieved for the budget, ask them to support this by presenting concepts that can be achieved for the budget as well as their preferred concept. In this way the advertiser can compare the quality and suitability of the proposed solutions before committing to the additional budget requirements.

Author: Darren Woolley

Just as digital stills cameras have transformed the way the amateur photographer capture the scenes that were once the exclusive domain of Kodak, Fuji & Ilford. The new generation of HD video cameras will transform movie making. The writing has to be on the wall when the worlds two largest makers of professional movie cameras, Arriflex and Panaflex now make video cameras that produce the same image charataristics and quality of the industry standard 35mm film.

Panaflex are so concerned that old school cinematographers may reject this move that they have included a fake film magazine on top of their new camera the "Genesis" to minimise any "fear of the new" trauma that cinematographers may suffer when asked to use the new camera.

What does this mean to the production of television commercials?

Firstly, what you see on set will be a very good indication of what you will see on TV, no more murky video splits with cross hairs and aspect ratio lines all over them.

Secondly, film stock costs will shrink and lab costs and telecine will no longer be a part of the budget equation.

No more waiting for rushes clearance before dismantling a film set.

And if you as an advertiser embrace the 16 : 9 wide screen format for your TVCs your ads will be future proof, what you make today will be the broadcast standard for years to come.

In terms of dollars, advertiser will be only marginally better off:
1. Camera rental costs will remain the same as for 35mm movie cameras.
2. Colour grading will still take place but now as a tape-to-tape grade on a Flame, which is slightly cheaper than the top of the line telecine machine.

But these savings on stock, lab and telecine will gradually be eroded by post production price creep, as the cost of HD post production equipment is about 10% more expensive than the current standard definition equipment.

The great thing is there should be no extra cost to use this latest technology and that's a refreshing change. In the past days of TV production "new" technology usually meant "more expensive" technology.

To check out the quality of HD video see Miami Vice, shot by the Oscar winning Australian cinematographer Dion Beebe.

P3TV think it won't be long before advertising creative teams across Australia are insisting that their latest TVC be shot on VIDEO, not the almost redundant 35 mm film.

Author: Darren Woolley

When it comes to music, most of the work we do is benchmarking the cost of either creating music for ads or licensing music for ads.
It constantly amazes me that more advertisers do not realise the huge opportunity music can play in advertising, apart from being the sound track to their latest ad campaign.
Then on AdAge this morning I read about Toyota in Japan who has embraced the music industry in the launch of their new car. While they say in the article Toyota were performing more like Apple than a automobile manufacturer, it is clear that Toyota has realised the important role music plays in people's lives and that therefore music is a powerful way to engage their audience.
There is that word, engagement.
Locally, Coke has been embracing the music industry for many years through the Coca Cola Live program.
And if you wanted more examples of how music can work with marketing, I have not seen better examples than the locally grown Mushroom Marketing team.
So what stops marketers using music as more than just the backing track to their TV ad? Is it the ad agency single-minded focus on creating ads? Or is it that marketers are unsure how to engage the music industry?
Or is there another barrier?

Author: Darren Woolley

One of the great misunderstandings between agencies and their clients is the terms of the financial transactions between the two. Most advertisers believe that the agency estimates the costs and then reconciles to the actual cost once the job is complete.

But unless specified in the ageement, most agencies would follow the standard agency practice of estimating and then billing to that estimate. So if the costs are less than the estimate then the agency keeps the difference as profit and if the cost goes over the estimate the agency can either:

1. Wear the cost

2. Provide the client with a revision to the estimate for the increased amount

3. Add an additional amount to the next estimate to recoup the loss

If an advertiser wonders which way their agency invoices, I would recommend checking your agency contract, or by default asking the agency. Or as a final alternative, consider the last time the agency gave you a rebate on a project. If you have never got a rebate on a project then either:

1. Your agency is billing to estimate.

2. They are incredibly accurate with their estimating.

It is certainly worth checking.

Author: Darren Woolley

One of the big issues for advertisers is the cost of talent fees. While Australia does not have the "residual" payment system used in the USA, the increasingly divergent media options is causing a cost multiplier effect in regards to the use of the "Three screen".

Under the current MEAA Award for talent fees, the fee is charged on the basis of the media, duration and geography, with guidelines for a multiplier effect as additional media and geographies are added.This means that if an advertiser wants to create a TVC and then use this on commercial free to air, subscription and cinema, plus stadium screen, in-flight, MMS mobile and the internet, then the base fee is multiplied by the number of media.

If the audience base is $20 million people (Australia's population) then why should there be multiple effect based on the different types of screens? Instead, what about a single talent fee negotiation for "screens"? That way you know up front that for a particular duration and geography a single talent fee, negotiated up front.

And before anyone says "but the Internet is not limited to a particular geography" then the advertiser can limit the exposure of the commercial based on IP addresses. But what actor would not like global exposure to expand their career?

Author: Darren Woolley

Have you ever been asked to quote a job with no target budget? ("just go for it, the client's got heaps and wants a world class job")
Have you ever been asked to quote a job and not been asked for a director's treatment?
Have you ever been told by an agency producer that the lowest quote will win the job?
Have you ever submitted a quote and not been asked if there are any areas where there could be potential savings? And asked to resubmit based upon these savings?
Or have they just come out and said it's a check quote, given you a figure to come in at, and then promised you the "next big one"
All the above scenarios (some subtle and some not so) are indications that you are not the agencies favoured director and production house, and are basically submitting a quote that will be used to underscore the agencies choice of director because your quote will be higher than that of their predetermined choice.
Some agency producers claim that they have never ever heard of or engaged in check quoting ever.

P3TV invites your comments.

Have you ever been asked to submit a check quote?
Do you think the current quoting / tendering system is fair?
Do you have any comments regarding the 3 quote system?
Would you like to see it change? If so, in what way?

P3TV are interested in any feed back what so ever you may have regarding the current way of quoting / bidding.

Author: Clive Duncan

What happens to props at the end of shoot? I don't think it is reasonable that they end up at the Creative Director's country house - I would rather see them sold to staff or at least donated to charity. Legally, at the time of the shoot they are the property of the client.

Author: Tony Quail

It is always a bit of a laugh when clients tell us their agency has demanded a particular director because he / she is only person in the world capable of doing a particular script.

In one case the agency convinced the client that this director was not only the only person capable of doing the job, but that this also justified the 30% premium on the production cost. The joke was on the agency when 12 months later the agency, having fallen out of love with that particular director, now was recommending a different director for the production of a continuation of the campaign.

There are many fine directors, producers and directors of photography in Australia and New Zealand. The film industry is recognised gloablly for the quality of the people. It is a pity that the advertising industry does not recognise more than a handful of "flavour of the month" directors, often at the expense of the client's budget.

Author: Darren Woolley