I've been involved with a great many TV commercials (client side) over the years. And I am well aware of the wary relationship between the client (representing the company that is paying for a TV commercial), the commercial director and the advertising agency during a shoot. There are several reasons for this awkward threesome:
For almost all video shoots, the advertising agency selects the director and production company (the client is usually not directly involved in this). Because of this hiring process, the commercial director is eager to develop a relationship with advertising agencies (who can increase his billings) but not with the client who is paying everyone's bills.
From the advertising agency perspective, the agency wants to have many choices of directors that they know and trust. They also want to be known as a company that hires "hot" directors.
However, the commercial director and the advertising agency both realize, albeit reluctantly, that the client company is paying the bills. The person writing the check is typically the most important person in any business meeting. This not true on the set of a TV commercial. The client is the necessary evil, the potential party-spoiler, the great unknown. Of course, this adversarial relationship won't be the cover story on any advertising trade magazine, but it is part of the planning of just about every video production. Where do we put the client? How can we contain client input? Here's how it works.
The arrival of the client at the location
Upon arrival, the client is immediately shown to the "craft services" table (the food). At this point he or she is welcomed by the director and the main advertising representative at the commercial shoot. After this brief meeting, a "producer" is attached (glued, stapled) to the side of the client. The role of the "producer" is to keep the client happy and far away from the set. This is usually a charming young female.
The video production set and the dead dog
It's a joke, but one which is repeated often. The production company puts a "dead dog" on the set, so that the client can make a suggestion that won't ruin the spot. The client tours the set and then says, "I love everything, but could we removed the dead dog? I think it distracts from the visuals".
"Great idea!" Everyone responds. The client has made a suggestion and feels like he's made a contribution. Everyone then prays that that will be the end of it.
They don't really put a dead dog on the set. Most television production companies brace themselves for the stupid client suggestion. The old joke reflects pervailing value of client suggestions.
The client's cave
The client is then shown to a room as far removed from the actual shoot as reasonable and practical. The client is never allowed on the set. They are put in front of a monitor at a distant location so they can see the footage, but are effectively limited in the amount of input they can provide. There is usually some walkie-talkie kind of interface which makes communication purposefully difficult.
The commercial director
The director's goals and the client's goals are different. The client wants to sell product - that's why he's here. The commercial director wants something for his reel. He wants to do something with the client's spot that approaches "art", that demonstrates his skill, and, most importantly, will gain him more business. He also wants to please the advertising agency that hired him. That's it.
Why doesn't he care about the client's success? Even if the spot is wildly successful for the client, there is no assurance that the advertising agency (remember they're the one who hired him) will select his video production company for the next assigment. His goal, for the spot that he is shooting today, is to get his company more business in the future. The route to getting more business is to shoot pretty pictures with lots of new effects that impress other advertising agencies.
The commercial director also realizes that the ad agency doesn't want him to talk with the client, so if the client directly approaches him, he'll get the agency over to join the discussion ASAP. There is very little chance that he will build a seperate relationship with the client company during a shoot. As a result, there is little chance for future business from the client.
The advertising agency
The agency represenative has two missions during a TV commercial shoot, (1) keep the client happy and (2)limit the input from clients. Typically, they manage those twin tasks by using these magic words in response to every suggested change, "Why, yes, we could do that, it's a great idea - but there will be some costs involved. Maybe an extra day of shooting."
That effectively shuts the client up, and the shoot day is complete.
It's rare that the guy holding the checkbook is handled in this way, but it's all part of a standard video shoot.
2 comments:
Oh unclean! Unfair! I've been making commercials for over 20 years and 1. my job as the agency is also to sell your product, 2. you are kept from input because your input has been part of the process every day up to the shoot (time up) and 3. because we are professionals at this and getting what you need from the process.
Your input would not be appropriate because we have taken your schedule and budget and yes - hired our choice of production team. They do work for us. And we work for you and should have quelled your issues beforehand - there is no place for quick changes or new ideas at this point. It's a tightly run ship on a tightly run timetable. To keep it within YOUR budget.
Every stage of the process up until how has been done to ensure you get not only your input into the process but the agreed upon direction so not an iota of expensive money/time is wasted "exploring" things now. We know this from experience. Hence, you hired us. It's not because of some plot to keep you out, you were part of it and now it's in the hands of the professionals to execute. You wouldn't ask your plastic surgeon to let you advice more or less to the left/right during surgery - because you trust he has been listening up til now with your end results in mind. Right? Same dealio.
This old school view of us out to "get one over" on someone is rediculous. Ad agencies create products to sell yours. That's our goal. And if it wins awards or seems 'arty' to you - that's because it will get more attention that way to sell better. It's not a bad thing. It's not an 'us versus the client" thing. That's just crazy. Most times, it's us trying to SAVE the client from themselves and thier ideas that aren't effective/good.
If the guy holdign the checkbook knew all about production and creative he/she wouldn't need to hire an agency. The "ploys" of keeping the client separate and occupied had to be created because clients with no knowledge of the process lost time/money making suggestions that HAD to be followed and ruined many a shoot's results.
There is not one expensive second (literally) not budgetted ahead of time, timed out and plotted to accomplish at a well-run shoot. It's to your advantage you are kept away from mucking up the process. Learn to see your ad agency as an asset to your own ends instead of an enemy and you'll probably get some ads that actually accomplish your goals.
From: The Marketing Guy
Wow, thanks for the lengthy comment. But let me try to respond.
1. I started out in video production,so I'm not exactly a novice. I've produced, written or directed hundreds of videos and commercials. The comments that I would "muck" it up, is part of the problem.
2. As far as listening to me beforehand. I've been in pre-pro meetings where a director, just a day before the shoot, introduces a complicated shot that is clearly impossible in the time allowed. I informed him that, in my opinion, that was an impossible shot and it would cost us a day. They insisted they could do it, (planned to the second). I asked who paid for the day if they couldn't do it. The agency said, "You do". I was over-ruled. Guess what? They couldn't do it. In the end, the Agency absorbed the cost, but my input had been ignored.
3. These are not nickel and dime shoots, but with major companies like J. Walter Thompson.
4. Finally, the post is about what it's like on the client side. I know that production people work hard - I've done it. I just think the client should be part of the collaboration.
5. As for the surgery example, that's not fair. I am not making a suggestion about something I have no knowledge of, I've been doing this well over 20 years. Do you actually mean to say that my input is not valuable on a shoot for my own company??
6. Please come back an post again! Thanks, I appreciate a difference of views.
Post a Comment