5 Elements of Great Communication

To get things done you need to be able to convey ideas clearly and effectively. Below are five elements the best communicators employ to deliver their message.

1. Get to the point. Say what you want. Say it up front. Then provide the background and supporting facts, figures, stories. Letting people know what you want up front provides context, it shows you value others time and lets the person prepare appropriate questions.

2. Stow the bullshit. Be credible. Prove your authority by demonstrating you're knowledgeable or have expertise in a specific area. If you can’t do that - if you don't have expertise on an issue - say so. No one is expert on everything. Saying, "I don't know" when you don't know, displays integrity and character, and convinces others you're worth listening to when you do know.

3. Relate it to them. Here's the thing, we're busy. We don't care about you. We don't care about your problems. We care about solving our own problems and our customers' problems. Help us do that and we'll reciprocate.

4. Create an emotional connection. People need to know what you're saying will matter to them. Connect by giving them your undivided attention and linking your message to something that matters to them. A great technique is to frame your message in a brief, relevant story.

5. Be clear. All the authority and empathy in the world won't help you if people don't understand your basic idea or how you came to your conclusions. Make a clear argument that people can follow, wrap your message in narrative, and be prepared with data and analysis to back up your points.

Bonus tip:

6. Ask yourself this question. Before you approach anyone -- to communicate anything -- ask your self: What do they want? You may not know the answer - the answer is beside the point. Asking the question shifts your focus away from yourself and onto the other person. That's the point.

Video Abandonment - How Quickly Are Viewers Clicking Away From Your Content?

How many of us click away from videos while they're still playing? The practice is called video abandonment and according to recent research by Visible Measures, more than 20% of us click away within the first 10 seconds of a video. At 90 seconds more than half of all viewers have moved on.

They also cited a popular beer ad which had a 40% abandonment rate within the first 10 seconds - far above the norm. However, when the "narrative punchline" of the ad was revealed around the 12 second mark, the ad stabilized and outperformed other online video benchmarks. The chart below shows the timeline and abandonment percentages.

For the vast majority of people posting videos online these numbers will mean little. But for advertisers, filmmakers and others looking to see some return on their video investment, these numbers can help us craft short-form video content that improves performance by better understanding online audience viewing habits.

The key points to take away from this are:
1] Be prepared for at least half of online viewers to abandon your video before it finishes
2] Think hard about the first 10 seconds
3] Accelerate dramatic (narrative) momentum through the entire video


www.flatplanetfilms.com

DiY Distribution - Stepping into the Water

There has been a great deal of discussion in recent months about alternative ways filmmakers can raise money to produce their films (crowd funding), and distribute them once they've been made (DiY distribution).

As a producer these options are extremely interesting to me. Crowd-funding because it promises (at least in theory), to democratize the process of fund raising by allowing filmmakers with exceptional projects, and savvy teams, to raise the money for their projects. DiY distribution, because it offers producers a way to get their film in front of audiences, monetize their productions, and if handled correctly, pave the way for future projects.

With this in mind my colleague and I have made the decision to leap into the DiY distribution waters to see if we can find our way to the shore. The film we're distributing is a indie film about love, loss, and how we often get in our own way when navigating between the two.

Our reasons for undertaking this will be familiar to any indie producer. Though the film received some genuine interest from distributors - who saw potential with niche audiences - as the filmmakers we'd see little, if any, participation. So over the next several months we will be building and implementing a strategy to reach out to those niche audiences ourselves, and see how far we can take it. I'll be chronicling our progress here.

One thing I can already speak to is that DiY distribution is no easy task. We first started talking about the possibility of attempting this a couple of months ago. After conducting exhaustive research, we are still developing our strategy, determining costs and pricing, designing the web site, poster and packaging, and handling a myriad details.

While it's certainly true that any smart person can self distribute their film, it's a daunting process that many filmmakers may not be prepared for. First, there is a great deal of misinformation about what's actually involved, and how to approach it. The learning curve can be a steep one.

Second, we're finding that DiY distribution requires a pragmatic assessment of the film and market, a moderate financial commitment, an incredible amount of time, and a skill set that includes:

• project management
• marketing and demographics
• web development and SEO
• ecommerce and fulfillment
• editing (trailers and clips)
• writing (web, ad, pr, social media, and marketing copy)
• affiliate and client management

DiY distribution is eye opening in it's implications for financing and recouping investment, and exciting on many levels. I'll be posting about our progress.




www.flatplanetfilms.com

Film Finance Conferences, or How to Spend $175 to Learn in an Auditorium What is Ubiquitously Available On the Internet for Free

Right now... at this very moment... there are literally dozens of Film Finance Conferences being advertised to indie film communities. Many of these Film Finance Conferences charge hundreds of dollars for admission. Some operate under the venerable guise of the non-profit. One such conference — currently being promoted in several Indie Film Groups on LinkedIn — makes such outrageous claims it is clear the organizers primary goal is to separate young filmmakers from their cash.

Many Film Finance Conferences market themselves to filmmakers as a way to: Get Your Project in Front of Investors, Financiers, and Producers Who Can Get Your Project Made!! Few legitimately offer such opportunity. Fewer still provide any real world, practical, and actionable advice for indie filmmakers on how to finance their feature.

At one conference I attended a panelist billed as "an entertainment attorney who had negotiated several high profile projects," was to speak on the following topic: How the New Financial Climate Affects Fund-Raising for Film.

His wisdom to the filmmakers in attendance...? He read a printed list of film financing methods that included Gap, Supergap, Debt, Pre-sales, and Negative Pickups. Not one word on topic. Not one word about what made the deals he allegedly negotiated happen. Just a list of financing options that is available for free on dozens of sites across the web. He also managed to mention 5 times how vital it was for filmmakers to consult with an experienced entertainment attorney. Several dozen of his business cards were fanned out in front of him on the table.

Another panelist billed as "an expert on business plans who had secured millions of dollars of financing," was supposed to talk about what a good business plan should include, show examples, and explain the process. Instead he meandered across a panoply of topics including thoughts on restaurants and political candidates. His greatest moment of insight was to mention that tax incentives are very helpful to filmmakers.

Another speaker, when asked about how to raise money to make your film, suggested selling T-shirts.

All the while the "moderator," sat slumped in his chair without asking a single question or asking the speakers to clarify or go into more detail.

So are Film Finance Conferences worth the time and money? Can indie filmmakers walk away with solid ideas on how to get their films financed and get their projects in front of financiers and producers who can get their films made? Sadly, the answer is no — don't expect to ever get in front of people with money to invest.

Most Film Finance Conferences are designed to fill the pockets of the organizer by emptying yours... get you to purchase the products or services of the presenters... or outright scams.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Inside In Filmmaking

Over the years, Hollywood – like any other industry – has sought to minimize risk and maximize return so they can continue in business. They have done this by creating a star-driven, blockbuster, and marketing centric industry.

This made sense at first as (conspicuous) consumers love to hear about the glamorous world of stars, and getting the word out about a film is, after all, a necessity to drive ticket sales. However, like many things that were created for a specific purpose, this model has become corrupted over time.

This was evidenced most recently in the banal, Couples Retreat. In the making-of vignette shown on HBO, the stars and producers tell us how they chose the logistically complex, expensive location of Bora Bora in French Polynesia so the film “…would provide a sense of place and greater authenticity for the audience.” Really?

As a producer I am extremely sensitive to every element that goes into making a film from locations to wardrobe to the food we serve the hard working cast and crew. Every detail matters. But choosing Bora Bora as a location had nothing to do with the audience — a dozen equally beautiful and less costly locations could have been selected — and everything to do with providing a playground for the cast and producers. And there lies the problem.

In so many cases filmmakers — and not just Hollywood filmmakers, though they are often the most egregious — create their films from the inside, for the inside. A model that once helped promote the glamor of cinema has mutated into a virtual Panopticon, where the audience is studied by unseen guards from a central tower, placed in demographic cells, and then delivered films made to support the system, rather than entertain the audience.

What the producers should have done in the making-of vignette on HBO, is discuss how they eschewed a shoot in Bora Bora so they could craft a smart script and a comedy worth an $8 - $13 ticket.

Instead the disingenuous producers gave themselves an all expense paid, ten* week vacation on a tropical island, while subjecting the audience to a longer, more expensive retread of the sitcom they saw on Tuesday night. You know, the one where the sophomoric, wacky guys, do those sophomoric, wacky things that frustrate their too attractive wives, who then act all put upon, and do those supposedly more responsible, but equally wacky things that befuddle the sophomoric, wacky guys.

*Ten week shooting schedule is an estimate
www.flatplanetfilms.com

Bible Fragment - From Wasteland

Journal Entry #17

I was asked today if I believe angels exist.

It was the fat man again. Looking down at me in the way only a man convinced of his own intellectual superiority can look down on a taller man. He asked in that same condescending tone, without really expecting a reply.

Today I decided to give him one.

I stepped momentarily away from the world around us and spoke of angels; what they stood for, or rather, the meanings human beings ascribe to them. Words floated forward such as goodness, and light. Generic, unworkable concepts that tell us little of substance.

I spoke of magic and the supernatural — where basically anything can occur without reason or repercussion. I spoke of physics and the laws of nature — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I spoke of duality, and of Lucifer — a fallen angel from the Christian pantheon and wondered: if one angel could fall, why not many?

As I watched the human beings swirl around us, oblivious to all but their own self interest, I verbalized the unasked question. If angels exist, then must not their opposite also exist? If there are things of light, then somewhere, must there not also be things of darkness? We recognize them perhaps as nothing more than a wisp of a feeling, but no matter how superior we feel, how advanced we become, this ancient feeling persists.

As adults we have become logical and pragmatic; we rationalize and compartmentalize. We have lost the flexibility of our young minds, and realize that if confronted by these dark things our minds would snap.

It's not the knife we fear, but the thought of the knife. It's not the odd, quiet neighbor that disturbs us, but the thought of what he may be doing in the basement of the house he's never invited us in to see. And in those thoughts, we wonder what it would mean to our perception of reality if one day, when we awoke, we found ourselves lying naked, bound and gagged in that basement, with our odd, quiet neighbor staring down at us. So we put those thoughts away.

It's why most of us cannot look at a person in a wheelchair, or stand to be near the infirm, and the insane — to do so brings us nearer those locked rooms in our minds. It's why we conform and consume, and cling to religions that assure us we are among those chosen to ascend. If people can rationalize something, then they can convince themselves they no longer need fear that something.

And yet that ancient whisper remains.

I was asked today if I believe angels exist. Stepping back into the world I turned to my questioner and asked a question of my own. Knowing what I just told you could be true — wouldn't it be best if they didn't?

As the pious, superiority slowly vanished from his face, he mumbled something about an appointment, and with a backward glance turned, and walked quickly away.

And as he disappeared into the crowd — plump thighs chafing with each hurried step — a thought came to me and I smiled. Perhaps I'll pay him a visit and put my theory to the test. I know where he lives.


From Jacob's Journal in Wasteland
Copyrighted material

Spending the Money - How to Get it Right

It’s a problem familiar to every independent producer - how to allocate limited resources so they have the greatest impact to the quality of the project.

No matter the budget, producers are often faced with the reality of fewer resources than hoped for. To create outstanding content, they must therefore concentrate on multiplying the value of the resources they have. Knowing how to do this, and when to spend the money to best effect is often difficult, but there are two factors we can focus on that are of disproportionate influence. These are time, and performance gain.

Time is the most important resource producers must manage. When deciding how to spend money, or allocate resources, it’s often the number one consideration. Spending money in ways that save time often translate to significant gains in quality and performance. The opposite also holds true – if the money being spent isn't creating incremental time gains, it almost certainly could be better spent in other areas.

Performance gain is the incremental improvement received with each dollar spent. The issue here is one of scale. How much better will the project be by spending a dollar in one area (locations, equipment, OT, etc.), as opposed to spending the same dollar somewhere else? Will spending that dollar create a better experience for the audience and stakeholders?

Making these decisions is as much an art as a science, but there is a simple rule of thumb that can help. When making these types of decisions I often use a very simple graph to help put things into perspective. On the X-axis is Time/Performance Gain, on the Y-axis is Resource Input (money, equipment, personnel). To illustrate I'll give an example.

On Welcome To Academia, we were shooting a very difficult scene at night, and approaching overtime, when the DP informed us we had a dead pixel on the camera. The choice was fix the pixel on set using the camera's software interface, or continue shooting and fix the dead pixel in post. Both alternatives had pros and cons.

Fixing the problem on set would take approximate 30 minutes while the crew stood idle and the clock ticked. Fixing it in post would allow us to keep shooting, but would require painting the affected area frame by frame. Depending on the action and length of the scenes, this could take a great deal of time. There was also the consideration of how a known problem with the footage would impact the cast and crew (on set this matters). So what was the better option?

When prepping the show, my producing partner,  Laura Cartwright, and I discussed this eventuality with our post house, and the camera techs at CSC in New York. We knew the rough cost-per-hour of fixing a dead pixel in post (it is impossible to determine exact time and costs until the footage is seen), and knew the precise cost of having our crew sit idle for 30 minutes, and the cost of each 30 minute period of OT. We decided to fix the camera on set.

On the surface it may seem as though idling the production would be the less efficient choice, but when all the variables were considered that was not the case.

As the chart at left shows, fixing the problem on set - under the circumstances we were in - was overwhelmingly the best choice. In a bad situation it made the best use of our resources because it gave us the highest time gain with the lowest resource investment.

It also gave us a chance to boost morale. While the camera department worked on the fix, the director rehearsed the last shots, and our wonderful craft service team whipped up some smoothies that cooled us down, and gumbo that restored our energy. 30 minutes later we were rolling cameras. Ultimately the scene looked phenomenal, and we made our day.

Deciding how to spend money comes down to deciding what actions consume the greatest amount of resources, while returning the smallest quality and performance gain. And conversely deciding which actions consume the least amount of resources, while returning the highest quality and performance gain.

Not easy choices, but when framed this way, producers can see beyond the stress of the moment to the bigger picture, and gain insight into how to direct resources so they make the greatest impact to the project, the team, the stakeholders, and ultimately the audience.


www.flatplanetfilms.com