Richard Brody at The New Yorkertouches on the 22 Rules of Storytelling at Pixar that have been making the rounds recently. His issue is that the results of such processes result in “the cinematic equivalent of irresistibly processed food, with a ramped-up and carefully calibrated dosing of the emotional versions of salt, sugar, and fat.”
Tom Sito’s History of Computer Animation
The FLIP Animation Blog has another excellent interview up. This time it’s not only with Tom Sito, but it’s all about CGI and computer animation in its early days and how it developed. Well worth some of your time to see how the technology developed.
2D or Not 2D, The Disney Feature Animation Legacy.
Thomas Coleman over on the Skwigly blog has a post where discusses whether or not traditional 2D animation is the legacy of Walt Disney and his company. His conclusions may surprise you.
Yes, my childhood hero of a postman is apparently popular enough in the middle eastern country of Jordan to warrant his own CGI feature film. The Guardian takes a tongue-in-cheek look at this curious scenario.
Careful! You’ll Hurt Disney’s Feelings!
Mark Mayerson has a brilliant post over on his blog where he points out that the censorship that Disney engages in. Basically they use their copyright as a tool to squelch any parts of books that they do not like. As Mark points out, this immediately makes any book that is approved for publication immediately falls under the cloud of being potentially tainted by the Disney legal department’s hand and being considered “damaged goods” as far as the truth is concerned.
There is a term to describe this practice and it’s called ‘copyright abuse’. Copyright provides for the holder to prevent and prohibit unauthorised use of their material for commercial gain. Using it as a tool to prevent their inclusion under otherwise ‘fair use’ terms, is far outside of the intended use of copyright and thus becomes an abuse of the system.
Launching over tomorrow and Sunday is the Angry Birds cartoon series. Although on the surface a rather uneventful, uh, event, this series is unique in a few ways that we haven’t seen before. Let’s take a look at what they are and what they could mean for the series.
It’s Based on a Game
OK, this isn’t a new thing, but it is new that it’s based on a mobile game. Plenty of console characters have had their animated likeness plastered all over screens (Mario and Sonic being the obvious ones), but Angry Birds is the first game to make the leap from the mobile one.
Naturally, this was almost a given seeing how successful the series of games has been and over 1 billion downloads is nothing to sniff about for any form of media. This existing brand recognition among members of the public will do ithe Angry Birds cartoon no harm at all.
The Show Has a Supporting Empire
Yes, the studio behind the franchise, Rovio, has been harbouring ambitions beyond the video game and unless your vision isn’t the best, you’re bound to have noticed the proliferation of Angry Birds merchandise that was just about everywhere this past Christmas season.
Toys, stuffed animals, branded gimmicks; Angry Birds is on all of them and barring an over-saturation, the brand has the marketing pump well-primed to deliver a series into.
Contrast that with how a normal series builds up attention via broadcasts and tries to sell the merchandise thereafter. The risk to Rovio for the Angry Birds cartoon series is significantly less; a fact that is sure not to be lost on other studios. After all, why sink a huge amount of money into a series when you can cobble together an app or game for much less and build from there. Don’t laugh, Disney has already begun laying the groundwork.
Using the App for the Angry Birds Cartoon’s Distribution
This final point is where the Angry Birds cartoon really differs from the pack. Rovio is offering the series through the company’s Angry Birds mobile app (among other media)
The reasoning behind this is fairly obvious. Rovio’s software is installed on over 1 billion devices and seeing as they have the ability (through software updates) to add the necessary functionality to play videos, why not give their cartoon a prominent placement where it is likely to be seen by the very people most likely to watch!
The studio will release one short a week for an entire year. Each episode will be available through the app and you can be sure that every user will get a notification to say it’s available for viewing, a surefire way to drive up the viewing numbers.
This strategy is curious; sure Rovio will have a massive potential audience, but what of those of us who haven’t downloaded the game (or have Comcast for that matter?) It’s unlikely that people will download the app just to watch the series so is Rovio actually, purposefully, limiting their potential audience?
The signs seem to indicate yes, albeit on scale so massive it may not matter much today. Rovio will have to alter it or find an alternative in the future though. If their ambitions are to be believed, they will have to venture into the world beyond mobile phones to find greater success.
That said, all the best to them. I’ll be watching to see how well they do.
In a recent piece published on the New York Times website, Armond White (chief film critic of City Arts) makes the plea that the level of computer animation in mainstream films be reduced, lest moviegoers lose all sense of realism. The article is a short one, but it manages to mangle many of the myths surrounding animation into points with which to bash the technique.
It Kills A Movie’s Credibility
In this post-“Avatar” culture, Hollywood relies on digital effects to emphasize lavish other-worldly environments to give audiences what they want: escapism. But there’s also an escape from credibility happening here. Special effects used to bring us closer to realism; now they douse us in artifice. “Speed Racer,” anyone?
Don’t all audiences want escapism though? Surely that’s the reason they even watch films in the first place; as an alternative way to spend time than doing something in the real world. Does White purpose that animated special effects make films seems unbelievable? Because in the case of the two films he calls out, that’s precisely the point.
It’s hard to articulate his line about being driven away from realism though. Animated effects can do both in exactly the same way that makeup can. Makeup has been used since the dawn of cinema to facilitate an audience’s faith in constructed realism. Animated effects are no different; they manufacture realism when it is necessary and compliment reality when it is not.
It Pushes Technology Over Narrative
Technological excess has overwhelmed narrative meaning. This digital grandstanding suffocates what I — and D.W. Griffith and Andre Bazin and past generations of theorists, critics and cinematic practitioners — once considered the essence of cinema: nature and the human face.
This would be an appropriate statement if, and only if, computer animation was applied to every single film released in the manner that White describes. A scenario that patently doesn’t exist. The Hunger Games is a film that utilised CGI when it needed to (in Panem) but quite happily took in all the nature it could once the setting changed to the arena.
While Oz may or may not be an artistically significant film (this blogger leans towards the latter), the decision to rely on large amounts of computer animation for the look rests entirely with the studio that produced it. Said studio (Disney) has been noted as relying on so-called tentpole films that contain a lot of CGI for the precise reason that it draws in audiences. Artistic credibility is sufficiently absent from the list of goals for such films that emphasis star performers, grandiose plots and visual spectacle. To bemoan the lack of cinematic credibility in such films is comparable to decrying the dearth of opera on ESPN; it’s looking for something that will never be.
The further Hollywood gets from that essence, the more computer-generated imagery we will get. “Animation Domination,” as it’s advertised on the Fox network. It almost seems as if Hollywood’s emphasis on digital effects aims to turn moviegoers into children rather than aesthetically responsive viewers.
Yup. Animation is turning us all into kids because that’s what animation is meant for, right? NO! Just because the technique is prevalent in content that is suitable for young viewers in no way means that it is responsible for turning viewers into delinquent juveniles. If you want to make that argument, blame the content itself; how it is formed and presented has next to nothing to do with it.
Animation is capable of the full range of dramatic cinema that live-action film is and this fact is something that Mr. White should be aware of, but he has regretfully glossed over this in favour of using animation as an excuse for Hollywood’s risk-averse business decisions.
You Can See His Point Though
I do empathise with White when it comes to mainstream cinema though; a market where most big releases are increasingly following a formula (they always have of course, but it is obvious now more so than ever) and that formula just happens to call for lots of CGI and banal plots.
I cannot agree with his statement that we are “are suffering from digital effects overload, plain and simple”. The rise of the internet as a distribution platform and the plummeting costs of filmmaking equipment and technology means that there is a burgeoning independent scene that is all too happy to rely on the good old fashioned style of cinema that caters to artistic minds
Animation is not the source of cinema’s current slate. If anything, it is holding it up.
Sprung up over the past month is a new website that deals with everything Disney, and in ways that are familiar to many fans out there. GIFs, top 10 lists of things, and other silly posts that appeal to the funnier side of Disney characters and films (for example, Damsels Not In Distress). However, for all the joviality, there is something that appears slightly off about Oh My Disney, which is not surprising since it’s the corporation itself that’s calling the shots.
The Indicators
If you visit the site, everything appears innocently enough:
Sure the Disney Company makes no attempt to hide the corporate signage, but it doesn’t display them as prominently as you might expect them to either.
The posts themselves look appealing, even enticing with such titles as:
O…K… Maybe a contributor is a bit of a fan of that godawful show?
Nope:
With another round of The Bachelor coming to a close today (at 8|7c on ABC), we found ourselves asking the question on everyone’s mind: Who would win if all The Lion King men were pitted against one another on The Bachelorette?
Hmmm, that’s an all-too-subtle-yet-painfully-obvious “hint” that the show is on ABC tonight isn’t it? How many fan sites do you know crow about other properties within the Disney empire in such a blatant display of corporate synergy? Well, uh, none. (No, the ‘advertisement’ flags don’t count, they’re so ubiquitous on the web these days, they blend into the background.)
A bit further down the page we get the marketing schtick for the latest Oz movie that [oh so conveniently] just hit cinemas here in the US.
These blatant promotional posts are not slammed down users’ throats, but they are dispersed just enough to make them appear to be of similar thread than the less serious ones.
The Problems With The Oh My Disney Model
It would be all to easy to point out and discuss the rash of commercial posts on the site, but that would be the obvious (and therefore, easy) choice. No, what Oh My Disney represents is a company attempting to subvert the very fan culture and trust that sustains it.
You see, fans and fandom help support studios, but more often than not, they reside outside of the studios control. Sure, there is some communication (one-way most of the time) but if a studio tries to pull the rope, fandoms can react in the most unpredictable ways (just look at how many ‘reboots’ have been needed over the years.)
With Oh My Disney, the company is attempting to, not so much manufacture, but certainly to control how fans interact with the company and its content. It is trying to not only dictate which content is appropriate, but it is also attempting to dictate how fans react with it.
Just look at the Lion King post, who the heck isn’t going to click on that? Everyone likes the Lion King (except me). The same goes for all the other ‘original’ posts that give fans a few golden nuggets of joy.
The problem is that OMD remains a corporate entity, and thus, it also retains the one-way communication. You can share posts wherever you want, but if you disagree, you won’t be able to air your dissatisfaction on Disney’s website.
Ultimately, Oh My Disney subverts fandom because it strives to prove that the company itself can do it better. That they can create better, funnier posts and that they can sneak in some advertising while they’re at it. That’s a betrayal of fan’s trust, who have already been doing so for years without any help and still remaining loyal to the company.
How are they expected to feel when they learn that not only is Disney muscling in on their turf, they’re trying to sell to them as well? You know the answer as well as I do. At the end of the day, it’s dishonest, but then what else are we to expect from Disney these days.
The Alternatives
These should be pretty obvious, but just about everywhere not connected to the Disney Company. They’ll even be real fans, just like you on the other side of the computer screen doing it for the love, not a marketing employee doing it for the money.
Is Oh My Disney a corporate wolf in sheep’s clothing? Let us know with a comment!
It’s been about four months since we wrote about the innovative attempt by Frederator to bring high-quality animated content to the online masses with the Bravest Warriors. With the first season coming to an end it makes sense to pay them a visit and see how well they’ve done.
The Numbers
As with every form of media, the numbers are extremely important and Bravest Warriors is no exception. Although it is still very early to say, the numbers are nonetheless impressive for a web series. The most viewed episode was number 3, Butter Lettuce with 2.068,624 people having watched it as of writing with the current average views per episode coming in just under the 1 million mark
The Viewing Pattern
Just as important as the viewing numbers has been the viewing patterns. Just check out the graph for the first episode, Time Slime:
Notice something interesting? Yes, it’s spectacularly linear! traditional TV broadcasts only measure spikes when each episode is broadcast, and that only occurs once a week. With the internet, viewers can watch and be measured at any time, and the chart above should be of interest to anyone in content.
The fact that it is so linear means that viewing is fairly constant. Naturally, the audience consists of new and repeat viewers, the data for which is not publicly available. However, one would expect to see a sharp slope at the beginning followed by a long plateau. That is not the case however, and suggests that people are using the freedom of the web to view whenever is convenient for them. The result is a stabler, more predictable viewing pattern.
The Totals
In total, Bravest Warriors has so far pulled in over 10.6 million views. That’s awesome! How many cable (maybe even broadcast networks?) would like those kinds of totals for their shows? The best part is that number is far from final. Since the last episode isn’t even a week old, you can be certain that it will garner close to the average for the earlier episodes which is between 800,000 and a million viewers. That would put the final figure for the series at over 12 million views.
Twelve. Million. Views.
Even just two years ago, that kind of number would have been pie in the sky for an animated web series (an original one, not a one-off or a Charlie the Unicorn-like now-and-then series.) They exemplify how far the shift to online viewing has come. Remember, YouTube is barely seven years old and it still hosts a lot of cat videos.
The Future of the Bravest Warriors
What does all this hold for the future? Well a second season is a foregone conclusion at this stage, but in the broader sense, it proves that it is possible to succeed online with an animated series. Oh sure, a lot remains to be seen and the studio is keeping tight-lipped on how the financials look, but given how well the series is promoted, how well Frederator has been at getting the merchandise out and the generally positive reviews the series has received (<2% thumbs down), it’s safe to say that Bravest Warriors has been a hit.
Would you call Bravest Warriors a hit? Could it have done better? Let us know with a comment!
Here’s a short guide by Lauriellando on how female characters are all too often represented in comics, video games and even some animation:
While it is tempting to think that such forms of entertainment are enjoyed only by those on the periphery, but the truth is different. Plenty of people enjoy them in a casual manner and plenty of them are teenagers. The problem is that they send the wrong message that can, and is, filtered and extrapolated into false truths.
The reincarnation of Jerry Beck’s Cartoon Research site is throwing up plenty of golden nuggets. One of the latest is this excellent post about Leon Schlesinger and Edward Selzer and two non-animating men were responsible for some of the greatest cartoons ever committed to celluloid. As I say in my comment, it’s a real shame their style of management has fallen by the wayside.
DreamWorks Animation: Where Innovation and Imagination Collide
The Motley Fool has this mostly-fluff piece about DreamWorks and how technology is used throughout the company. The gist of the article is that the company is worthy of investor interest and has potential. Its still worth a minute of your time though.
Animation Learns a New Language
Michael Sporn over on his Splog has a complete article from the July, 1946 issue of The Hollywood Quarterly of the above title. Written by John Hubley and Zachary Schwartz, it discusses how animation was adapted during World War II to much more than entertainment. A comprehensive article that will be of interest to anyone with an interest in animation history.
How Disney Bought Lucasfilm—and Its Plans for ‘Star Wars’
You might have already seen this on other sites, but if not, definitely head over to Businessweek and have a read. Essentially, it was a very lucrative business deal for both parties.
With suitcase in hand, it’s time to leave your small-town life behind and head to the big city to make your dreams come true! Do you have what it takes to skyrocket to stardom? In the spirit of Sorority Life, Disney City Girl gives players the chance to engage in a stylish and aspirational virtual world!
As a recent New York transplant, the player will explore the city with the help of her fabulous friends, from BFF Jenna to adventurous Auntie Kate. She’ll discover the best places to shop and hang out, choose from a variety of glamorous career paths, and visit exotic locations. As she progresses through her career, your City Girl will accrue style points, continually decorating and upgrading apartments, expanding her wardrobe, and facing off with her friends in “Daily Look” fashion competitions! From a grungy studio to a Park Avenue penthouse, from overworked intern to successful CEO, from country bumpkin to glamour girl, City Girl will keep you coming back again and again.
Peggy does a good job of outlining why such a game is totally unrealistic and not just because it encourages false dreams. It’s a bit of a shame that a large corporation like Disney feels the need to pander to perceived tastes rather than taking a stand.
But… the Little Mermaid gave up her voice!
On the subject of Disney, Rebecca Hains saw the trailer for (now-shelved) The Little Mermaid 3-D release and noticed that the trailer proclaims that the film “gave voice to a whole generation”.
Eh? I’m scratching my head with that one. Head over to Rebecca’s blog for her thoughts and comments.
Animation Studies Blog
The Society for Animation Studies has launched a blog on their website. It looks at animation in a much more ‘academic’ sense and covers topics that you are unlikely to find anywhere else on the web.
Writing posts is enjoyable, but sometimes they can be a bit curt and to the point. For that reason, I’m considering writing a series of longer papers that would be a bit more detailed. A list of potential topics is listed in the poll below. Please take the time to vote for up to three that you would like to read. 🙂
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the rise of India and China as potential global animation superpowers. Many believe that this will be accomplished by quote/unquote ‘stealing’ jobs from other, more expensive countries such as the United States. Other believe that the rise of Indian cinema means that those same Western countries face a deluge of cheap, Indian features coming their way at the expense of local output. Both view are hogwash, but it is undeniable that India is looking to grow its animation industry. They are, however, doing so in a normal way, so much so, that Indian animation studios are really an overblown threat. Here’s a few reasons why.
The Culture Is Too Different
India has a vast, varied culture stretching back thousands of years. Its modern moviemaking industry is very much rooted in this culture and is reflected in pretty much ever film that’s released. Yes, the country shares a colonial history with Britain just like many other countries, but so dose America, Australia and South Africa. Yet the influence of the British is much stronger in those countries than in India, despite the latter gaining independence much, much later.
Film (and animation) is dependent on culture and cultural norms. India’s culture is extremely strong within the country itself as well as within ex-pat and emigrant communities. It is not strong in areas outside of these. Indian films are quite distinct from Western tastes (generally running much longer and dealing with different themes).
The country’s animated output either mimics local cultural norms or attempts to mimic Western ones. It succeeds with the former but falters with the latter. The simple reason is that it is extremely difficult to make a film that completely satisfies all the criteria for being culturally relevant. No, Slumdog Millionaire doesn’t count; it was a Western film with Indian themes but nothing more.
Disney has famously avoided such obstacles for decades by making films that are culturally obtuse; hence all the fairytales. DreamWorks unfortunately learned the hard way with Monsters Vs. Aliens; a film with plenty of gung-ho Americana that didn’t resonate well with foreign audiences.
Indian films will be similar. They will accurately reflect their origin and its culture, but until said culture and its filmmaking norms establish a large following among foreign audience, don’t expect films such as Kiara the Brave to be much of a threat.
It’s Not All About Cost
A ton of focus on India and its competitive abilities have centred on cost, particularly labour cost. The first thing to get out of the way is that it isn’t all about costs. Yes, they play a large role, but ultimately, any studio that decamps to India on the basis of a lower wage rate is playing a mugs game.
The reasons are simple. Wages and salaries are only onecost that must be controlled when making a film or series. Sure, lower wages generally do reflect lower overall cost by virtue of their significant piece of the total cost pie. But they are not the be all and end all and it is unwise to use them as the sole reason to move abroad.
Sure, Indian animators may be cheaper, but there are many differences that must be overcome; cultural, administrative (taxes, permits, etc.), geographical (yes, this still matters in the internet age), and economical (GDP, purchasing power) all play a role in the decision to off-shore work. (These are handily summed up in the CAGE framework.)
Studios looking to move operations to India must look at all of these categories to consider whether it is beneficial to move. At the moment, even though cost is a major factor, the rest combine to make keeping animation US-based attractive for many companies. DreamWorks is moving ahead with its Indian and Chinese studios, but although these will handle some US work, my guess is that the ultimate aim is to get them producing their own content and that American productions are a simple way to get their skills up to speed quickly.
Work ethic also plays a role and even with all the abuses in the US VFX industry, it may stand to reason that Indian animators really are more productive. Maybe their isolated from the internet at work or they just don’t engage in office gossip, I don’t know. But if they can knock out more animation in a week, shouldn’t we be looking to them to discover their secret? I would as it would mean I could keep more people employed in the US.
Think Big as Well As Small
Much of all this ballyhoo has focused on the big players (Disney, DreamWorks, etc.) but not much has been mentioned about the smaller players. There are hundreds if not thousands of them and they certainly face similar pressures to the larger studios in terms of labour costs. What’s different though, is that smaller studios can survive even in areas where larger studios aren’t really viable anymore.
Take for example New York City. Large-scale studios have been absent from the city for quite some time, and yet the industry adapted and remains the hub the animated commercials. It also has a thriving independent scene as evidence by the one-man feature film production team that is Elliot Cowan.
The point is that even though large studios may be the ones who are making the most noise, smaller studios must put up with the same pressures, and they are the ones who will most likely be able to adapt.
Being Close To Home Still Has Its Advantages
For all the talk about the internet and the elimination of borders and distance, the truth is that both obstacles and more (time zones, etc.) continue to have a massive bearing on businesses. Studios are no different and when it comes to the client-studio relationship, sometimes it really is beneficial to have a close on rather than one that spans almost an entire hemisphere.
Email may be quick, but if its the middle of the night where the recipient is, that induces wasted time into the process. That may be tolerable for short projects, but for longer ones, it has the potential to add weeks to the schedule; an intolerable probability for many studios, even with all the cost savings taken into account.
Since the vast majority of animation projects are time-sensitive, for that and other reasons, studios large and small will continue to demand that work be carried out close to home. India may be cheaper, but when time is of the essence, being within arms reach is priceless.
The Crunch: Will Indian Animation Kill Off The American and European Animator
The short answer is no, it won’t.
The long answer is much more dependent on how American and European animators choose to react. If Indian animators constantly up their game and become more productive and proficient in Western culture, then yes, there is a real threat. If not, then Western animators can rest a bit easier. That said, technology is constantly improving to the point where it will be quicker and cheaper to send films to India for the monotonous or automated tasks (rendering, et.c.) Western animators will have to adapt to plying their advantages in their animating skills and abilities. If you can recognise that then you haven’t much to fear.
It’s been a rough couple of months for DreamWorks Animation. If it wasn’t the poor performance of Rise of the Guardians, it was delays in development and most recently, the job losses resulting from each. In essence it’s a cash flow problem. Guardians didn’t bring in enough to keep the studio going along a the pace it originally planned. Borrowing the money would be costly so the unfortunate situation is that the release schedule has been dialled back and people have been let go. Many media and blogs focused on those aspects, but few were asking what DreamWorks should do next. Here’s a few hints.
TV is Still King But So Is Original Content
As much as the death of TV is plastered on the internet, the medium is still very much alive. In fact it’s still far to big to ignore. The TV properties of Disney continue to prop up the film studio and until they don’t TV screen across the globe will continue to be central to any large studio’s strategy.
DreamWorks has made efforts to get its films onto the small screen. First it was The Penguins of Madagascar and recently it’s Dragons: Raiders of Berk. Both shows have done well on their respective networks and DreamWorks seems keen to continue to idea of spin-off shows. Heck, it did Disney no harm at all back in the 90s.
What DreamWorks should do though, is create an original TV series. They have the talent at their disposal, what better way to keep them busy and productive than to have them branch off into TV series? For one, they could crank out programmes much faster than feature films. Two, you can be sure plenty of networks around the world would jump at a DreamWorks TV show. And lastly, the revenues would help bring in revenue; not just from licensing fees, but from merchandise as well.
Sure, it’s a crowded TV market, but DreamWorks would be far and away the largest presence given that both Disney and Viacom (Nickelodeon) have their own networks. That fact would work in their favour.
Mobile Will Become More Important
The studio is off to a decent start, what with the tie-in with Rovio for The Croods, but what else are they doing in the mobile sphere? Well, they’ve got this augmented reality app that makes movie posters move. It’s a nice idea but ultimately a bit gimmicky. The studio’s Ptch app is a much better approach, but there’s been no word yet on where that app will ultimately lead for the company.
No matter who you talk to, the keyword is ‘mobile’. DreamWorks needs to figure out a concrete plan for the platform and what it intends to offer. Games are a no-brainer and Ptch is a great starting point, but where else can the company leverage its content on people’s phones and tablets? Netflix is clearly part of the solution, but the company could also look into leveraging the vast store of IT knowledge it has at its disposal. Just imagine a DreamWorks-created 3-D rendering app and you’ll get the picture.
Shorts Will Return
In my post predicting the future of animation, I state that shorts will make a comeback. To clarify, that’s not completely individual shorts but rather those along the lines of the classic Looney Tunes. In other words, a recurring set of characters in a wide variety of plots.
The reason is simple: in conjunction with the shift to mobile platforms discussed above, shorter content will become popular again. If you consider the limited periods of time that people spend on mobile devices, it makes sense to produce content on a 7-8 minute scale rather than the traditional 11 or half hour scale.
Cartoon Hangover is giving this idea a shot and they’ve done OK with it overall. Bravest Warriors could have tighter stories but on the whole, the shorts work for the YouTube generation. At the other end of the scale, the Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld shorts clock in at just over a minute each. Theoretically ideal for mobile, but ultimately too short for substantial storylines.
DreamWorks hasn’t really created any shorts outside of the extras on its DVDs. It would be nice to see them throw some [more] out there either as promotion for the films or as sidelines to the TV show. They could easily do it and the payoff would be substantial.
The Theme Parks Will Pay Dividends
Remember those theme parks that were announced a while back? Stop snickering! Just because they’re going to be situated in New Jersey and Russia is nothing to laugh about. Sure Disney has the theme park gig down pat, but they’re only in a few select markets (the US, France, Hong Kong and Japan.) DreamWorks is betting that with smaller, indoor parks, they can grab customers from a smaller area, but ultimately have them visit more times throughout the year, especially in the winter.
The parks are also in areas where Disney is not; Russia being the principal one. DreamWorks movies do quite well there, so it makes sense to head to that country first. The risk may be more than in western Europe, but the potential rewards are huge given Russia’s rapidly growing middle class.
The only downside to the theme park idea is that the dividends will take years to reap.
Technology Is The Silent Winner
As mentioned above, DreamWorks has a great store of computing knowledge acquired historically from the PDI divsion and also through the technology that the studio itself has pioneered. The company has been moving in the technology direction for some time, and it make sense to continue down that road
Pixar has long done the same, selling and supporting its Renderman software as a side business to the animation. DreamWorks appears to be slowly doing the same, but it might be time to become more overt. Consider how Amazon went from being just an online retailer to an established technology firm thanks to the Amazon Web Services (AWS) division. The company basically realised that they could sell the technology they used to power their website and profit from it. DreamWorks could and should do the same.
Today I’m going to piggyback on a post by Brian Solis dealing with the Five Pillars of New Media Strategy. They apply to animation too, but in a slightly different way than how Brian lays out (mostly because I’m being more specific.) To start, here’s Brian’s list:
Listen, Search, Walk a “Daily in the Life” of your customers.
Rethink your Vision, Mission, and Purpose.
Define Your Brand Persona
Develop a Social Business Strategy.
Build and Invest in Your Community.
These are all great points, but they deal with more general and corporate businesses than animation. Let’s try and narrow them down to the same level as the small studio or independent animator. Lastly, we’ll justify why such strategies are important and necessary.
1. Know Your Audience
This is the very first point. If you are creating something, even an independent film, you need to know who you are making it for. It’s easy to argue that it may not even matter, but in fact, it does. Think about it for a second. You’re not going to create something and then lock it away somewhere, are you? No! You’re going to show it to people, maybe even sell it to them. Therefore, it’s vitally important to know who those people are.
In the case of a small studio, that person is normally the client, and you’d be very poor at your job if you didn’t read up on them! That said, studios more often than not put out independent projects, and while they have a good head start over independent animators, the odd dud does make it through.
All this isn’t to say you have to know the audience inside out, rather its to say that you should spend a proportionate amount of time doing the research. For independents, this could mean sussing out what festivals you’re going to submit to and figuring out what kind of films they generally like. For studios, this could mean setting a game plan for the short in terms of where it will eventually lead (maybe a series, maybe a calling card) and going from there.
2. Rethink Your Strategy Every Time
Lighting can sometimes strike twice, but that’s extremely rare. Was your last project successful? Are you tempted to do something similar again? Stop! Take the time to rethink things. What worked before may not work again; especially so if a significant amount of time has passed. Are you going in a different direction? Definitely take the time to figure out what has to change.
What if you’re humming along just fine on your strategy? Well, everyone else is changing up around you. You may be OK now, but eventually you will have to do a major overhaul, and that takes a lot of time (and money.)
Need proof of this? Just look at FOX. They had a bone fide smash hit with the Simpsons, but they tried for another home run using the same formula (no, not the shows themselves, but in how they approached them.) Futurama is sheer genius, but the network didn’t change their strategy for success. They focused on the wrong thing, and it ended up costing them; not once, but twice! (Family Guy in that case). If FOX had sat down and thought about how to make these new shows succeed, they may not have gone through the wringer like they did!
3. Be Aware Of How You Market Yourself
This is a critical one, especially for independents. When you make a short film, not only must you market it, you must market yourself as well. That fact can get pushed out of focus a bit during the process, but its vitally important to making your film succeed. You must know how to present yourself in order to succeed. Want commissions? Look like a keen, skilled, productive worker. Want critical acclaim? Appear more as an auteur of the technique.
These are just examples, but for the proof we need look no further than Bill Plympton; the undisputed master of independent animation. Bill knows just how to market himself to fans, and he does it expertly. He’s extremely personable and actively engages with fans all over the country and around the world! He knows the value of selling himself along with his films. That’s how he chooses to do it, how will you?
4. Develop a Social Business Strategy
This one I’ve left untouched because it applies to animation just as equally. How do you engage with fans/customers? What is your social business strategy? Do you create work and simply cast it off into the ether? Do you stonewall any contact with those on the outside? If so, that may be doing you more harm than good.
Remember, you don’t have to be a social media maven to find success. You might only want to tweet once a week. But if you can make that one instance count, then you’ve done the right thing. Plenty of animators (or at least the ones I follow) are pretty good at the social side of things. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter; all are important to maintain on a regular basis. Blogs are the single most important though. They often form the first stop of fans, the curious and potential employers alike. Failure to keep it up to date can prove costly in the end.
5. Build and Invest in Your Community
Again, this is left the same because it applies just as much to animation as any other business. Building your community is simple enough, but what does it mean to ‘invest’ in them? Why should you worry about investing if your an animator? Well, it’s quite simple. As Brian explains:
Community is much more than belonging to something; it’s about doing something together that makes belonging matter. Participate in the communities that you host and also the communities that host the conversations that are important to your business. That’s the secret to earning a lasting affinity the contributes to you becoming a trusted resource.
The gist of it all? Don’t passively put stuff out there. Sure, having a blog is important, so is updating it regularly, but if people comment on posts and never receive a reply, what does that do for you? Nothing! The same goes for email, @ replies, anything that could potentially lead to interaction with people other than immediate friends and family should be treated as valuable as tonight’s winning lotto numbers and demand similar action on your part too.
I don’t write all of that to preach, I have to do it to! Which is absolutely try to do as best I can. It’s tough, it demands a lot of time and effort, but the results are worth it.
Why You Should Take Heed of These Points
All the points above are not super secret. They’re basic common knowledge, but they’re the kind of common knowledge that we tend to take for granted sometimes. Now and then it’s nice to get a wee reminder about how to keep going and to make things work as best they can for you. These points go a long way towards that. Keep them in mind and utilise them on your next animation project (long, short or otherwise). You never know what the results could be!
