Starting today, I’m launching the Animation Anomaly Papers section which you can access here or though the menu bar at the top. The papers are essentially longer and more detailed blog posts dealing with specific topics on animation. The goal is to publish a new one every month.
Please feel free to share with everyone you know who might be interested and please do give me some feedback; positive and negative!
It’s something that this blogger has been contemplating for a while; just how can the development process for animation be streamlined? Right now there’s a fair bit of black magic and voodoo involved with getting a series created, developed, made and on the air and despite some people’s attempt to change that, the efforts are far from codified. The problem is the changes the entertainment landscape is going though will render traditional development models obsolete. Simply put, the risks of developing an original property from scratch will be seen to be too great and will be sidelined. So what will take its place? Here’s a look:
Only Pre-Existing Concepts Will Be Considered
Essentially, this means that major studios will seek out and only seek out those ideas which are already successful. That includes pretty much anything from comics to webseries. Yes, networks already like to find established properties, but they are not averse to new, unfounded ideas if they check all the boxes. That will change though, and at some point, if you’re not a success on your own, studios won’t want to know you.
Consider it similar to the way franchise are currently sold. Basically, the franshisee must prove a certain amount of capital so for example, although a McDonalds restaurant is practically a license to print money, you have to stump up $300,000 of your own before you can run one.
In the case of animation, this capital will come in the form of an audience. Read: your idea will have to have an audience before a studio will consider buying it. The purpose of this is essentially risk avoidance; i.e. you undertake the risk of creating and marketing your idea as opposed to the studio. Naturally they will compensate you for this when they buy or license it, but if studios can offload risk, then they will absolutely do it.
How big will the audiences need to be will vary, but they will rely on the core, returning audience (i.e. fans). Total visitors won’t be enough to convince them otherwise.
Timelines Will Be Compressed
Animated projects can take months, even years, to develop. That will all change however, as the shift to pre-existing concepts as outlined above will eliminate many of the steps involved with creating an animated TV show or movie. While you can expect some of the pre-vis work to disappear from studios (they will naturally live on outside) this will have the effect of compressing timelines significantly.
Furthermore, if it’s a series that will go out on the web, expect immediate release, perhaps even on the day production wraps. Simply put, if it isn’t online, it won’t be bringing in the bacon. South Park already exhibits this kind of behaviour in the famous Six Days To Air documentary which has also handily kept the series fresh after so many years where others have long gone stale.
Expect Better Classification Of Concepts
Today, development executives and networks are pretty good at outlining the kind of content they are looking for. That said, there is still plenty of room for improvement and saying “I’m looking for a fantasy show for ages 6-10” is a heck of a lot less descriptive than “I’m looking for a fantasy show featuring a lead female amongst a group of four (50-50 gender split) who has been tasked with defeating an evil antagonist over the course of 13 web episodes of 10 minutes each.” Expect studios and networks to really drill down on what they are looking for but within tolerances.
The reason is simple: as audience measuring and tracking tools improve to the point of identifying individual viewers, studios will be able to create truly niche programming that they will [accurately] target at their audience. They will know this audience almost as well as they know themselves, and studios will request concepts accordingly.
Does this mean you have to create something with such a precisely targeted audience in mind? No, of course not, but be open to the idea that you’ll have to persuade someone to buy it based on who it will attract rather then simply ‘girls’ or ‘boys’.
Standardisation Should Become Commonplace
Pitching and development is more of an art than a science but efforts like Amazon Studios is the first salvo in attempts to change that. Their rules are plain and simple and are available for everyone to see. That said, what happens after concepts are submitted is still a bit of an unknown.
Either way, expect future animation development to follow a more regimented pattern that should be universally known within the industry. There is a likelihood that we’ll see a greater number of steps in development primarily as a tool to weed out ideas before they get too far. In essence, development will become close to the ideal of a production line with set steps and procedures. You can also be sure that whichever studio develops an efficient pipeline will see it copied by others, thus proliferating it as a standard.
Animation Development Should Become Easier
Lastly, all the above changes should mean that animation development should become a bit easier for all concerned. With development becoming easier, this can only mean that we will see a greater level of animated content being created and broadcast. Sure, it might still err on the expensive side of things, and it may still take some time to do, but overall, the easier it is to get animated content on the screen, the more likely we are to see it on the screen.
Is there something you would change about the development process as it stands today? Let us know with a comment!
Yesterday, the Harvard Business Review permitted to be published a truly troll-worthy piece by Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London in which he outlines what he believes are Seven Rules For Managing Creative People. Given the rather explosive nature of the piece and the fact that it would be all too easy to score cheap points by simply dissecting and invalidating his rules, instead, let us consider how to genuinely manage creative people.
Respect Them
For starters, artists are people just the same as anyone else with skills. Even if they do not have the formal education that many careers provide, require or recognise, they are individuals first and foremost. Giving them the respect they deserve should be the foundation of any business let alone creative ones. Too often the problem becomes systemic within management and workers are treated unfairly. Indeed, workers in manufacturing industries are often viewed as economic units of production rather than human beings. Such views run counter to the long term view of any industry and animation is no different.
Praise Them
Did an artist do a good job? Then tell them! You remember what it was like in school, right? Remember the sense of satisfaction and joy you had when the teacher, honestly and sincerely, said you did a good job? Well what works for kids works for adults. Praise is the cheapest form of flattery you can give and you can wrangle a lot of miles out of it.
It’s important as well to always praise, even if something is the crappiest thing you ever saw, make a habit of finding something about it to praise. Make an effort to focus on the good things and wonders will result. Constantly berating, criticising and chastising employees may achieve short term results, but will incite long term resentment to your detriment.
Encourage Them
While praise is a cornerstone of good management, encouragement helps employees to shine. Encouragement is just as cheap as praise, but the results can be spectacular. Does an artist have a bit of bother with a certain style? In addition to finding praise in their hard work, suggest an extra class they can take, or even better suggest they hook up with someone else within (or without) the studio to whom they can be mentored by. See? The praise would only go so far, but the encouragement is what will really spur the desired change.
Encouragement should be seen as a necessity no matter what the level or age of the artist. Certainly not all will attain the top level of the career ladder, but that should not preclude anyone from constantly improving their skills or exploring new ones. Only through such continuous development can artists hope to maintain their focus and interest in the job at hand.
Did I mention you can encourage personal work too? Yeah, that can also help a lot; witness many studios’ in-house exhibitions.
Pay Them
Pay people peanuts and you get monkeys.
So said legendary ad man David Ogilvy. He’s as right then as he is now, even though he’s, uh, dead. You can pay the very minimum of wages and get the job done, but at what long term cost? A low wage will not act as an incentive or even as a motivator for many people. Conversely, a high wage may not act as a motivator for some people. (An important fact to keep in mind.) Do you need to pay people a million dollars? No. But you should pay them a wage that is proportionate with their age/skills/motivation. Naturally, those that are motivated should be paid more than those who are not as an incentive to continually develop in a professional context.
The long term focus should be on the mind of all management at all times. Squeezing the extra out of people may be OK every now and again, but sustain exploitation will do studios no good at all. Mainly because it masks costs, but that’s a topic for another day.
The same goes for interns. They are they to learn, not to produce and if they are, they deserve to be paid.
Nudge Them
Praise can work, encouragement can work but sometimes you need to nudge creative people. Uncertainty is natural but only by moving outside of their comfort zone can anyone hope to succeed. For this blogger it meant leaving Ireland to come to the USA. A drastic move to be sure, and it was waaaaay outside his comfort zone, but it has afforded him many opportunities that he would not have had if he had never undertaken it.
Just bear in mind that prodding should be subtle and not an outright demand. The former is more likely to produce results whereas the latter will only invoke that dreaded resentment. By prodding people, you need to effectively and positively, illustrate the benefits to pursuing whichever action is desired.
The Interesting Conclusion To Managing Creative People?
The interesting and fascinating conclusion to the above points?
Their applicable to anyone!
Yes! Creative types are not some weird pseudo-class of person; their just like everyone else! The above points are just as applicable to them as it is to anyone else, in any industry!
So what points would you add? Draw upon your experience and share with others with a comment!
Animator Mike Geiger has posted a lot of material from a pitch project he worked on back in 2009. If you’re looking to get familiar with the kind of work that pitching a project involves, you could do yourself a few favours by checking out this post.
Why Shorts (The Animated Kind) Still Matter
The Ladies of Comikazi serve up a great post that looks at animated shorts and why they still matter in an age when they seem irrelevant.
Genius Doesn’t Know Genius
You’re probably already familiar with Pixar’s ’22 Rules of Storytelling’ but do you know how well they translate into the writing process? If not, then Jim Hull’s post is for you!
This week, the judge allowed a Kung Fu Panda copyright infringement case to move forward as there appears to be sufficient merit to the plaintiff’s claims that DreamWorks stole his idea for Kung Fu Panda and subsequently profited [greatly] from it.
The Facts
The Hollywood Reporter outlines in detail the background to the case in which Jayme Gordon alleges that the studio knew of his idea and developed it internally subsequent to sending him a rejection letter.
DreamWorks naturally filed for summary judgement; basically claiming that the case shouldn’t go to trial because the evidence already uncovered is enough to warrant a decision. The judge denied this for the reasons below.
Where Things Get Interesting (And Relevant)
The case has already gotten much farther along than similar cases but already there is the potential that all is not what it seems. The judge has noted that Gordon admitted destroying his original documents after compiling them into a pitch bible. While Gordon claims that “I make a practice to shred everything. If I make a new book, I shred the old stuff.” his actions are cause for alarm.
Such actions are tantamount to destruction of evidence. Gordon knew that such materials would likely prove his case but he destroyed them. While that certainly harms him, it also serves to derail the cause of justice on the part of DreamWorks. If the original materials were different enough to prove their innocence, then they stand to lose a lot of money.
Although its far too early in the case to call it for one side or the other, its disconcerting that Gordon doesn’t have a solid record of his work. He claims to have registered his work with the copyright office but his date of registration was only two days prior to the release of the film although he claims the works were created in 1999.
Programming is the skill of matching content to audience. Programming is what built the global TV and film industry from $200 billion to $300 billion in the last decade. If you want to succeed in digital media going forward, programming is EVERYTHING.
This post isn’t so much an analysis but a hearty recommendation to go and read Ben’s entire post. It commands a lot of thought because given the long production times for animation, extra planning will be required to ensure that the intended audience does not evaporate before the show is produced. The article also lays out a few secrets to success that are well worth familiarising yourself with.
Although the article is based at a much higher level than what most readers of this blog would need, you should note them nonetheless because the day will come when the content you create will have to abide by these rules if you want it to be seen by large audiences.
A good while ago, we wrote about how Cartoon Network was letting down its own fans by restricting the online streaming on their site to cable/satellite subscribers only. Unfortunately, that still appears to be the case, and the network, along with its hit show Adventure Time is all the worse for it.
Why???
The reason is simple, fans can’t [legally] view the latest episodes when they want to. If you don’t have a DVR or a cable subscription (as I don’t) then you’re basically out of luck. Besides torrents, there are plenty of site that will stream the latest episodes and they are only a Google away.
And This Hurts People How?
Well, David OReilly created an episode of Adventure Time that was broadcast last night and subsequently attempted to melt the internet but was fortunately unsuccessful. That said, plenty of fans in the hours afterwards attempted to view it and were out of luck.
Cartoon Network doesn’t have it on YouTube and their aforementioned full episode streams on their website aren’t open to everyone. The result? Fans willing to dilute their own viewing experience by accessing crappy streams. As OReilly himself notes:
Fans, so pious is their love for Adventure Time that they would rather watch a shitty compressed stream that isn’t even the right colour than wait for Cartoon Network to rerun it. Nobody gains from this.
The Kicker to The Whole David OReilly/Adventure Time Saga
The kicker to all of this is the fact that nothing can be kept offline any more. Heck, the episode was even leaked prior to its airing on the network itself. Sure, Cartoon Network realise they have a winner, but they also fail to realise that with such an explosive show, they need to be on top of handling it when it goes off.
With a big event like this, attention and demand will be concentrated at around the time that it is first made available. You can capitalise on that, but only if you are ready for it.
How does Cartoon Network gain from people watching illegal streams? They don’t! Plain and simple. However, that being said, there is no logical reason for them not to offer legal streams on their own sites or YouTube channel. How many views could they have gotten if the episode was available immediately after it was broadcast? Half a million? One million? More?
Given the recent success of Bravest Warriors, it’s fair to say that the Glitch is a Glitch episode of Adventure Time could easily be at over a million views by now (<24 hours later). Anything that Cartoon Network could have gained from those views is gone; either spread amongst the streaming sites or lost to unauthorised downloads.
How To Counteract It
What really irks this forward thinker though is that they could counter it so, so easily. They could simply put the episode up on YouTube for 24-48 hours for starters. They could harvest views on their site without necessarily damaging the ratings of reruns later on. They would gain the exposure and potentially drive more people to check out the older episodes which, thankfully, are now on Netflix.
They could also have it available to buy. Again, no sign of that less than 24 hours after broadcast.
Where’s the associated value-added merchandise that we discussed just the other day? Why is there quite literally nothing except the episode available except for the tidbits that David OReilly himself has been posting and tweeting about? The man knows a thing or two about nurturing fans and its sad to see his expertise being completely ignored.
The entire saga should be used a lesson so that people can learn how not to react when something this big hits the internet.
“In 1975 animation was a dying art! All the theatrical animation studios were closed except Disney, and by 1975 even Disney was moribund. Animation for TV was all toy and cereal commercials, and was so bland that nobody but little children watched it. The very few festivals of animation were glorifications of the past, attended mostly by animation veterans and cinematic scholars, not the public. Then in 1975 the first home video cassette recorders came out. They took about a decade to become widespread, but suddenly the public was asking TV stations to show more classic cartoons so they could record them to watch whenever they wanted. Movie studios and whoever owned the rights to old cartoons found that there was big money in putting them out on video. The first video releases of old prints were later upgraded to remastered prints with original title cards. Today new animation features are being made because the studios know that they can make as much or more from video sales as from theatrical screenings. Animation that hasn’t been seen in decades is available again, and permanently for whenever anyone wants to see it, not just when its studio re-releases it theatrically or on TV. The animation industry was just short of dying when the first VCRs came out; now it’s bigger than ever!”
What kind of lessons can we glean from the above statement?
Technology improved access to old animated content
Consumers demanded said access to the content
Once access was granted, money started to flow.
What kind of parallels can be drawn with the digital revolution of today?
One of the hot topics at the moment is access to older content and how simply throwing them up online isn’t seen as being a viable option for many studios. Classic Looney Tunes shorts and Disney feature films are tough to come by online (although some of the latter are on Netflix) and the quality of the public domain films available on YouTube is all over the place.
Yes, it is possible to see the animation that isn’t online, but that was the case back in the 1970s too. It’s that the ease of access hasn’t kept pace with technology. Whereas before you would have to obtain a copy of the actual film, today, you have to obtain a copy on DVD. While the latter is far cheaper and more convenient, it nonetheless must be done.
Time is the real factor here. Why expend time trying to find old animated content to watch when you can watch something that is instantly available? That is what we have in common with the scenario Lantz illustrates.
How What Worked Then Will Also Work Now
Funnily enough, the improved access that worked then will also work today. What the studios realised was the the [monetary] value wasn’t so much in the content itself as it was in how it was packaged and sold. Today, that is still the case but we have moved away from valuing the content itself to valuing what comes with it. Essentially, old content sold today must be in value-added form.
Here’s the transition:
VHS: Selling the content itself in a package that permits anytime viewing
DVD: Selling the content in a technology that permits the inclusion of content extraneous to the original film (commentaries, features, direct access, etc.)
Internet: _____?
Actually that last one isn’t as blank as you might think. Sure we are still using the content, but with the internet, we can access it anytime (and from anywhere), with any additional features/commentaries we desire. So what can possibly be used to entice people to pony up for it?
Well, the short answer is, you don’t. The structure of the internet means that it is better to give the content away for free. Sure you can use DRM to lock it down, but there have already been too many examples of either compatibility/access issues with DRM content. The worst of which comes when the DRM servers are deemed too expensive to keep running and are switched off leaving paying customers in the lurch.
That’s a scenario you want to avoid at all costs and the easiest way to do it is to keep access to the content free. But if you can’t charge for that, what can you charge for? Well, that’s the current challenge that’s facing many studios and networks.
One option is to rent it a la Netflix but you can’t rely on that as the “per view” rate is stupidly low and unlikely to ever bring in serious money. Nope, instead you have to use smarts and figure out what you have that is scarce.
In the case of older films, there isn’t really a lot of scare stuff out there, so what do you do? You make some of course! Merchandise is the first thing to come to mind and if it is done right, you can use the content itself as the engine for your merchandise empire.
Secondly, people like to have a sense of belonging. Disney’s D23 is proof of the kind of corporate fan club that is detestable but also successful. They charge a membership fee but in return deliver a lot of things that fans value. Things like a regular magazine, discounts on merchandise, and opportunities to attend exclusive events. All of these do cost money, but they drive repeat business and help drive the overall Disney brand.
What Old Cartoons Could Benefit?
Where is our Looney Tunes club? Why doesn’t Betty Boop have something to draw fans together besides being on clothing lines? Felix the Cat appears on fine art costing thousands of dollars but nothing that fans can share with each other?
These are all questions that could be answered through the steps discussed above. Keeping access to old animation and cartoons is the only way to ensure that they are still enjoyed. VHS may have brought animation back from the dead, but that doesn’t mean its soul won’t die instead.
What would you do to bring fans of old cartoons together? Let us know with a comment!
