Presentations and Posts

Posted by on November 7, 2012 No comments

A colleague told me that life of a freelancer doesn’t necessarily mean more time to write or casually poke at your own projects. I’ve also been told often that often people have lousy, out-of-date websites for their small consulting businesses because they are too busy to blog or update.  When I went freelance, I *promised* myself that would NOT be me. I would write regularly, and every post would be inspiring and meaningful!  Lesson learned: Be realistic and don’t make promises like that until I know what I’ve gotten myself into. Lesson learned #2: Yea, keeping content fresh and up-to-date really is that much work (not that I doubted, but it puts the knowledge into that much more perspective).

Radio silence has been both out of sanity, and out of a general sense of scatterness.  With a bit of focus and the realization that really and truly only so much can actually be accomplished in an 8 hour day, slowly things are coming back together.  If I can make it to the end of 2012, then no matter what happens, 2013 will be a good year.

While blog has been silent, plenty of writing has been had.  Many proposals (which I can’t share), many lecture note and presentations for Centennial College (which I shouldn’t share here, but I have a dream to convert a few into iTunesU collections….. someday….), and many, many emails.

Thankfully, instead of this post only rambling off mindlessly about writing, I can share some of the writing work I’ve done for industry that is publicly available!

First, prompting this post, my Prezi file from a workshop I did for Interactive Ontario‘s X-Summit “You’re Making What Now? Pitch-Perfect Clarity”:

Second, I’ve been working with Canada Media Fund‘s Market and Industry Trends team as part of their “Watch Squad”, doing bits of research/writing to help keep the CMF and it’s stakeholders on top of market intelligence and trends in interactive and broadcasting.  Four have been written/posted so far, with many more to come:

Video on Demand – What is VOD?

Emerging Video Creation Platforms

Social Audience – Part 1: Identifying Metrics

Social Audience – Part 2: Using Metrics

The End.

What? Me? Present?

Posted by on March 12, 2012 No comments

This article is a cross-post with the Interactive Digital Media @ Centennial College blog.

As many of you know, I am a Professor in a couple of post-graduate programs at Centennial College (Interactive Digital Media and Children’s Entertainment) and I also frequently guest lecture in the undergraduate Broadcast + Film program.  When I’m not teaching, one of the many things I enjoy doing out in industry as a professional is speak at industry events.

All of this is pretty amusing if you knew how introverted I was and how much I hate hearing myself talk.  But I do it because I love sharing what I know with others to help them grow and learn.  That passion, so far, seems to override my nature of sitting quietly in a corner.

The “screen-based” industries (interactive digital media, games, television, web series, film) are full of introverted professionals, especially as the industries trend more and more to digital technology.  Developers, interactive/game designers, video editors, writers, sound designers, animators – all professionals whose days consist mainly of sitting by themselves at a computer with headphones on or in a dark and sound-proof room.  Of course, to assume everyone in any of these professions is introverted would be a gross misunderstanding, as is assuming that they are anti-social due to the introversion (if you don’t believe me, hang out with a developer’s team on a lunch break or sit in a writer’s room – your head will spin!)

While I know many students I teach are introverts, I still require them to do in-class presentations.  They are never too thrilled with that.  Even though it’s a small group of their peers, they still groan at the thought of public speaking.

I require this because I care.  The post-graduate programs I teach in were created with the intent to develop leaders – Producers, Creative Directors, Technical Directors, Entrepreneurs, Showrunners – and it is difficult to lead if you can’t speak to a team.  It is also difficult to sell your idea to someone if you can’t passionately share your vision (think pitching a game concept to a publisher, creative designs to a marketing agency, or a television series concept to a broadcast executive).  And while introverts are often fantastic at crafting a thoughtful, passionate, written presentation – sometimes nothing beats some face-to-face time, even with another introvert.

This is why I assign in-class presentations.  And I explain this to them.  And once explained the students do try really hard to get the most out of the experience.

However, once out of the classroom, it can be difficult for emerging professionals to find their footing in industry.  This month I received an email from an alumnus from the IDM program:

I just wanted to ask you if you have any advice for becoming a better public speaker. My job really does demand me to be client facing. I think back to all our classroom time that we spent discussing the elevator pitch and so on and so forth.

Do you know what could be helpful to get me to explore doing this well?

Being an introvert myself, this email has taken me two weeks to digest before responding to, and the response has taken the form of this blog post because I feel the feedback is important for not only emerging professionals, but to those who find themselves in newly minted leadership positions and find themselves intimidated when addressing a room.

Here you have it, Tips for Public Speaking, one introvert to another:

1) Make sure you believe in what you are presenting.

When you believe in what you are presenting, your passion and excitement shine through.

When you believe in what you are presenting, you naturally ensure what you are presenting is meaningful to your audience.

If you don’t believe in what you are presenting, ask yourself why? Is there a detail you feel you missed? Are you concerned you aren’t covering what your client/audience is expecting or needs? Put yourself in your client’s shoes.  Ask yourself, if I was them, what are the concerns I would have about this proposal? Think honestly and critically.  Taking this time to consider their needs and opinions will help you strengthen your resolve and make for a stronger presentation.

2) Worry less about being perfect and focus on communicating the important message.

Being a quiet kid who used to rarely speak up, my parents encouraged me through various speech competitions in elementary school.  Unfortunately, I was always so focused on writing an informative piece that was “right” that I kept losing any sort of emotion or passion in the delivery.  In the end, I’d done a good speech, but in my opinion, it wasn’t as inspiring or engaging as what I would hear others present.  Other presenters would get gasps and laughter or have the audience be at the edge of their seats wanting to know what was next.  In my mind, that was the sign of a good delivery.

Not sure if I should be publicly admitting to this, but 20 years later, I just don’t script what I’m going to say.  Whether it be for class lecture, for an industry presentation, or a client pitch.

Yes, I go in prepared.  Yes, I have notes.  Yes, sometimes even a Powerpoint of key takeaways is designed.  But that’s it.  The focus is on the important message: points that my audience needs to hear, with a few supporting notes.  I find that as long as I believe in what I’m presenting, I’m more relaxed.

As a speaker (whether on a stage or in a boardroom), when you relax your personality has an opportunity to shine through.  You become more genuine. You become more human.  The words flow.  The confidence exudes.

3) Listen to others.

You can prepare all you want.  But sometimes, the client wants to dominate the meeting.  If you have over prepared, their behavior can really throw you off.  This approach suddenly makes a scripted presentation moot.

When this happens, simply let the client voice their opinion without interruption.  Let them share what is on their mind.  Remember, because you already put yourself in their shoes, much of what they are saying you hopefully already have an answer for.  This way, you aren’t too thrown off that they’ve taken over the pace and the agenda, causing you to rearrange your pitch because you only have key messaging points to discuss (instead of having a formal script).

So listen.  When a client takes the floor like this, it can be for any number of reasons from a change of priorities within their team, to they had a horrible day that morning with the kids and traffic and are exceptionally wound up.  Answer their questions as they arise, and as they settle, you can go back to your presentation, acknowledging points already discussed, and ensure you find ways to incorporate their points. For example:

“You mentioned at the start of the meeting that deployment was a concern, that you want time to properly go through your internal approvals – as you will see in our schedule, we have buffered with 2 week approval cycles for you to regroup with your team at every key decision point.”

You already knew this was a difficult client, and so you already planned for the delay, and then you look like a superstar in the meeting for showing you have responded to their needs (even though you didn’t really respond, you had previously predicted their needs).

4) We all make mistakes.

Those of you who see me in class – I’m not perfect.  I lose my train of thought.  Often because I encourage others to speak up (remember, I don’t like hearing the sound of my own voice drone on), we go way off track of the planned presentation.  Because we are a bit more relaxed in class, I can say, ok, I need a breath, I lost my place, and most of the time the class is understanding.

Thankfully, only once have I done an industry presentation where I was caught off guard with a question and had no idea how to handle it.  So I babbled.  All I’m going to say, it was a prestigious audience and I was in the company of some high profile people on stage, and I did a jargony blah-blah. And in my head I’m telling myself “shut up, shut up – you sound ridiculous!”.  Thankfully what we were discussing on stage was new to the majority of the audience, and when leaving the stage that babbly moment was the part many people thought I sounded the smartest.  My colleagues in the audience who knew me well, on the other hand, pointed it out very quickly, “You were great except that part where you babbled nonsensically”. Sigh.

All I can say when it happens to you:  Deep breath, and back it up. Try again. Roll with it. If you sounded too ridiculous, laugh at yourself and deflect.  Keep positive and get back to your core message.

The trick is not to focus on avoiding mistakes, but being good at recovery and getting the pitch/presentation back on track.  If you dwell, you’re sunk.  Clients get that you are human and if you were doing a good job up until that point, they will want to see you get the rebound.

We can’t always be perfect.

5) Practice helps makes perfect.

I’ve been doing client support work for my entire career, industry presentations for 6 years, teaching/lecturing for 5 years, lead/managed a team for 3 years, and have been managing clients and their project partners for 2 years.  That’s a lot of practice.  And yet, every time I go into class or an industry presentation or even a client pitch, I get butterflies, even if what I’m presenting I totally believe in and know the messaging inside and out.

If you are an emerging professional or a newly crowned manager/leader/entrepreneur, don’t be hard on yourself.  Some people just “get” how to do this, but most of us have to work at it.

After a pitch or presentation, take some time to decompress and evaluate.  Be careful to not use that time to pick at yourself, but think about what parts you rocked, and what parts were more “meh”.  Those “meh” parts, were they the legal and formalities stuff (which may not be your thing and next time invite someone else on your team to join you to cover that part OR have them explain the material a little more as preparation for the next meeting)?  Or the stuff you put your heart and soul into (maybe next time you’d look at the client priorities a little differently)? Think about the questions the client asked.  Tuck those away for the next presentation.

Learn from it.

And do it again.

 

How do I know what to make for my Television Component’s companion Digital Media Component? Advice for TV Producers.

Posted by on February 21, 2012 No comments

The first step to deciding on an appropriate digital media component is the best, most fun part.  PLAY WITH DIGITAL MEDIA CONTENT.  In some ways, it’s like buying real estate.  You have to know the current market, see which neighbourhoods work best, and see what you can get for the price you’re willing to pay.

Knowing what’s on the convergent content market will not only give you a great idea of current trends, but inspire your own innovation.

There’s so much online content / many mobile apps – where do I start?

Check out the Cross-Platform Gemini Award nominations (2010 nominees, 2011 nominees) and award winners for the past 2 years.  For more about interactive content itself, why not browse through the FITC Award nominees/winners? International Interactive Emmy® Awards?  FWA is also a great resource for finding beautiful and well-executed concepts.

How much research do I have to do? Won’t an interactive studio just do it all for me? 

This is where researching an interactive studio is most useful.  The majority of interactive studios prefer to collaborate with the client.  They know interactive experiences and content, and you know your IP.  However, while it is very important for you to get a sense as to what is possible, try not to detail out the concept so much so that you can’t be flexible to adjustments and new ideas from your interactive partners.

A business point to consider: if you expect the interactive studio to just “do it all” for you (and contribute their tax credits and only charge ‘at cost’), they will expect something in return. Consider your interactive partner’s potential ROI in the endeavour. For example, consider sharing rights and revenue to the interactive property to allow them some stake in what they are creating.

I already know what I want, I just need a developer to make it for me.

The reasons for looking to an interactive studio as a partner in concept development and not just telling them what you want?  Plenty.  For example:

  • If you are proposing a series of ‘whack-a-mole’ games for a female-targeted prime-time audience, a capable casual gaming studio may recommend different game play more appropriate for the audience.
  • Many assume the app market is the “holy grail” for revenue generation – doesn’t everyone have an iPhone?  An interactive studio with experience in the app market can help walk you through the realities of production for your creative idea.
  • If your budget is only $75K and you are proposing a World of Warcraft-like Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG, or MMO for short), the interactive studios will express their concern for your sanity.

It is a fine balance, between taking responsibility for the IP extension and looking to others for support to help strengthen your concept.  But give yourself a basis of knowledge to work from, so you have an idea of the opportunities that digital media components can offer your brand.  Then collaborate with experts on the selected platform to bring your digital media component to the next level, so that together, you can produce a successful, meaningful, rich and substantial digital media property.


People, Not Programs.

Posted by on February 15, 2012 3 comments

I have been asked a number of times about my commentary on the “women in digital media” and “women in games” stuff happening in and aroundTorontoover the past year.  So far, I have resisted saying too much publicly other than the occasional RT of links on the issue because it seems to be a surprisingly sensitive topic.

Three things you need to know:

First, I am a feminist. I believe women, while we have our biological differences, are equal to men.

Second, I have a confession to make.  While I am a woman in the interactive industry, and I can’t get into the “empower women” movement and feel many of the “pro-women” activities are misdirected.

Third, I don’t feel these two opinions are opposing in any way.

Do I think we need more women in the industry? Well, yes. But we also need more cultural diversity – but where’s the “cultural diversity in gaming” conferences?  But, let’s deal with that discrepancy on another day.

So what’s the deal?

I am a product of the old “get women into science and engineering” programs.  As my career was shaping, I tried to be involved in the “pro-women” professional organizations. And both of these had the least impact on where I am today.

And yet, these are the solutions that we, as an industry, seem to think is going to fix the perceived gender discrepancy. I say “perceived” because there is an apparent undervaluation of the contributions by women active in the industry by women themselves.

The Canadian interactive digital media industry is full of amazing, talented women.  So many that as a consultant, I have to wonder where the guys are!  Even at studios where the guys might be the “end-client,” it’s their female Producers, Operations Managers, and Project Managers who I work closest with.  As I research potential faculty candidates for an interactive digital media college program, it is difficult to find male instructors.  At the moment, my short list has them all ghettoized into the technical classes – programming and hardware-related courses.  Meanwhile, for narrative, project management, writing, marketing, user experience, business management, industry studies, career development and team leadership?  All women.

So if as an industry, we are concerned about the gender balance slanting to men, as an educator I should be concerned for the success of the potential male students in my program.  If it is a female-dominated faculty, are men going to get fair treatment for their skills and habits?  Are guys going to feel ghettoized into the technical areas of the industry because the men they see as educators are only in the technical sphere?  Will they feel a glass ceiling in the other areas of interactive digital media without positive male role models on faculty?

Does this sound ridiculous?  Probably. But if we are so focused on ensuring the Canadian digital media sector is accommodating to women, why should I, as an educator, not then be concerned about ensuring that men aren’t ghettoized as more women move into the industry?

Where do I get such a crazy perspective?

Many years ago while managing incoming funding proposals for proposed television series, one day something became abundantly clear.  From the names on incoming funding applications, I realized how many women were in leadership roles as commissioning executives for broadcasters, heads of film and television studios, lead funding administrators, creative producers, and interactive leads for broadcasters.  Suddenly, I couldn’t understand why there was still this message of “not enough women in leadership positions within the Canadian television industry.”

And now that I’m focused more in the digital media sector, I see the messaging all over again: not enough women, women are intimidated, the guys work like a secret club, we need programs to entice women into STEM careers … blah blah blah.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me thrice … I’m not buying it.

I grew up in a community where science and technical careers were king.  The local economy was driven by natural resources, and the majority of the jobs can be categorized as scientists, researchers, engineers and engineering technicians.  And most of these jobs were held by men.  While STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) wasn’t the acronym of the day, there were studies about the lack of women in science and engineering.  This, and I’m sure a variety of other political factors, spurred our school board and the local petrochemical industry into creating mentorship programs for girls in secondary schools to encourage them to consider careers in math and science.

My mentor was really not memorable in a good way. She sat at her computer (very business-like office, not even in one of the labs) and told us that she got to travel a lot. I asked what she actually did relating to math and science (looking for this mentorship!).  She said she “entered things into the computer.”  Like what exactly? And I didn’t get a satisfactory answer to that.  The rest of the hour was horribly awkward and felt like a waste of time because she had nothing else to say.  This folks, was supposed to be my inspiring mentor into the world of math and science.

The fantastic result of this little program was that I stopped taking science courses, and refused any invitation to participate in the mentorship program for future sessions.  Every semester, these decisions got me hauled into the guidance counsellor’s office to be told how I was “throwing my life away by not taking science” (interestingly, was never told to keep taking computer programming which I also stopped taking out of boredom)  There really is nothing like negative reinforcement to inspire a young mind.

A few years later and I was an emerging professional.  At the time, I bought into the message of needing more women in the television industry (the feminist roots you see), so I was very much into the mission of the female-centred training programs.  I attended these events. And very quickly was not impressed.

The content and the workshops themselves were amazing! But networking was tough – very cliquish.  At one event, a male colleague even made a point of introducing me to established female professionals as they came up to say hello to him.  I lost count of how many times these women, who were there to support women in the industry, would cut me out of the conversation, no matter how hard my colleague tried to include me.  Nothing more awkward and isolating than having someone intentionally turn their back to you when you’re trying to network.

Are these anecdotes of very uncommon experiences?  Probably.  Were my takeaways of these events shaped by elements of my personality?  To some extent.  But my perception of these lacklustre “female power booster” attempts is shaped more by other, more inspiring life experiences having made a real impact.

Before I went to see that mentor in high school, I had already spent countless hours within engineering and drafting departments – the area of my Dad’s expertise at the time.  He often took my sister and me to the office where he worked, and inside, it was full of computers and huge plotters that output wall-to-wall AutoCAD drawings.  Well before high school, I had already been inadvertently mentored in the technical arts.  My Dad, his colleagues, and his staff would show me how AutoCAD worked and then how the plotters, like magic, could reproduce 3’x 3’ Calvin and Hobbes posters (let’s remember, this was the 80s when dot matrix was considered high tech).  And the AutoCAD technicians I remember the most? Women.

What do I think we should do about the “not enough women problem”?

This world of discussing women in digital media / games (or lack thereof), does not compute for me.  It’s a lot of talking.  Instead of whining about how unjust the world is because we’re women, why don’t we, as women in leadership roles, actually initiate effective change and contribute to progression?

I know my confidence comes from positive influencers and role models – smart, patient people from all walks of life who were willing to teach me things and help me grow from learning and experience.

I worry that we as female leaders in the digital media space are failing the new entrants.  By sitting around bemoaning about men, and putting our attention only on fostering young women instead of supporting all smart, passionate, creative and dedicated professionals, regardless of gender.  Our actions outside of our ghetto are so much more valuable for shaping this industry in a positive way than wishing the world would change like magic.  Examples of this active contribution would be the initiatives that are about encouraging women into the world of coding and game design and development – actively sharing tools and knowledge to help others learn and grow.

Abolish the language of “There’s not enough women in digital media” and instead take pride in our contributions and emphasize, “Hey, look at the cool stuff we do!”  Then stop communicating it only among ourselves.  Let’s get out of the ghetto and be a part of the public image that makes the Canadian digital media industry the amazing place that it is.

One final personal request: next time a shy, awkward 22-year-old young woman tries to introduce herself to you and totally flunks out, take that 5 minutes to talk to her.  It just might be the inspiration she needs.

How to find an interactive partner for Digital Media Components

Posted by on February 9, 2012 2 comments

This is a common question from television producers many trying to generate Digital Media Components for television projects going through the Canada Media Fund (and for film producers those creating digital marketing concepts for Telefilm Canada funding).

Here are a few tips:

1)      Start early!!!

The time to find an interactive partner is not 3 weeks before a Bell Fund deadline or the moment you learn your broadcaster won’t process your CMF Television Component documentation without a Digital Media Component, it is as soon as the television program has some traction behind it – about the same time it gets a development greenlight.

By involving interactive partners early in the production process, there is an opportunity to keep the interactive costs down as production assets and processes can be planned for and shared.  In some cases, the involvement of the interactive team early can actually help strengthen the television concept and help shape settings, characters, and situations.

2)      Review previously funded projects.

Bell Fund, CMF, and various provincial agencies list past recipients on their websites, usually within press releases or annual reports.  To get funding, these interactive studios and independent interactive professionals involved in these projects had to “get” what “rich and substantial” means since their work has previously been funded, and will be able to help you create a meaningful user experience for your target market.

Also, look beyond the funded project lists and into the actual credits of these projects. For various reasons, even the largest and most established interactive studios sub-contract features to other studios.  Many of these smaller studios are interested and available to support the conception and creation of digital media components, especially if your budget is on the smaller ($100K-$200K) range.

3)      Pick a company that makes the kind of content you want to make. 

Would you go to a documentary Producer to produce an animated children’s TV show?  Likely not.  So why would you go to a digital media marketing consultant if you are looking for an immersive interactive experience or mobile games?

Consider the credentials and previous projects of the interactive digital media studio and/or consultants as you short list partners. Have they produced the type of project you are envisioning for your television series?  Do they have experience in producing content for your target audience?  Do they have experience working within the budget range for your digital media component?

4)      If you are making webisodes, why are you looking to outsource to an interactive studio instead of intending to produce them yourself?

Yes, webisodes as packaged, additional footage are eligible “rich and substantial” content, as long as they are NEW content (not just re-cut of the official TV episodes).  I had a television Development Manager once get very upset that I wouldn’t connect her with an interactive Creative Director to write up her webisodes synopses.  She felt because it was online, it was out of her realm (even though, she knew exactly what she wanted for this content, which really was a great idea).  In reality, only a small handful of interactive studios fully understand video content and can produce it well.  However, if you are looking for someone to advise you on how the webisode story format works, why not connect with some of the previous writers/producers who were recipients of the Independent Production Fund Web Series Program?

5)      Explore your local market.

Toronto and Montreal are the main hubs with interactive studios with convergent interactive experience.  However, there are many very capable studios located in cities like Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Ottawa. Local providers give you more opportunity for face-to-face meetings which will likely be helpful.  Both film/TV and IDM are visual media.  Trying to explain visual concepts over the phone/via email can get complicated especially if you, as a television producer, are entirely new to digital media.  How to find studios in your region?  Connect with the digital regional associations for your province.  Some of the local film and television associations are also working to build ties with the interactive community in the region (ie – AMPIA, SMPIA). Some regions have municipal-level organizations (Ottawa-Gatineau).  Others have global trade groups like IGDA.  Head out to a few of their socials.  Say hello, ask questions, and get to know the interactive folk (contrary to popular belief, IDM studios really don’t bite – they are usually happy to network with people who might bring them business and new partnerships!)

6)      RFPs are not always the way to go.

There seems to be an increasing default to “I’ll just run an RFP” when television producers are stumped for interactive support.  The catch to this is that to get good RFP responses from companies that can do the work to the quality that you want, you still have to research studios and short list who is best to submit.  Do you want to cast a net to 50 studios? That means you’d be reading about 20+ proposals. That’s about 3 weeks of work just sifting through those 20+ proposals and contemplating pros and cons.

When you are hiring Writers or Editors for your series or film, do you research their sense of humour, portfolios, etc. – or do you make them write or edit mock-ups for you and then you evaluate 20+ specs for your show to determine the aesthetic of your film/series?  Beyond the ask likely being a little offside the WGC and DGC IPAs, it does seem a little odd in that context, does it not?  So why would you do this for interactive studios?

Where an RFP could be very handy is if you have shortlisted three studios and are stuck with deciding who to partner with.  In this case, run an open and transparent RFP process, explain what you are looking for, tell them as much as you can about your show (offer the show bible and perhaps a sample script), and be up front about what the budget is.  Then see what they come back with in the form of a two to three page concept (anything more is like asking three Writers to write you a bible for your television series and you’ll pick the vision of your series from one of these three bibles – or, if you do go this route, you are likely paying them appropriate writing fees for their work).

You are welcome to join the discussion and share what you feel is important when finding a partner.  Is there anything I left out?  Do you dispute my recommendations?  Please share your comments, or contact me directly, to update this post with your suggestions.

Managing your brand while managing other’s brands

Posted by on February 7, 2012 No comments

bewareoftheleopard.ca has been pretty quiet for the month of January.  Not out of intentional neglect, but out of social media overload.

If you are reading this blog post, you likely found it via social media, either one of my many profiles (twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, facebook), or from someone else sharing it via their social media channels.  And if you use social media, then you can likely appreciate how much time it can consume out of your day, especially if trying to leverage social media to profile your brand, whether as an individual professional or for your company/studio.

So what happens when while you are trying to keep your personal brand going, you take on responsibilities to represent other brands on various digital/social media platforms?  You undertake quite the learning curve.

When I first agreed and/or initiated to support other brands through the sharing and dispersing of content and information, I thought it would be pretty easy.  Most of these brands have similar values as I do, so I can cross-post, link, share, right?

What even I had failed to realize was how different each of these communities needs and interests are, because they were so subtle.  Initially what I saw was “these are all relating to interactive digital media, involving me because I have an expertise in business of IDM and/or content assessments – easy peasy!”  But in actuality, there are niche needs within each of these outlets.  Their communities may have a crossover interest in the business of interactive digital media, but the actual content and messaging they are looking for are each a bit different.

This realization came to me as I started to plan through the actual ‘production’ process of the content – sorting out content sharing plans, content management schedules, etc.  Better at this point than deep into a dark, empty cavern, but no less overwhelming to be standing at the mouth of this dark, empty cavern.

Piece by piece, I have slowly figured it out.  I’d be happy to write up a case study on the experience if anyone would find it useful.  Right now, I’m still working through it. But while this blog has been quiet for the month of January, there has been writing for others published:

VillageGamer.net

 Interactive Digital Media, post-graduate certificate program at Centennial College

There is a third organization I’m trying to get articles written for, and it has been suggested to me that I get a facebook page going for the Interactive Digital Media program.  In addition to actually finishing the collection of half-written blog posts for me.

All while doing other work. Not that I’m complaining about the challenge – I enjoy being busy solving puzzles and designing processes.

But the moral of the story, dear reader?  Do not underestimate the time and effort to plan and manage content that is relevant to each community you are speaking to.

 

The unsexy side of interactive digital media

Posted by on January 4, 2012 2 comments

With the semester gearing up for another round of teaching, now is probably not the time to get all negative about the state of the interactive digital media industry, but it seems I can’t help it.  I came to a realization over the holidays.  My work isn’t sexy.

Yes, it sounds sexy when I really simplify what I do to those not in the industry “I help make website and games.”  But in-industry, what do I do?  Project feasibility analysis. Market research. Budget and schedule creation.  Project supervision.  Team management.  Corporate strategic advising for interactive and gaming studios.  How’s that sound compared to actually making games or designing interactive experiences? Not so much.

So I look around the industry for inspiration, for new ideas and ways to improve what I do.  And I’m turning to a book from 1975 on the project management of software development.  Is what I do really so unsexy that we just haven’t talked about it in any great detail in nearly 40 years?

Those who follow me on twitter have probably noticed this frustration rising over the last few weeks.  I need an outlet.  I need others in the industry to take up responsibility for this stuff so we can move forward as an industry.

Here is a top-level view of some of the unsexy things anyone working in interactive digital media / convergent production / transmedia should take more responsibility for:

Kill your babies.

I learned this phrase back in my television production days (as short as that stint was).  Sometimes, for the betterment of the story/episode, you have to can the best lines / scenes / cut sequences, etc.  Pull yourself out of the brilliance within that element and look at the big picture.

This lesson needs to be a part of interactive digital media production and ideation.

Creative in IDM / convergent has been allowed to run a little too wild.  Ten years ago the sector wasn’t very developed, so you could propose an octopus with 15 tentacles.  Everything was new and worth experimenting!

However, due to market maturity, today it is about making things simple, clear, and smart. Just because you know an octopus really has 8 tentacles, doesn’t mean you should still even be proposing an octopus.  Your concept does not need to have a list of a multitude of features.  More is not necessarily better in interactive digital media – smart and relevant is. When doing a project funded with government support, focus on 2-3 elements and do those WELL.

Just because you could have a gamified social community with integrated interactive games and compelling extended bonus video content all mapped and tagged on an open source map available online and mobile with a possibility of console extensions with a contest and a fan club does not mean you should make that.

Focus on a handful of elements, and do that well for what your audience wants/needs.

In otherwords, yes, you can start with a list of 10 possibilities, but before doing your production proposal paperwork, focus on 2 or 3 and do them well.

Don’t sell a mansion when the buyer wants a 2-bedroom country bungalow.

How do you know which tentacles of your octopus to keep and which to hack off? Research your audience – what they do, what they are interested in, where their trends are heading.  In digital media, it isn’t about what you want to sell your audience, but what your audience is willing/interested to use.

Your gamified social community with integrated interactive games and compelling extended bonus video content all mapped and tagged on an open source map available online and mobile with a possibility of console extensions with a contest and a fan club is kind of like selling your user a 2300 sq ft family home with 5 bedrooms, 3 five piece bathrooms, 15 appliances, a pool, sauna, in-law suite, four car garage, an HVAC, all granite counter tops, overlooking your own private golf course.

Your user may be just as happy with a handful of games or compelling online-exclusive video.  So, maybe a 2-bedroom country bungalow backing onto a park.  And, if your heart is still really set on selling the granite counter tops, you’ll just have to try extra hard to demonstrate why your user should invest in that.

Show me the money.

Things cost money.  Also, things can make money.  Great that you have so many lovely ideas, but how are you going to monetize it?

Simply saying “it will sell in the App Store” is not the magical answer.  There are over 500,000 apps in the Apple version. Even Angry Birds wasn’t an overnight success.

International broadcasters rarely pay more than an episode (still) for interactive content, if they even license it with the television series.  There are opportunities to sell games and web video to content portals, but those are often on revenue share arrangements.

The funding bodies want to see that you’ve thought about how to monetize the content.  Ideally, they’d like to see you be able to recoup expenses, but they do also understand that it is difficult (remember, most of them grew out of film and television funds, not all of them fully recoup either – so they aren’t expecting you to make millions on every project, as much as they’d love to see it!).

Think it is impossible to make a smart, compelling, monetizable project on a smaller budget (talking $75K-$350K instead of $500K mega budgets)? Not so much. This range is in line with many successful interactive digital media “indie” and digital media marketing budgets.

Of course, these budgets are this size because they are focused.  It isn’t as simple as telling an interactive digital media studio that the concept is a gamified social community with integrated interactive games and compelling extended bonus video content all mapped and tagged on an open source map available online and mobile with a possibility of console extensions with a contest and a fan club, and that there is $120K to do it.  That huge long list of features costs money to each make properly.

So, focus the features list so your can focus your production team’s efforts, and focus your marketing and monetization goals.

Publicity has the word “public” in it.

We love each other. We love the praise and love and admiration of our peers.  Problem is, going after the love of ourselves – our Geminis, FWAs, DigiAwards, W3s, Interactive Emmys…. These are all industry accolades.  The press coverage in our industry mags and blogs? That self-promotes within ourselves.  Attending MIP or Kidscreen or SXSW or GDC or Canada 3.0 to “launch” your project? These are all industry events.  Yes, sometimes some news gets out into consumer media – but that is only through strategic publicity planning.  Catch: we are a small part of the overall audience.  In many cases, if selling to ourselves, we are mostly selling to guys aged 28-45 who work in the interactive industry.

We are making digital media products for pre-schoolers, children, teens, 20-somethings through to 50-somethings.  Women and men.  The general public.  The “public” part of “publicity”.  Overall, we don’t do a very good job of this outreach.  Granted, it is really hard to do well – interactive digital media doesn’t get much love from consumer press other than a handful of app/video game television review segments/programs and the press hype over console games.  We are seen as a bunch of games/websites and aren’t that important to either the cultural or commercial landscapes. Unless you are Ubisoft releasing the next edition of Assassin’s Creed. Even then, it took a concerted publicity effort by many to make that title as big as it is to the consumers and commercial business commentators – more than a booth at GDC.

Properly promoting your property requires a strategy beyond a simple press release to trade.  It takes time.  It takes effort.  Time and effort cost money.  Before leaking cash, best to make a plan on out you are going to connect with your end consumer.  The earlier the plan is made, the easier it is to integrate it and the product launch together. Sometimes, through working on the marketing strategy, you might find some of those tentacles are easier to hack off too – if you can’t promote it to get your audiences’s interest, why do it?

We’re used to our publishers and broadcasters taking this role on in the traditional gaming and video production worlds.  In this age of self-publishing, the creators take this responsibility on themselves.  And we need to get more serious about it.

Summary of the unsexy work of interactive digital media production:

Focus your features not on what you want, but on what is relevant to what your target audience wants/needs and what your budget allows for.  Consider monetization – is there an optimistic potential of full recovery of product development expenses if you commit to a business plan?  To monetize, you need to promote your product – to the consumer.

Most importantly – this is not a linear process. Make a features list. Research your market. Cut some features. Further work on concepts. Check on monetization opportunities. Cut some features. Work on remaining features further.  What are the promotional opportunities?  Hack anything that makes no sense for the sell.  Poof – final, simple, smart, relevant concept.

Sometimes.

Phrases to lock away in the 2011 vault

Posted by on December 30, 2011 No comments

It’s that time of year again. The lists!  I was trying hard to not do a list.

In 2011, there has been a specific rhetoric circulating around the world of convergent production (in Canada, defined as television programs that require a digital media component to access government funding for the television program) that makes me want to pull out my Blackberry and tweet #bingo when I hear it.  Even though I don’t (because that is kind of inappropriate and mildly unprofessional), you can be guaranteed the imagery of doing so is going through my head.

In lieu of a list, I originally wanted to make a bingo card of phrases to present here.  In doing so, I realized it was not 25 phrases that grated on me, it was instead a small handful I would hear/see over and over and over again just presented in different contexts every time.

So, here they are, curated into a list.

And please, don’t think any of these statements have you, dear reader, specifically in mind.  If it is on this list and you know you’ve said it, you are not alone as to be on this list I had to have heard it from a whole lot of people over the course of 2011.

Happy New Year my friends! And let’s all resolve, as convergent content creators, to not utter these phrases in 2012.  I don’t think I can restrain myself from twitter #bingo for much longer.

:)

5. Digital media is too new to figure out, so let’s not bother with it.

Nope. Not too new.  The Gemini Awards have been acknowledging convergent interactive projects since 2002. We have folk heading up interactive studios who have been working in interactive since the 1990s.  If we look to the video game industry, I remember playing computer games in the late 1980s that my Dad was proud to tell me was made in Canada (which is why he bought it).  Add to this much of the interactive digital media world has grown out of the software development industry which settled its roots in the 1960s.  When you look at it this way, the roots of broadcast television is really only 30 years older than the roots of interactive digital media.

So, instead of saying it is too new so we should just ignore it, maybe connect with people who do know and learn from them?

4. I need more control

First it’s too new, and now you want to control it? If you can’t figure it out, how can you “control” it? Also, interactive digital media does not work well being “controlled”.  Creating interactive digital media content is a lot like writing a script – it is never really “done”, you just make sure it is in an acceptable zone by a certain deadline.

Instead of asking for more control, ask for more knowledge.  The interactive digital media production community is usually more than happy to hold your hand through the process once you have selected one of them as a content partner.  These people love what they do and love what they make, and want to share what they know with you.  Especially since the more you know, the easier it is on them to help you make the best digital media component possible for the budget available.

(PS – A little secret for film and television studios: the interactive digital media studios who service the film and television sector often really want to learn more about how film and television productions work too. And by learning that, they may have great ideas that can help make your linear video project stronger if you involve them as a part of the overall branding team)

3. Why does this digital media cost so much? It’s just a guy in a basement in front of a computer.

And your last film project was just made by a guy with camera and an iMac, right?

Most likely not.  Yes, like in digital media, your film could be made like that and many have been produced with team of one, but usually there’s more to it than that.

For an interactive production, there are Artists, Illustrators, Animators, Interactive/Game Designers, Back-End Developers (hooking code and databases up to the servers), Front-End Developers (that makes the interface do its magic), Writers, Content Managers, Sound Designers, then there’s the production management team who guide the ship (Producer, Project Manager, Creative Director, Technical Director)

If you are making webisodes for your digital media component, while you are likely looking to keep things simple to reduce costs, that takes people (and equipment!) too, even if the per minute cost is cheaper than the per minute for the television series itself, you are unlikely to take the approach of “some guy in a basement with a computer”.

2. The Canada Media Fund  is encouraging bad digital media components.

Nope. They are encouraging business professionals to expand their business models.

That the content we as an industry are creating in response to this opportunity is not the CMF’s fault, but ours as content creators for making that bad content.

Instead of responding to the request of to do the dishes by washing them badly in the hopes we’ll stop being asked to to them, how about we try doing them well?

1. What’s “rich and substantial”? It makes no sense.

No, it makes total sense to those whose professions are to make digital media content.  This one has particularly grated on me in 2011. It is no different than the complaints about the Bell Fund 10 years ago when they were looking for “innovative” content, so why are we repeating our history?

I have been spending a lot of time this past year listening to who is asking this question.  It is not coming from the interactive studios.  It is not coming from the convergent creative studios.  And even in the television studios, it usually is not coming from the VPs of Development / Development Managers.  It really is not coming from the broadcaster interactive teams either.  It is, for the most part, the business and legal personnel at television production companies and at the broadcasters who are trying to figure out what “rich and substantial” means.

To my business peers in the linear world, to maintain your relevance in the changing digital media economy, spend some time with the creatives who work in digital media to understand.  The digital economy moves fast, changes fast, and business models are increasingly more closely tied in with production processes.  We are not relevant to this world if we stay in our glass tower, hiding away from the content we are being paid to support and protect.  The only way you can keep up and maintain relevance is to understand the content you are serving and integrate in with the people who create it

Finally, for the record – what does “rich and substantial” mean? Here is what I gleaned from the docSHIFT talk by Francesca Accinelli, Director, Canada Media Fund Program Administration, English Market from Telefilm Canada: It is new content that is meaningful to the user.

What is meaningful?  Spend time exploring digital media content.  What’s the demographic for your television series?  Then look at what that audience’s digital media content consumption habits are.  Then, consider what the important thread/theme/message you want your audience to glean/feel from your television series, and start discussions with interactive digital media professionals about how that thread/theme/message can translate into a meaningful interactive experience.

Bonus: Kids are lying about their age and are on facebook, so my digital media component will be a facebook game, since they are there anyways.

No. Be the responsible adult.

It isn’t safe for kids to play on highway 401 through Ontario, but if they decide it would be fun to do and are doing it anyway, would you encourage it?

About Digital Media Funding Proposals

Posted by on December 1, 2011 No comments

There is a lot that game design, interactive digital media, film/television, digital arts, etc programs teach you in preparation for a career in the digital media content production sector.  But the one thing they don’t often teach (or really gloss over) – how do you raise cash to actually make this stuff?

As these programs are refined and updated, there are more instructors spending time on writing documentation, including pitch documents, design documents, and business plans.  Some programs will even introduce students to at least the top level “these Funds exist”.

Does this mean that applying for money to make games / websites / videos is a skill learned on the job? Pretty much.  Most of us learned via trial by fire.  If you have never done a funding proposal, or never worked with someone who has, or never even actually seen a funding proposal, you just sort of figure it out.

Thankfully, compared to when I entered the industry 10 years ago, it has become functionally much less difficult to prepare funding applications, for two key reasons.

First, the industry of digital media production has matured – we don’t all draw blanks when asked what needs to be generally communicated in a design document or pitch document.  While we don’t have a true formal ‘standard way’, we have over the years created a loose form of methodology.

Second, the Funds have become partners – with our maturity came their trust.  The Funds now all spend many hours every year consulting with the production communities they serve, finding ways to adapt their processes and obligations to make applying to their programs much less onerous.

Does this make doing a funding proposal any “easier”?  That depends on your definition of “easy”.  Those coming into digital media from film/television are often a bit shell shocked about the level of detail that goes into a digital media proposal.  From my personal experience, applying for film and television funds is crazy easy, they just grab their key documentation (script/bible, budget, production schedule, financing, trigger contracts) and BOOM – done.  Reason for this, in addition to having more established development and production processes, film and television producers don’t have to explain the experience of watching a film or television series.

Think about the use case for a television series:  “Sasha comes home from work, decides she wants to zone out in front of the tellie instead of writing a blog post. Flipping it on, it is already on CTV airing Flashpoint. She likes Flashpoint, so she watches it”.  That is the experience of watching TV.

If you are thinking like a digital media professional, you immediately go “yes, but you had to discover Flashpoint somehow”.  Well guess what, TV producers don’t have to worry about that. They have an intermediary B2C content distributor – the television broadcaster (CTV in my use case above).  So the television producer applies for Funding with the sole purpose of making their product – CTV inherits the risk of promotions and marketing. (To access most film funding in Canada, a distributor is also required to trigger funding to get the film into theatres or negotiate broadcaster deals)

Now, with most digital media products, the content creator is also the content promoter.  The digital media producer inherits the risk of promotions and marketing for their brand / game / story / interactive experience / web series, etc.

But how do the Funds “know” that the broadcasters will promote and market the content the TV Producers provide.  Well, they don’t really.  But in Canada, the television broadcasting industry is highly regulated – which means, it is in the Canadian broadcaster’s (who trigger the funding for television producer’s) best interest in doing some sort of PR around their Canadian content because it makes them look good to the CRTC when they argue their raison d’être every so many years.

In digital media, a bit more reassurance is needed.  Us content creators sometimes get a little too excited about our ideas.  We are often too in love with our ideas.  We are engrossed in seeing our ideas come into fruition.  But for most creators, doing something with that content when done is the least sexy part of the production process.  But with the hundreds of thousands of new websites and games and videos proliferating the internet every 5 minutes and the plethora of apps for mobile devices launching daily, digital media producers have a whole lot more competition for eyeball time on our targeted platforms compared to our film and television friends.

Therefore, the Funds do indeed ask for more information from us digital media producers. They ask us to explain not only want to know what your concept is, but also how audiences will find your content and why will audiences find your content offerings compelling.  A big part of determining this is also clearly identifying who your audience is and when and where exactly they will use your product.

How do we make doing digital media funding proposals as “easy” as they are for our film/television peers? Work answering these questions into your R&D phase.  In addition to working out wire frames and technical documentation, work through the use case, document that use case in a separate “user experience”. Fully conceive the complete user experience (or various types of user experiences if you are designing a complex experience).  That user experience then can be used not only to tighten up your design and technical documentation, but also work that user experience as the basis for planning your marketing and promotions plan.

Identifying the who, what, when, where, why, and how is not work we have to do “for the Funds”.  This is work that we should be doing for us.

Most of what digital media producers create is not passive content, but content that involves interaction.  Different ages have different needs when it comes to usability and interface design.  Gender often determines what exactly the user does with the technology, which will shape your content.  Are you making something they immerse themselves in at home, or use as tool at school, or is it a ‘quick hit’ on the bus or in line at the grocery store.  Each platform has their own marketing processes and emerging protocols (no, users don’t just find your app in the App Store because it’s there with 500,000 apps also waiting to be discovered)

The best digital media producers, interaction/game designers and game developers do work through these ideas as part of their R&D phase.  Maybe not in a formal “write a business plan” sort of way, but when you actually speak to these professionals about their products, especially the creators of successful products, they did work through these concepts.  Maybe it was through trial and error. Maybe it was a degree of intuition, but the success stories in digital media rarely just happen.

Do the Funds know this? Yes. This is why they ask for everything they ask for.  It is not to “make” you do more work. They are instead asking you for information they expect from a trustworthy Producer who understands the market for their content.

So as you look ahead and form your 2012 plans to include applying to the various funding programs available here in Canada, don’t look at the soon-to-be announced Funding deadlines with dread – think of it as an opportunity to demonstrate how awesome those ideas are, with the proper business cases surrounding them.

docSHIFT Summit 2011 recap

Posted by on November 18, 2011 2 comments

Article is a cross-post with Village Gamer, a news source for Canadian interactive digital media content.

This past weekend the Documentary Organization of Canada – Toronto Chapter held docSHIFT Summit 2011, a conference with the purpose of educating and supporting documentary filmmakers who are looking to leverage their storytelling abilities and position themselves as the go-to people in this new and evolving marketplace.

While the target audience for the event was documentary filmmakers, I thought it would not be a bad thing as an interactive producer to also attend, to hear about the trends in interactive production for documentary and to listen to the concerns these filmmakers have while manoeuvring the transition to interactive storytelling.

The two day conference covered the full spectrum of interactive documentaries featuring case studies, academic insights, and lessons learned from industry leaders.  Topics ranged from user experiences (web, mobile apps, and gaming), business cases, branded entertainment, opportunities in elearning, opportunities for integrating augmented reality and games into documentary storytelling, legal considerations, and how to pitch to investors and broadcasters.

While impossible to write an article on every discussion and cover every wedge of information, this article is intended to summarize key take-aways from the event.  The conference organizers will be posting videos of many of the sessions in the coming weeks, but in the meantime you can review my curation of tweets from the event for additional insights.

Innovation in Documentary Filmmaking

The event started off with a keynote from Ryerson University’s Dr. Charles Davis who gave an overview of innovation in the documentary landscape.  Opportunities for innovation include the development of new business models for the content, to look at the use of multiple platforms to tell stories (ie – film, online, mobile, book, educational materials), and a need to create a “brand” for themselves as companies and for the Canadian interactive documentary industry as a whole (which was further highlighted later in the event about the international recognition of the NFB’s efforts in the interactive factual storytelling space).

Dr. Davis noted the transition into interactive can be difficult for filmmakers to adapt to, because successful interactive productions are a triad hybrid of business, creative, and technical considerations.  He also highlighted (which is relevant for most convergent products), that the trend in interactive story experiences is moving away from “huge, expansive storyworlds” and into smaller experiential chunks.

Opportunity for Storytellers

While interactive experiences tend to be inherently non-linear, the backbone is still based on a linear story – whether it outlines the user experience itself, or as the guiding backbone of the interactive concept.

An example of this “backbone” is The Goggle’s  Pine Point Interactive done in collaboration with the National Film Board of Canada.  The experience is framed in a linear way – beginning, middle, and end to the narrative – but offering the user a means of customizing the experience.  While the story is framed with pages that the user selects to advance the story, within each page users can shuffle photos, watch additional video content, etc.

Secret Location’s James Milward emphasized the importance of considering your user’s experience, noting that while an interactive experience is designed in a non-linear fashion, “a user’s journey is linear”.  He also emphasized the importance of “deciding in advance what success looks like”.  This decision and early consideration of a strategic plan helps to determine the delivery model and type of content.

Matt Locke, the Director of www.storythings.com added to the message: the biggest challenge of getting attention (in the digital space) is answering why people will spend time with your project – it is up to the creators to answer that.  “No matter how wonderful/beautiful your doc is, if the experience and usability isn’t great, you lose that tenuous connection to the user.”

Filmmaker Lalitha Krishna from In Sync Video demonstrated how by researching her audience early, she was able to adapt her digital media component for Semisweet to her audience wants before developing Choco-locate (created with the support of TVOntario, the Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund, and the OMDC Interactive Digital Media Fund).

Krishna’s documentary Semisweet looks into the lives of four individuals who have been intrinsically transformed by chocolate. Examining the history and social impact of the commodity of chocolate, she had assumed the best interactive component would be a further exploration into these themes.  However, upon focus-group testing with chocolate lovers, their number one request was a way to easily find chocolate.  From this feedback, Krishna changed her interactive concept into a mobile app to help locate local quality chocolateers and also set up a blog that highlights these retailers.

By researching her audience and setting a strategy in the early stages, Krishna was able to start production on all three platforms (documentary, iPhone app, website) with a clear understanding of what each component was adding to the IP, and could focus her team`s production efforts appropriately.

How to Know What Platform to Use?

The recurring question for the audience was “how do I know what to do?”.  With the variety of options both for content (website, social media/community building, interactive functionality, additional videos, games, augmented reality), and platforms/technology (online, iOS mobile, Android mobile, Facebook, Google+, QR codes) how does a filmmaker know what’s best?

Ryerson University’s Richard Lachman’s recommendation: “Play with existing content and determine what you like – If you don’t know anything about digital, how do you know you need a game for your project?”  Only by playing with content can you discover what works, what doesn’t, what suites your storytelling style, and what audiences will want to interact with.

Milward emphasized that in interactive, “eyeballs are important”.  Lachman additionally emphasized that the interactive space has its own set of metrics different from film: while someone watching only 8 minutes of a feature film is considered a failure, in interactive someone sticking for 8 minutes is considered a success.

Lachman recommendeed that filmmakers not fall into the GMOOT (get me one of those) traps when developing an interactive project – focus on what your story needs.  The Goggle’s Michael Simons agreed, that for Pine Point they “pushed back on the robots” and focused only on what they needed to tell their story.

What are the Broadcasters Looking for in a Digital Media Component?

The conference organizers were able to collect nearly all of the interactive representatives of the Canadian broadcasters who commission documentary content (CBC, TVOntario, Shaw Media, Corus Entertainment, Bell Media, and Glassbox).  While each broadcaster has its own content mandate and focus that matches their broadcast audiences, in terms of interactive experiences, they all had the same advice to the attendees.

Because documentary productions tend to pull in smaller audiences, there are fewer financial resources available for interactive content for this genre.  Additionally, many of the interactive departments at the broadcasters are given a single budget which is to both operate their department and for licensing interactive material.  Producers who are able to sell the broadcaster’s interactive teams on the vitality of the interactive experience and demonstrate how that experience can lead to more eyeballs to the television component, the broadcasters will find means to support the project.

While the broadcasters are not always in a position to contribute significant interactive license fees or Canada Media Fund envelope allocations, they will find other means of support, such as in-kind services and guidance in applying to the Bell Fund’s Low Budget Production Program.

All of them emphasized the importance of story in the pitch.  CBC’s Tessa Sproule observed best formulation for transmedia treatments is one that is organic to the story and its themes.  ShawMedia’s Chris Harris recommended Producers focus their pitch on the level of engagement with the digital media property over pitching on the “thing”.  Corus Entertainment’s Caitlin O’Donovan reminded the audience that the digital media components, while needing to be compelling on their own, still needs to help convert into broadcast ratings.  Bell Media’s Ryan O’Brien added it is “meaningful experiences” that help expand the audience.

Christine McGlade discussed TVOntario’s two-tier approach to digital media material to support documentary films.  Their DocStudio platform is a simple online tool that curates their documentary promotional content, “DVD-extension type materials”.  Separate from this initiative, TVO is looking for “interesting extentions” to the broadcast property as an eligible digital media component.

Harris commented that the television series is usually what is greenlit first, but the interactive team is getting involved earlier.  When to pitch interactive for a Shaw Media property depends on when the Producer is ready – but be sure to not pitch for the “thing”, focus on the story and the level of engagement.

Simon Foster detailed Glassbox’s heavy-online focus, that their audience is hungry for online content, and are making efforts in building their digital media content library.

What do the Funds Really Want?

Andra Sheffer, Executive Director, Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund and Francesca Accinelli, Director, Canada Media Fund Program Administration, English Market from Telefilm Canada each took some time to demystify their Funds for the participants.

Sheffer explained that the Bell Fund wants to know and understand what makes the project engaging.  Detailing the user engagement in your application is a significant key to a successful funding proposal.  She also highlighted their Low Budget Program as mentioned by the broadcasters – they have discovered that not every interactive component needs to be a complex experience and plenty of excellent, innovative, engaging products can be produced for less than $100,000.

Accinelli outlined very clearly what the CMF means by “rich and substantial” in the Convergent Stream guidelines – it is new content that is meaningful to the user.  Simply cutting your film/television series into smaller bites is not eligible, but new or unused content is.  In response to a question from the audience, she also explained that in the cases where the digital media component is leading the broadcast, simply releasing smaller clips of the soon-to-be-broadcast television component is also ineligible.

Examples of previously funded “rich and substantial” documentary products (in addition to Semisweet’s Choco-locate) include:

When applying to the CMF’s Experimental Stream, Accinelli cautioned the attendees on how different that program’s mandate is from the Convergent Stream, and how it attracts a different collection of applicants.  Experimental Stream applications come in from game studios, portals, content aggregators, and software tech – many are organizations who do not often access funding from other programs or tax credit sources and are designing new technology and experiences.  She also responded to concerns that the Experimental Stream is “only games” – and explained that “games” are actually wide collection of interactive experiences.  Every round of the Experimental Stream sees 180-220 applications.

Accinelli also strongly emphasized that the Canada Media Fund is in the process of reviewing all funding programs, and will be locking their guidelines for a 2 year period. Public consultations and highlights of any proposed changes are available via their discussion board: http://www.cmf-fmc.ca/discussions

About docSHIFT

docSHIFT: Real Stories to Multiple Platforms facilitates new creative partnerships and helps develop innovative interactive documentary projects. docSHIFT is organized by the Documentary Organization of Canada – Toronto Chapter, made possible with the support of the Ontario Media Development Corporation and is presented in partnership with Ryerson University, Hot Docs, CFC Media Lab and the National Film Board of Canada.

The docSHIFTSummit was made possible by the Ontario Media Development Corporate on behalf of the Ministry of Culture, with the support of HotDocs, Ryerson University, National Film Board of Canada, Canadian Film Centre Media Lab, the Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund and Interactive Ontario.