Still an Apple Supporter

I've been lamenting about my laptop computer being in for repairs for the past two months. And I suppose I might appear to be a bit hard on Apple, as a result. But truth is, this is the third laptop in a row of theirs that has had major problems. It's interesting that the period from 1986 to 2001 gave me 20 - 25 computers that ran flawlessly.

Based on my experience, I would urge anyone who buys an Apple laptop to buy an extended warranty at the very moment they purchase their new computer.

The latest on my current problem is this:

The third party Apple reseller that has my computer continues to wait for the fourth logic board. The past three (one of them the original) have failed. This was all caused by a faulty battery that blew up in November of last year. This tells me that there's something deeper going on - but it hasn't occurred to the reseller, apparently.

However, Apple agrees with me and after a phone call Friday, has said that if I continue to have problems when it gets returned, they will replace the computer with a new one. Score one big POINT for Apple. Their customer service is hard to beat. We're getting our own Apple store in Calgary soon and it will be a welcome addition.

Even if I don't get a new computer and the current one starts to work on its own, it receives a 90 day warranty from the moment its released into the real world again. No problem. I'm going to run it through every test I can think of to try to get it to fail - to make sure it's in good shape. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going attempt anything out of the norm. I just don't need it to crater when I'm on stage with it.

The problem comes back to the extended warranty. This being the third Apple laptop in a row with problems, when I took it in (after 6 months of intermittent keyboard quitting aggravation), I asked for an extended warranty - there about were ten days to go till my first year was up). The computer store customer service rep didn't have any packages on the wall but said they would get me one. However, when I got the computer back and asked (it was then past the first year cut-off), they hadn't done anything about it.

Apple's response - "under no circumstances do we let customers purchase an extended warranty past the one year of ownership limit." When I asked about the logic in my particular case, I was told that particular Apple rep didn't have it. So, I guess I have to go to the top. And I will. More to come.

I know the third party Apple reseller isn't going to provide me an extended warranty, although they've said they'll go to bat for me. They say they've had them extended before. Apple says they have not. Who is correct? At this point, I have no idea.

In any case, my wavering support of Apple is still in their camp. However, I may have missed the very opportunity I was determined not to miss. I didn't fully understand the policy. I was naive, to say the least. I had relied on Apple's sense of fairness, again based upon my dealings with them in the past. Times have changed; they're a bigger company. Policies rule, I suppose. I will have to wait until this sick computer comes back for the fourth time and see whether it lasts to determine where I am warranty-wise.

So, as I said before, I'd recommend an extended warranty on any Apple laptop. And buy it when you buy the computer. Because if you miss the one year regular warranty cut-off, you lose.

Meanwhile, I'll write a letter regarding the policy as it relates to my case.

We Are ALL iPods . . . NOT!

OK, so here's one of those kind of ironic stories.

I give a speech on customer service. I'm scheduled for Calgary and Dallas in October. The title of the speech is "We Are ALL iPods." The premise is that the presentation of the iPod is as good as the technology - that all customer service reps have to think of themselves as products . . . and aspire to present themselves up to an iPod standard . . . and by extension, an Apple standard - the desirable computer of the day. That's the computer I use on stage for all my speeches (a MacBook Pro). It carries visual support, including video.

So, here's the thing. My new Intel MacBook Pro had its battery blow up at Christmas. I took it in and they replaced the battery - right off the shelf! However, within the week, whenever the computer started to get hot, the keyboard and mouse would just stop working. By May, it had become unbearable. It just got worse and worse.

It's now the end of June. My computer has been in service for a month and a half. I've had it back twice, the first time for less than a day and the second time for three days. The second time, after three days, EVERYTHING blew - the display, sound, the keyboard - you name it!

This will be the second time they've replaced the logic board. They're just shooting in the dark. Never mind that I need it for my presentations . . . and I take the Apple name with me up on stage. It has no bearing. On and on we go . . . suspended in computer service purgatory.

You'd kinda think maybe someone would just replace the whole thing . . . after a month and a half. But no, that doesn't seem to be in the cards. We'll see what happens this third time in. Not that it will make me comfortable even if it appears to come back fixed.

Because here's the kicker. When I took it in the first time, it was under warranty. I asked them to give me an extended warranty. However, when I got it back, it was out of warranty and they refused to give me the warranty. So, if I get it back, you can bet I'm going to try to get the thing to break as quickly as possible, so that it's still under the same service contract. Because if it doesn't break for a month or so, I may be completely out of luck. It may be the same problem, but I won't have an extended warranty.

Now, I've been a Macintosh buy since 1986 and I'm a registered Apple Developer. I own about 20 of their computers. And I promote them on stage visually and verbally.

Do you think I'm starting to think about changing the title of my speech? And the content? You bet.

The Reverse Gasp Effect

My recent article on "White Death on the Podium" got some reaction. It's set me out on a campaign to help people communicate more effectively "one screen at a time." Well, it didn't actually start me on that road, it re-confirmed the need.

It started a few people recognizing the fact that they were indeed using white backgrounds and black text - in PowerPoint particularly (as that awful program still commands the lion's share of the visual support marketplace), and a light went on. "It makes perfect sense" was one common reply but even more prevalent was "I never really thought about it before."

Well, think about it. It will make your visual support infinitely more readable.

And if you still doubt the validity of the point that white backgrounds will cause your audience to go blind (actually, I may be going overboard in that statement) or at the very least, give them headaches, try this test (I actually did this in front of an audience two weeks ago):

Create the first couple of text slides in your PowerPoint file as screens of black text on a white background. Now, this must be projected to have the best effect and your projector should be good enough quality so that the contrast is strong. Then take the last slide in that group and duplicate it (exactly) using the duplicate command. Then change the white background to black and the letters to white.

During the presentation, when the black text on white background slide is up, ask your audience to read one of the lines. While they're doing it, switch to the white text on black background slide. Watch as they actually gasp in relief! There will not be a person in the room who will not thank you for making it suddenly so much easier to read the text.

They real key here is that we don't think enough about our audience. But if YOU had to sit though your presentation, you'd probably make some changes! This white on black effect is just one example, but a fundamental one. The principle is that the human eye does not see black (or darkness).

Don't try to make your audience read what they can't see! And DON'T cause them to be distracted by beaming white light at the same time. For the eye is attracted by light.

Next time you're going to use a projector or design slides for a television monitor, think about the user. When the light is projected, the rule is always light text on a dark background. Always. And it that's difficult to swallow, by all means, take the test!

White Death on the Podium

Our eyes are attracted to shiny things. You know that when you take a walk in the park; the glint of the sun from a gum wrapper lying in the grass draws your attention. Or you look up at the sky on a clear, moonlit night - that big white orb is what catches your eye. Even the stars play second banana to the brilliance of the moon. Our eyes are attracted to light.

And yet in a presentation situation, many of us put black text on white screens. I want you to think for a moment about what that’s doing to the audience. It’s been described as trying to read the lettering on a switched-on light bulb. After a while, it makes the audience stare back at us like “deer caught in the headlights.” To a presenter, this is referred to as “white death.”

Since the object of attention is letters (not the background), it seems to make more sense to make those objects white. In other words, support graphics and text should be placed on a dark background.

My extensive experience in television supports this hypothesis. But I wanted more concrete support. I searched the internet for additional information and studies on the subject. Here’s what I found:

Our eyes are naturally attracted to light.

Light waves enter the eye through the pupil and strike the back of the eye, called the retina. The retina is lined with a series of light sensing cells known as cones and rods. When they get hit with light, a chemical reaction occurs which sends electrical impulses to the brain. The brighter the light (for example, white), the more intense the electrical impulses. The brain then interprets the intensity and in this case, tells us the light is “white.” No light, no stimulus.

So, by using black text on a white screen, you’re actually asking your audience to read what they don’t see! Our brains have to calculate the dimensions of the area that doesn’t reflect light and turn that into meaningful information. That’s additional work the brain has to do to understand the black text.

Meanwhile, a highly reflective screen blasted with white light is continually stimulating the cones and rods in our eyes. Over time, it will start to hurt your audience’s eyes and decrease their concentration. You don’t want to make it any more difficult than necessary for them to absorb your message!

White light “bleeds.”

Black letters on a white background are affected by adjacent, projected, white light. The letters appear to become thinner. That’s because the bright, white light “bleeds” onto them. They aren’t actually thinner. However, they appear to be thinner. That makes them harder to decipher, or read.

The other effect of a white screen on small, black text is that is reduces the desired contrast. The black letters are somewhat overpowered by the reflected light and actually become dark or medium grey. The smaller the letters, the more pronounced the effect.

On the other hand, when you reverse out type (make it white on a dark background), the very opposite happens and the white type appears bolder. On top of that, white type optically appears closer to us (above the black background). This is the effect you want to create as a presenter. It makes it easier to see the white text.

Projected (reflective) light is different than ambient light.

You might say to me, “But we’ve been reading black text on white pages for centuries.” That’s true. But print and paper create a different environment than light projected on a screen, for two key reasons:

Firstly, ink is absorbed by paper. If printing is not well done, you’ll end up with thinner letters, which in some cases, can completely “drop out.” To compensate, good designers pick a stronger typeface. And with a solid application of ink, the letters will slightly bleed into the white area, making them stronger and easier to read.

If you try to reverse the ink (print white letters on black), the opposite happens. What you’re actually doing is printing black everywhere but where the letters are. The letters will get thinner due to the bleed (the absorption of the ink by the paper), plus you will use more ink, making the printing process much more expensive.

Secondly, printed pages are read in ambient light – not in projected or reflected light. This is not a high contrast situation (like a computer screen or projected image on stage). Therefore the contrast is at an acceptable level. The white of the page is not being reflected back into our eyes.

Traditional computer screens project light in a similar manner to projectors used in a boardroom setting. Any white light is beamed into the eyes of the viewer. It creates a high contrast situation.

Don’t let the screen overpower you!

Here’s yet another reason not to use white backgrounds. Think of a screen on stage in a theatre . . .

In theatre, we take great pains to light the actors properly so that they are the focal point of any dialogue or action. The same thing holds true in television.

If you’re a presenter and properly lit, projecting white light onto a reflective screen anywhere on the stage is going to attract the attention of the audience . . . away from you. You become “support” to the screen and we all know you don’t want that to happen! However, a dark screen with white lettering recedes into the background until you need it. It supports you.

Use the power of light to reinforce key points.

Let’s look at “builds.” I define builds as short phrases or words that are added to a screen based on a cue. The power of builds is that, if done properly, they visually reinforce key orally delivered phrases, in sync. They can help make a specific idea memorable; set it apart from other screen text.

Now, we know that our eye is attracted by light. So, when building text onto a screen, it makes more sense to “build” white text on a dark background. It will more readily attract the audience’s attention.

In television, the eye is attracted by changes on the screen – either the introduction of a lighter color, movement, or both. This is similar to adding white text to a static screen. We perceive movement as the area in question “lights up” with the new text. Adding black text, however, is simply movement and, in fact, may not be that noticeable.

Consider these facts:

Studies have shown that on an LCD panel or CRT (the typical television-type of screen), users are able to read faster when presented with light text on a dark background.

One teacher who teaches large crowds in auditoriums says that unanimously, students prefer chalk on a blackboard over pen on a whiteboard.

Approximately 8% of males and 0.5% of females have a color deficit of some kind. Perhaps that’s the reason men have been accused of not complimenting women on their clothing as much as they perhaps should! But seriously, it’s one more reason why contrast is so important.

Many with dyslexia find white text on a blue background to be the easiest to read. In fact, Microsoft Word has an option on the preferences panel to turn any page into white text on a blue background.

Don’t take your audience for granted!

The only reason I can think of to use black text on white is that it’s “easy” to create. However, presenters need to think twice about the effect this phenomenon has on the audience.

It can be more time consuming to develop a light on dark presentation. But the result will be well worth the effort: a higher level of retention, greater audience attention and an increase in perceived professionalism. Logic overwhelmingly points to “light on dark.” The very best combinations are white or yellow on a blue, black or dark grey background.

Let’s not make it difficult on our “deer audience.” Don’t force them to stare into the headlights of your projector. Light on dark is the preferred configuration for projected visuals. Otherwise, you stand the chance of completely losing your audience’s attention.

And setting yourself up for white death on the podium.

Video, the Wild West and Desktop Television

We have entered the "Era of Desktop Television."

Many of us in the television industry remember a similar period, dubbed "Desktop Publishing," that sent the world of commercial art into a tailspin. This new era of low-cost accessibility to the tools of video production is making many television professionals cringe.

It has resulted in the growth of the gap between quality and what I refer to as "schlock." "Schlock" is badly produced video that makes its point badly, if at all, and breaks virtually every rule of television, from a structural, visual and auditory perspective. It is "brutal" to watch.

It seems to me to be more often that not driven by the IT industry's computer "geeks" - untrained "wannabe" directors and producers or clients - who believe that the internet has re-invented television. Their ability to master the web makes the video medium seem like "kids' play." And the kids DO play! As a result, there are many of my peers who are so frustrated with the industry and its recent direction, that they are "throwing in the towel" and leaving the profession.

The problem, I think, has stemmed from two events. The first was the proliferation of channels within the television universe. While the advertising dollar didn't increase, the opportunities to employ it became more abundant. More choice spread the dollars more thinly. There was more airtime to fill but the production dollars were just not there. It also reduced the number of production positions in broadcast television proper, the place where most of us honed our skills. Most new directors and producers, however, come straight out of school with little real world experience. As a result of these and related factors, we have very few high quality, thoughtful television programs on the "community tube" or in the corporate environment (which has been my area on concentration for over 20 years now).

The second event was increased access to low quality cameras. Now 'everybody' is a videographer, director or producer. Not as many want to edit, mind you (certainly not once they've had "an experience" and found out the skills and time involved). The overall result though, is that many of us with degrees in television, who have refined our skills at the very highest levels for thirty years or more, are having to take direction from individuals with virtually no experience in the medium, but with the opinion that if they've got a few bucks, they must be able to create an award-winning program virtually overnight. In many cases, we are relegated to the role of "techie" and often times find ourselves trying to "fix it" for them in post. We continually feel the frustration of clients who do not see the value in planning, don't understand the efficiencies of the production process and have been bred on instant access to virtually everything.

Video has met the Wild West and every gunslinger out there thinks they have the answer - that they can re-invent the medium based on the fact that professionals have all made it look all so easy.

I can remember back to a time when the beginning of a project started with an "objective." There was also a function called "planning" that went into every shoot day. A script had to be written and approved (even if it was only an outline) first. Those days seem to be behind us.

Earlier this week, I had the fortune to preview a program in its final edit stages that runs approximately two hours in length. It was apparently produced by relatively inexperienced industry members. At least, it gives that appearance.

This program was originally developed as a sequel to "The Secret," a simple, yet visually attractive and well thought-out, motivational film. However, this "copy" (it attempts to follow the original movie's structure) is one of the most badly structured and visually designed programs I have ever seen. It is a cross between a video-game and a rock video, every scene visually disconnected from the one next to it and an apparent attempt made to disrupt the viewers' train of thought by a bed of distracting music that neither supports the theme nor the message.

Each interview clip (and there are many strung together back to back, some as short as 3 seconds, with a superimposed name and title that is unreadable in that length of time) has a different animated background to it, so that the viewer's attention is drawn away from the on-camera interviewee (and hence, the message). There has been no thought to using the medium to strengthen the message and meet the objective. I would be surprised if, in fact, an objective ever existed on paper. I had to watch it twice to decipher what it was about.

The lack of planning seems to be the major culprit. Planning is perhaps the most important factor in determining the ultimate effectiveness of a television program. Most of my time now seems to be spent on trying to dissuade others from scheduling a live shoot without considering carefully the objective. The norm in low-end corporate production seems to be minimal thought as to structure, little meaningful (if any) lighting, terrible sound . . . and the result thrust upon an editor who, as the days go by, is more and more likely NOT to want to get out of bed in the morning! Who knows what new demon he's going to face?

At the same time, it's difficult for newer clients to judge quality based upon a single sales meeting. Reputation and experience seem to have taken a back seat to "cheaper," "faster" and "highly animated." There are younger, price competitive production companies out there that will promise a more effective final outcome, without having the experience to deliver on that promise.

Back in the days of "real" television, we used to pride ourselves on how efficient we were, planning for every eventuality so that when everything "tried to go wrong" on the set (as it invariably did), we had the answers. After all, we'd planned for them. The set was a place you went as a final event - after everything else had been done. Several drafts of the script had been written and a visual treatment and objective had been discussed and refined well in advance. Nowadays, "documentary style" is more the norm. Clients amass footage, then write a script and professionals try make the footage fit the script.

This new process is like wandering into a bear's den, knowing that there is virtually no way out and that you can look forward to being torn to shreds by the executive producer, or client (or whoever it is who's footing the bill) when they find out what the cost is going to be to do it "their way" - which is usually inefficiently and expensively.

However, there are lots of "cowboys" who think they know better. They believe that since the medium is so accessible, it must be easy to master. Nothing could be further from the truth. Producing effective television is difficult. It is time-consuming. It takes a skill set that must be developed over years of working with other skilled professionals in the field; of learning what works and what doesn't. It takes lots of planning and attention to detail. And it takes focus - lots of focus.

This cowboy, like so many others, is getting closer to hanging up his television spurs for good. For quality projects are so hard to find. I don't mean expensive projects, I mean projects that have a purpose - that have some intellectual reason for being, that are well thought-out, that are carefully planned, that are efficiently produced to meet a specific objective, using all the exquisite tools of the trade, each one selected for its ability to help tell the story.

Quality projects are indeed scarce. But there's lots of "schlock" out there if you want to keep busy. The gap continues to grow . . . with no end in sight. Let's hope the "Age of Desktop Television" is a passing fad and that we can get back to using the most powerful medium in the world to make a difference, not just fill time.

The Speaker Video - Part 2

6. Know your objective. Plan for the end use. For example, if you're doing a demo video, your key need is for small bytes of video (15 - 40 second clips) of your very best "stuff." Or it might be a slightly longer story that's delivered particularly well. The idea in the first part of your video is to "wow" the viewer and keep them watching - also to give a clear picture of your style. You only typically need one camera on-site to capture this type of material.

However, if you're capturing footage for a longer-length training program, for example, or if you have lots of audience interaction (and need to capture it), you're looking at two cameras or more and you really need a director involved to help you plan and capture this properly. Know what your intended use is before you get up on stage in front of a camera.

Also, if you're shooting with one camera and have control of the venue to some extent, you can get your close-up audience shots at the end of your talk. Just get the videographer to come down to the stage (or even on stage) and then instruct the audience to give you their best reactions as you deliver is little section of your talk again. Most audiences will be thrilled to help you reach your objective. And make sure you prompt them - work with them to direct THEIR performance. Challenge them and make it fun! If you're a speaker, you know how to do that.

7. Get it on tape AND . . . worry about the editing later. Contrary to popular belief, you really can't "fix it in post." It has to be on tape. In editing, you can mitigate the damage but you won't really make what you already have better than it is.

Post-production is all about enhancing your main theme through the appropriate music (the cuts you select are absolutely critical to your image), graphics and colors. Go with a pro on this and don't even think about buying your own editing system and trying to do it yourself!

8. YOU . . . Director! It's in your best interest to become a "technical performer." Understand the video medium as best you can and work with the best people to get your image on video and you'll never look back. You need to know enough about the television medium to know what works for you and what doesn't. You need to control the shooting environment as much as you can (there are always limitations here) and do your planning beforehand. You need to be a bit of a quasi-director. And have a professional attitude and respect for this powerful medium.

A note about the use of the footage. Firstly, make sure that if you're being taped on stage by a third party, that you negotiate a high quality videotape copy of that footage for your own use. And MAKE SURE you control the rights to the footage, in terms of where it will be used. This is YOUR product on tape and YOU need to control both where it's used and how it's used . . . and for how long. You don't necessarily want something you did five years ago showing up unexpectedly and possibly affecting your NEW image in a negative way.

9. Know your medium. Videotape is still the choice for recording. DVDs are for distribution only (they replace VHS copies). Don't accept original footage as a DVD copy - it will do you little good in the long run. You simply can't re-use it with any amount of quality. Also, if you're setting up a session on your own, be aware that broadcast beta tapes run only 30 minutes, so you need to break for the camera to allow a 30 second tape change. Other types of tapes run at different lengths of time. Know the length of the tape you're using and make sure you accommodate your talk for it.

For internet use, you'll want to convert your end product to Flash video - in today's world, the most universal medium and the one that will give almost instant playback with the least technical requirements.

10. Do your homework. Professional videographers will cost from $1100 - 1600 a day. They typically work on a day or half-day booking (a bit more than half the day rate). If you need a producer/director, if it were me making your decision, I would lean towards high-end "corporate" or "entertainment" directors (the latter may be more expensive.) And make sure you know the costs of packaging. You'll need to allow for artwork, as well.


Video is Very Powerful
Video is the most powerful communication medium there is. It has become more accessible to the general public but this is both an advantage and a curse. Getting someone's genius multimedia teenage guru to put together your video is probably not a good idea. Professional directors have a degree in their field and have spent years refining their skills in broadcast television.

Harnessing the power of video can advance your career tremendously if used well, but bring it to a grinding halt if used badly. And it can cost you a fortune for a library of badly shot YOU!

Make sure you load your gun with high quality ammunition, get the best help you can to shoot it properly and aim it in the right direction!

Shooting the Speaker Demo Video - Part 1

The Challenge
For professional speakers to get to the top echelon - to demand top dollar for a keynote presentation, there is no question about the need for a first class demo video. On the other hand video is:

1. relatively expensive
2. content dependent
3. a loaded gun (if you don't know how to use it properly, and point it in the wrong direction, you can hurt yourself, from both an image and financial perspective)

In this short article, I can't cover off everything a professional producer/director would be concerned about on your behalf, but I can provide some tips that will go a long way towards helping you get the best quality video of your performance, when the opportunity presents itself.

The Solution
Here are the 3 key ingredients to overcome the three traps above:

1. Don't shy away from doing a first class job. Hire the best production videographers shooting on "broadcast quality videotape.
2. You must amass footage along the road, but you can do this relatively inexpensively if you know a few "tricks of the trade." Getting a good product is mostly a result of careful planning.
3. When you're ready, hire a very good producer/director. Make sure they've been in the video production industry a long time and understand your business. Finally, determining your central theme (or image) and bringing it to the screen through a tightly cut video, will be key to your success.

Top Ten Secrets to Spectacular Video

1. Lighting and camera. Lighting is everything! In television, we paint pretty pictures through the use of light. Your videographer (or if you're working with a theatrical lighting director) must know how to light effectively for television. Hire only professionals - no wedding videographers . . . unless you know they do exceptional production work. The difference in cost will only be a few hundred dollars at most, versus double the original amount to re-do it again.

2. Video is all about PLANNING. Secondly: Video LIVES FOREVER! In our industry, every time we go out on a shoot, professionals spend hours making sure everything about the day is organized BEYOND being organized. In other words, plan for everything to go wrong and you'll have an exceptional day.

What you get on tape will not get better over time. No amount of editing will improve it. So . . . make sure you plan for the venue (better still if you have a say in what venue is selected), hire only the best production people (I can't stress this enough), perfect your keynote and work with your videographer to ensure they know what you need to end up with. Here's where you might need to talk to a director beforehand to determine what it is you're actually asking for, in "video-speak."

3. Mind the frame. Your performance determines how tight the shot should be. If you use lots of humor that uses facial expressions and intricate timing, close-ups will be very important. If you're all over the stage and use large gestures, you'll want what we call a "full shot" - head to toe (or at least head to knees). Make sure you know how your planned blocking will affect lighting and sound. Work with your videographer or director to define where you will be . . . when. Make sure you know where the camera is positioned and make sure you favor it when you present.

In terms of your dress, try to stay away from whites and blacks. Stay in mid range colors - pastels are the best. Make-up is the ultimate in a professional product. And if you have fair skin, mandatory. Fair skinned people reflect light. We tend to "white out" if we don't wear a make up "base" to absorb some of that light. Make up or powder also reduces any shine, which is distracting. And, if you wear glasses, make sure you've allowed for them in the lighting. They tend to reflect light.

4. Sound is 60% of video. You'll watch a bad picture with terrific sound, but not the opposite. If you're debating whether to tape a performance, consider these critical deterrents:

• Is it near an airport or under a flight path
• Is it near a train track?
• Is there a wedding or karaoke session in the next room (if in a hotel)
• Is there an air conditioning system that sounds like a jet engine?

Check your microphone sound in the camera before you go on - always.

5. Beware the environment. When working on stage at an event, make sure you know the lay of the land well in advance. Know what the background will be. The look of the stage you're on has a critical effect on how your audience perceives your performance. A spectacular background, colorfully lit, will raise your profile. Make you visit the site as early as possible. And if you're setting this up yourself in a small venue, make sure the ceiling height is at least 12 feet and NO CHANDELIERS!

TO COME: Later this week, the remain 5 Top Secrets to Spectacular Video!