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.