Presentation

So, today, again I was very lucky to get to talk to a new startup in the media world. 

So much passion, and a lot of great ideas. All whilst producing some very original content. But their question was how to make a move towards gaining some serious sponsorship for their proposition. 

And the answer was - stop - think about what you need to do before you think about going for sponsorship/funding - you only get one chance.

Now, we live in a shallow world - which is depressing, but very true. You can have an amazing idea, a great company, the best content, but without the very best presentation.. No one will find it.

Everyone is increasingly busy, too little time, too little money and so on. Even if we're not busy, because we are programmed to only spend a short amount of time/energy on investigating something, thats all we'll do. We're lazy.

So, you, as a company, or individual, have to make sure that in those precious few seconds that someone finds your site/company you get their attention.

The risk is that you go for a huge, in your face, DFS style "SALE NOW ON!" which will put people off right away.

In the words of Joyce Grenfell - Don't do that..

However, it's been proven, that just like people make a judgement about someone they meet within 15 seconds, the same will apply to your website, and therefore in todays world - your company.

Everything about it will send signals to a potential client. The fonts, the colours, the layout, is it clear, simple and easy to find the information you need? 

None of this means that you have to be flashy - so many sites mistake an over the top intro for telling people about their brand - ask yourself, how often have you NOT clicked the Skip Intro button?

So, the point of all this is, if you spend a few days working on your site doing all of the above, and therefore, how your content is presented, you'll find that many more people stick around to view it.

Which means your metrics go up, which means that when you go and hunt for your sponsors, it might take you a month instead of two. Which in exchange for a day's work isn't a bad reward.

Think of it this way. Why was Tony Blair so successful at getting his information (his content) across? 

(In a classroom style drone) because his presentation was excellent.

And he spent his "day" on hiring Alastair Campbell. The merits of which are debatable, but certainly reaped its rewards.

So, who's going to help me learn Wordpress so that this Blog actually practices what it preaches?

David

Cost Control

Yawn. Cost control. Those that have worked with me (or ask my wife) know that this is/was not my strong point. 

But now that I am back on my own I've been discovering the joys of it in some quite life enhancing ways. 

When you're running a company, you don't realise how much of your "lifestyle" is funded by your job. And no, I don't mean abusing your expense account. 

But think about it - I was always in a hurry (or late.) so I'd grab a cab. Taking a client out, a good lunch or dinner for two could top £150 easily. Working late - grab supper on the company. Grab a coffee with someone - petty cash.

Particularly the last bit, which doesn't seem like much, it all adds up very very quickly. I'm working and taking meetings out of a members club at the moment, and at £1.50 a coke that sure isn't cheap. (I've been offered a desk in an office for £7 a day for example). 

So, I've been rediscovering the pleasure of saving money. Today, instead of taking the tube up to my meeting in Marylebone from Charing Cross, I walked it. Took 25 minutes, and I saved 2 quid. But when I bought my coffee - it was "free". I liked that so much, I walked back again.

Now, before this ends up as some pathetic isn't life tough post - grow up David - there is a point to this.

What I'm doing is terrible for the economy. Making a packed lunch means that Shelley's on Dean Street has lost out on £4 of business. The tube lost £4 today. The only beneficiary was Sainsbury's for the packed lunch ingredients, and the coffee shop because I couldn't very well bring in a thermos.

Oh - and a shoe repair company when I have holes in my soles from the walking. (Now there's a booming industry at the moment).

So, in one fell swoop - I helped do my little bit to keep us in a recession. Great.

But then, look back to the paragraph at the beginning. With a company card I was putting a huge amount into the economy every day - lunches, drinks, taxis, coffees.. Far more than I ever did personally.

So, as companies tighten their belts, the first thing they crack down on is expenses. So people, like me, no longer have those expensive lunches, or coffees and take the tube instead of a taxi.

The government keeps asking the banks to free up credit to individuals, but I don't really think this is where the difference is being felt most keenly. I cut back today and took £4 out of the economy. In a company environment, I'd cut back and perhaps take as much as £200 out.

Thats a 50x difference by one individual. Now, I know there are a heck of a lot more people who are going to walk somewhere than there are senior executives, but in London there are an awful lot of the latter.

It's why the government must focus on helping business, and not just the big ones. If a company can't get credit, and things are tight, when it comes to the decision to spend some money on attracting new clients - they frequently (and incorrectly) will choose not to. Which means they turnover less, which means they spend less, which means they turnover less....

You get the picture.

Stuff recapitalising the banks - get some money direct to companies.

Except Cobblers - they don't need it.

David

I rest my case..

After blogging yesterday about linear TV's limitations:

Excerpt from today's Broadcast Magazine:

"Ratings rise as Snow falls"

"The adverse weather conditions had a strong impact on television viewing yesterday as audience levels were up by over a third across the day.

With heavy snow fall across England causing severe disruption to the transport network many people decided to take the day off work – estimated at a fifth of the work force, around 6.5m people - and clearly opted to sit in front of the television.
According to figures from media research company Attentional, overall TV viewing across all channels yesterday was up by 36.2% with an average audience of 9.4m across the day. This compares with an audience of 6.9m on a Monday across February last year."

A third more potential people for advertisers then. All missed.

David

Why Snow means the death of Broadcast TV

Today, like most Londoners, I was stuck at home, as no trains were running from where I live into the centre of town.

Whilst for me, since I was working from home today, that wasn't too much of a drag, my wife's office was closed as no-one could get in. So she ended up being stuck at home as well.

Now, while for many married people, this might be an incentive for the husband to spend even more time in the study working, (I only joke) we've only been married for 6 months, so an unexpected day together is something rare.

So, funnily enough, not as much work was done, and around going out for a walk, throwing snowballs at each other and the local urchins, and going to the pub, we watched daytime television.

And what greeted us?

The same diet of dreadful programming ("Wanted down under" anyone? "Homes under the Hammer"?). And unsurprisingly the same adverts,  - car insurance, ambulance chasers, and the like.

Now, in the Greater London area alone today, there were what, 2-3 million people stuck at home? All of whom are probably people who are never there during the day. So therefore, it's a fair guess that of them, a high percentage were affluent (in credit crunch terms) who normally, programme makers, and therefore, advertisers, give their right eye teeth to reach.

It's at this moment that linear Broadcast TV's limitation's become painfully apparent.

The schedule was planned weeks in advance, the media buyers bought the advertising while the commercial was being made. So as a result, advertisers missed out on reaching literally millions of prime viewers.

So, now contrast this with internet television services - iplayer - the forthcoming Kangaroo, or Hulu in the US. 

These people, if they are savvy, are then going to choose what they watched today. They'll watch "A History of Scotland" or "Demons" or whatever takes their choosing. Suddenly the advertisers who paid to reach those particular audiences by targeting them end up with a bonus day.

As increasingly we get to choose when we want to work, with flexi-time and the like, advertisers are therefore going to be far less able to predict our viewing habits.

So, can a day - or two days at this rate - of snow be a tipping point? I know that if I was a brand owner I'd be furious that I missed out on today. 

And you don't want to be trying to renegotiate ad rates in this market with brands that are already pre-disposed to dislike you, do you?

However, lets face facts, adverts, or TV, are never going to win over plugging an annoying 16yr old in the face with a perfectly aimed snowball..

Where are my gloves...

David

De-coupling

What a buzzword this is. 

I first encountered this in 2006 when the attention that Unit attracted encouraged a few brands to come and talk to us.

However this evening I encountered the most vehement defence of the status quo I have ever come across - and from someone who used to work in post. 

Lets look at it this way. An advertising agency is paid by  a brand to come up with the most amazing, stupendous, creative idea to sell their product that money can buy.

For that, they deserve an enormous amount of money and rightly so. But...

How can you value creativity?  To be honest -  by hard facts - ROI - Return On Investment.

 The guys at Fallon who came up with the drumming Gorilla or eyebrow scary children, already know this!

However, what is to say that a brand can't pay for specialists in each area and cherry pick the very best for themselves...

Not what the agency dictates to them? 

So, focusing on ROI, why can't the brand directly pay for:

1.) The best creativity money can buy: - The Agency

2.) The best production values money can buy - The Production Company

3.) The best VFX, and Audio and Finishing money can buy - The Post Production Company.

All it needs is one savvy project manager at the brand and suddenly we are at least approaching a way to make branding films/adverts for a reasonable fee..

Or to look at another way, why would you pay extra to the salesman who says the car you want is perfect for  you in every way - but invoices you a percentage on top of the servicing charges for the next five years..?

You'd go and find somewhere else to service your car, right?

Everyone is under pressure to cut costs - and for that, especially in 2009, there is no shame.

But, there is no excuse for not paying for the very best - at what they do.

Not to just take it off your hands for a quiet(ish) life. 

There are amazing companies that are now able to deliver the creative vision an agency comes up with for a fraction of the traditional cost.

And I'm sorry if that means that the days of "cost plus" die. Good riddance I say.

It's a brave new world - will you change with it?

David

Soho

Every year, someone somewhere predicts the death of Soho as a centre for the creative industries. 

They cite that some advertising agencies have moved out, that some of the big production companies have. That the costs are much higher than basing yourself elsewhere, and that as communication technologies improve, the need to be close to other companies diminishes.

Now, I've never really bought into these arguments.

Before setting up a company there, I absolutely hated Soho. I mean really, really detested it. To me it was noisy, dirty, full of annoying tourists - dangerous (friends had been mugged there), and full of rubbish restaurants that fleeced the annoying tourists - and usually me as well.

However, once I started to spend time there and discovered the side that is generally only known to those that work there, all that changed.  It has some of the best restaurants, friendliest pubs and where else are you guaranteed to bump into someone you know round every corner.

Which all makes it sound a bit like an episode of Cheers - but in a way that's not a bad analogy.

It kind of follows on from the post yesterday - about work being fun. Working in production or post in Soho adds a great extra dimension. However, this isn't really a reason to locate a company there - is it?

Time after time you can notice a pattern in some of the clients that come to use creative companies in Soho. And it goes a bit like this:

Arrive. Order coffee. Check on Edit. Open laptop - send enough emails to ensure you look busy. Then send emails to find out where/which restaurants your friends/clients are in. Go to lunch with them. Come back. Check on edit. Find out which pub/restaurant your friends/clients are in. Go meet them.

Rinse and repeat.

Now - first disclaimer - not all clients do this! However, actually, its some of the most successful that do. It's a big attraction that you as a client, know that you can be working for many days/weeks on a project, and yet ensure that you can still carry on the lifeblood of your career - meeting your clients and networking. Being in Soho ensures that all of these people are extremely likely to be around.

Witness someone I know (who is a King among networkers) who'll call at about 4:30 and go - "I'm passing by your place in half an hour - you around?" And because at that point, going for a chat can be infinitely preferable to paperwork, you'll always meet him.

However, this still leaves the cost argument. However, even before rents started to drop out of the sky this year, as a percentage of total operating costs for a facility or decent sized company, rent/mortgage is actually very small. Less than 10%. So, even if you knock a third off the rent, you'll only save 3% on your costs. And is that a risk worth taking when a lot of your clients see the convenience as very important?

And before you have to completely move an existing business and refurb a whole new building.

This might seem as a bit of a love letter to Soho, but yes, I do miss it. 

However, it's triggered by the news yesterday that a Pinewood based facility is opening up an office in Soho - because many of its clients won't go out to Pinewood. And I know they are not the only ones.

This makes me excited. Soho has always thrived on new companies coming in and keeping the market on its toes. And now that rents are coming back down (unless you are the post house that recently signed a lease at £45 per square foot - ouch!) I hope its the beginning of many more.

David

That's NOT the way to do it!

Well, I never thought that I would write a blog article and then see something that only serves to reinforce my beliefs that very evening.

So, last night I sat down to watch the final episode of Million Dollar Traders (iplayer link) as I've found it a fascinating experiment. I always, somewhere in the darker parts of my soul quite fancied working in the city. Even going so far as reading Geraint Anderson's book City Boy which was worrying enough.

However, watching last night's episode I'm pretty certain I could never step through the doors of a trading room. 

If it proved anything, its the age old adage that just because someone is great at what they do, they don't automatically make a good manager of others doing it.

In about a 10 minute segment we saw a catalogue of some of the worst management and decision making I have ever seen. 

Letting someone go from a company is one of the worst things you ever have to do as a manager or business owner. But there are ways of doing it that lets everyone keep their dignity intact.

That doesn't include:

Playing with your blackberry whilst discussing someone's future with them

Not looking them in the eye

Telling them you don't care what they think

Firing them and letting them back into the office where everyone can see them upset

And many many more. (Hats off to Century Films for capturing all of that)

I was left open mouthed that this kind of thing went on. Particularly with Cleo, they seemed like a couple of schoolboys who didn't know where to look.

Don't get me wrong, no business can carry an underperforming member of staff. It's not fair on other people who work with them, it's not fair on the company - or on yourself, as you are tasked with making a profit.

However, you also have a duty to give them the help and encouragement they need to give it their best shot. Only then can you turn round and let them go. This doesn't mean going out of your way to give them extra support over and above your other members of staff - that just breeds resentment. 

It means sitting down with them and trying to get to the bottom of what is causing a block to their performing well, and whilst it's rarely possible in a small company, thinking about moving them towards a role that focuses more on their skills.

What you certainly don't do is take away/diminish their job role!

In an effort to buck up Cleo, Lex, the Hedge Fund owner, cut her capital she had to invest, in half. In one fell swoop he had someone who resents him, the company, and who therefore is set up to fail, but whilst doing it, will also make everyone else uncomfortable.

Firm but fair is the only way to go, not just from the selfish viewpoint of avoiding legal proceedings being brought against your company!

Management style, particularly in the creative industries is something akin to walking a tightrope. We work in an industry with thousands clamoring to get in, where competition for jobs is fierce, but at the same time the pay is not that high (certainly compared to the city).

 At the same time, the hours are long, and the stress levels are large. People put up with this because there are few industries where you can sit down and see a direct result of your work, and know that millions are hopefully enjoying it too.

So clearly people aren't in it for the money - they want to be valued. 

Being valued doesn't mean pandering to every demand, or not being a strict leader, but it does mean that the way your company treats its staff speaks volumes about how it feels about them. 

Sometimes, thats just remembering to say thank you and take an interest in what everyone does. Not putting up with senior members of staff shouting at junior ones. Explaining the logic behind each decision.

Above all - trying to make it fun. We spend more of our lives at work than anywhere else - so why can't it be fun? 

Sitting typing in 5000 lines of data will never be that, but the environment around you can at least make up for it.

Right, I'm off to go and short Barclays.

David