Cool Toys vs. ROI - Steve Yankee Jan 04, 2008

[HankCastello]

re: http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=40543
Cool Toys vs. ROI - Steve Yankee Jan 04, 2008
Thanks, Steve!  In the middle of the off-season and just after the holidays, we really needed something to wake us up and your latest article is just the ticket and right on target for the issues we should be thinking about !

But thankfully, there's enough for me to disagree with to perhaps create a few sparks and get some dialog going..

While we all probably agree that content is more important than whether the format is hi-def or standard video, and I agree that hi-def isn't quite "here" yet - I think this article "pooh-poohs" hi-def and could cause some people to make decisions that aren't necessarily the best choices.

We are on the brink of a video revolution.  Not since Gutenberg invented his printing press...wait a minute...OK, I'll back off that one just a tad and change it to - not since color television made its debut in 1954 has there been such a drastic change in the way we receive information and basically view the world.

(By the way, although we lived in L.A., it wasn't until the time of the Cuban missle crisis - 1962 - that I saw my first color television and throughout most of the seventies, color sets were in the minority. So, if it took over twenty years to get consumers to switch from b&w to color, it arguably could take longer to make the hi-def switch.)

Hi-def is not "a 10% bump in picture quality" as Yankee says, but if you go by pixel count, it is a 600% bump in picture quality - though you could well argue that some of that is going to extra picture area - it still counts as "extra picture quality" in my book.

Steve asks, "Does the bride really want you to use this, or is she just parroting something she’s read in an article titled "10 Questions to Ask Your Wedding Videographer?"

Is there really an "or" there?  If she asks, then it matters.  If you've got hi-def and your competitor doesn't, then you've got an edge.  There's no discounting that.  Does the extra "techiness" mean you'll win if your demo stinks and your competitor's is great?  No, and it shouldn't.  Like Steve said, content is more important.  

But hi-def is coming.  We're on the crest of the hi-def wave.  I think it's great that Yankee is reminding us to think of ROI (return on investment).  But when considering a camera purchase, you've got to think at least a few years ahead.  In at least some markets, that is going to mean a choice for hi-def.

Steve asks,

"Are you defined by the quality of your work or the number of gadgets you own?"

Steve should know that most of us only got into this field so we could buy more toys!   :lol:   OK seriously now, "toys" like camera cranes, Glidecams, wide-angle lenses, some filters and such DO add to the quality of our work, increasing the value of our content.  They do enter the equation that defines our work and therefore defines us to our clients.  

So while I'm happy to see an article that gets us thinking about ROI and urges us to not blindly jump onto the latest bandwagon, I think the argument could stand a bit of rounding out which Yankee's editors probably denied with space restrictions.

Steve Yankee (syankee at opinmarketing.com) has more than 35 years of video production and marketing experience and is the founder of The Video Business Advisor in East Lansing, Michigan.

[kwshaw1]

Steve makes some good points but is flat-out wrong that, "most people don’t have HD-ready TVs" or that this is merely a minor bump in picture quality we're talking about. As Hank said this is the biggest shift in TV technology since the introduction of color ~50 years ago, with an obvious increase in image clarity plus a change in aspect ratio which affects artistic decisions regardless of the delivery format. Plus the timing of Steve's article is poor because 2008 is shaping up to be the year that HD wedding videos become a reality for a significant number of customers, thanks to the availability of functional HD delivery options and purchase of HD-capable players by millions of potential customers. When the bridal magazines start running articles about HD that's likely to have the same impact as previous talk about "3-chip" cameras, which many brides will ask about whether they know what it means or not. It shouldn't be long now before the best wedding video customers come to expect HD as standard, relegating SD to bargain status at best and eventually not considered a professional service.

A sensible business plan for anyone expecting to be doing wedding videos  five years from now should include some strategy for upgrading to HD technology, and now's as good a time as any to start working on that. Would you rather get a head start now so you can make the HD investment gradually while advertising the benefits to current customers, or wait until you start losing business to competitors and then have to switch to HD all at once when you can least afford it? Plus there's the issue of building up a new demo reel at HD quality, and I know a guy who's shot dozens of weddings in HD but still wishes he had more sample material to pull from.

As far as marketing is concerned, HD is an increasingly valuable sales tool which has helped some videographers improve their average booking price substantially. HD technology without good production values won't win you many points with customers, but if you do good work why not offer it in the highest quality format available? This is becoming a silly debate in our community which won't change anything, because the world is moving to HD as the de facto standard for paid professional video work.

[HankCastello]

Steve Yankee is not alone in his down-playing of hi-definition, see -
http://www.weddingvideodoneright.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2229
(includes a couple of polls with over three thousand respondents!)

[kwshaw1]

Yada yada yada. News items this week make it pretty clear that Blu-ray is about to clinch a compelling victory over HD-DVD as far as most major movie studios are concerned. Once that happens Blu-ray should become even more popular than it is now, especially with the kind of consumer likely to pay good money for a wedding video.

Does anyone really care what these pundits think, especially ones like Steve Yankee who clearly don't understand HD technology? My concern is delivering the best possible results to my customers and encouraging them to adopt the technology necessary to enjoy that. Blu-ray is the best answer for HD delivery and has essentially won the format war, so that's what I'm recommending to customers with HDTVs - which is most of them where I live.

[osbornes5]

This whole discussion is certainly enjoyable and I enjoy the debate and banter. My feeling is that it is all speculation. We can toss out our opinions all day long but it is currently impossible to know for sure where this will all lead. I do think that, for all of the reasons I have mentioned elsewhere (PS3, capacity, cool name, etc.), Blu-Ray will win but I don't think it has won. I also think that HD is the next best thing since sliced bread and will dominate folks entertainment centers eventually, I just don't know when it will reach critical mass. As we watch it play out I will continue to enjoy all of the predictions.

[HankCastello]

Whether you agree with him or not, Yankee gets us thinking about a topic that is often pushed aside - ROI (return on investment).  Yes, we are videographers, but we're also business people.  Well, we'd better be or we won't be in business very long.

If someone is just getting into this business and if going hi-def would mean drastically cutting corners on things like good tripods, more microphones, etc. - tools that are necessary to do a professional job, then that person (and his clients) might be better off with standard cameras until he is in a better financial position.

We can take the position that hi-def is here now and is the final answer - but is that position ours to take, or is it up to the market place?  

After all, it did take about twenty years for color to make it to mainstream consumers, and I would argue that going from black and white to color is more drastic than standard to hi-def.

Color did eventually push b&w out with nearly 100% efficiency though.  You don't see any b&w commercials; training videos; and only the very best of the classics are still around in b&w and even most of those have been colorized.

But I doubt that standard video will be subdued as thoroughly as b&w was.  There just isn't as drastic a difference and there is many times the number of titles available in color standard video than there were in b&w.

But like Kevin says, it isn't up to the pundits.  The market will have to decide all this.  Those of you, like Kevin, who are out in Silicon Valley, will likely see the change happen a year or two (or three) before those of us in the hinterlands.

I have yet to have anyone request any hi-def video, although we do offer it.  I have no doubt that someone could start up a video business in my market, using standard video only and he'd be OK for the next three years.

That would let him leverage his investment in more mics, Glidecam, wide-angle lenses, etc. that (in apparent contrast to the direction of Steve's article) would help him do better work, have happier clients and, in effect, earn more money.

In short, he would receive a better ROI, which was the main point of the Yankee article.

[Steve Yankee]

Afternoon, everyone. Sorry I'm a little late weighing in here, but I've
been getting my presentation ready for Video '08 -good grief, next
week already!

I've got no specific quarrel with equipment, formats or video software.
We all need new gear from time to time.

What I do have a problem with is thinking you need the latest
and greatest equipment to produce a fantastic production. Yes, it
is certainly true that better equipment may help you in some aspects...
but the bottom line is use your brain and your creativity...think smart
and do better with less. Plan your shoots before you start and you
can come away with some astounding stuff!

If you need a new camcorder, a new computer, a new jib boom
-if it's really necessary, then fine.  Go for it. However, if it's something
that you think might be cool, but you really don't have a business
reason for it, then my best advice is -think twice before jumping.  

The money you save IS your own.

Steve

[osbornes5]

Boy, in reality, Steve is absolutely right here. Unless you are starting a business with a big loan or inheritance or other readily available stash of cash, it VERY difficult to get everything you would like to have at once. It also makes little sense to have a glide cam if you can't use it and don't want to learn. Of course this analagy could go on and on and the bottom line is that, if you need to MAKE money off of this business and are not jsut doing it as a hobby, at some point it becomes foolish to purchase equipment you rarely if ever use. Here's my only exception to that rule. If you say "No, I am drawing the line here" and choose to not purchase piece of equipment X, Y or Z, then have a customer call and request a rush job in which you need that equipment, you wind up having to buy it locally or pay overnight shipping to get it. Both of these avenues add significant cost to that equipment. In the end though it seems to me to be a delicate balancing act to determine the difference between "need" and "want".

[osbornes5]

By the way, Steve, thanks a million for taking time to respond here. We would love to have you be a regular contributor here!

[kwshaw1]

If someone is just getting into this business and if going hi-def would mean drastically cutting corners on things like good tripods, more microphones, etc. - tools that are necessary to do a professional job, then that person (and his clients) might be better off with standard cameras until he is in a better financial position.

That's true up to a point, but if you spend $4500 on a couple of SD cameras now and then end up paying $6500 to upgrade them to HD models later, that's a much worse investment than spending the $6500 now and being able to offer more options to customers at correspondingly higher prices. If you already own SD cameras and have a steady stream of customers it's a different story, but for someone starting a video business today it would be nuts to buy SD cameras - unless maybe you get them used for ~$1000 each.

The day is coming when paying customers won't accept anything less than HD for their expensive video projects, because it wouldn't make any sense to do so. And  the 4:3 aspect ratio is definitely dated in a world where everyone is lining up to buy widescreen TVs, so this will bury standard SD production as surely as color buried black and white. 4:3 is dying for wedding videography purposes and SD as a whole won't be far behind it. But hey, the longer some videographers keep shooting SD the easier that makes it for those who have upgraded to sell HD to clients.

[Superfly]

I am shocked to find that it is the wedding industry that will either drive me out of business or propel me forward with the use of HD.

Here in Santa Cruz California I would be ashamed to deliver another 4:3 product ever again because it is the ONLY format that you can't make work right on a wide screen television like almost 40% of Americans currently have.

If you have a wide screen DVD you can wide zoom it in and it looks NORMAL....the people are not fat.

I am preparing to blow the 12k in the middle of a recession and fight it through even though local Fox news is still using my Panasonic DVX-100 which I would be surprised to sell for $1500.

G4 channel predicts 4-5 more years for the assimilation of HD in the regular market.

I have considered blowing off my wedding business but we're too good and word is spreading like crazy....

THIS YEAR I WILL BASICALLY WORK WEDDINGS TO BUY THE GEAR.

BRUTAL.....

Now to choose which cameras and computers in the middle of a recession and kill the credit for a while by racking up those cards.

This will separate the men from the boys, that's for sure.

Have a great one.

[Superfly]

If you're not doing weddings or broadcast, I would ride that standard def gear for 3 more years and save your duckets.

How many people do you know who have blue ray?

Yes, Blue Ray, Sony's first format war win.

Good kill Sony.

[Superfly]

Sorry for the third post and I love Steve but out here it must be vastly different.

I can't tell you how stupid I felt at the bridal Expos this year being the only one showing SD on a 46" Sony Bravia.

Fortunately most of the brides did not notice the resolution but they all think they know something and they are going to look for this.

The 22 year old film students were showing HD and although they will likely not be back next year like most of the newbies.....

The writing is on the wall out here in Cali my friends.

You may not have to deliver in Blue Ray buy you sure as hell better be shooting in HD.

You can offer money off an SD delivery and charge then $500 down the line for a blue ray conversion.

Cheers and thanks for putting up with the 3 posts.

HD is the catch phrase this year and you better be ON IT!

[HankCastello]

A year later, a recession and Blu-ray players are still not the norm...BUT... those widescreen HD tv's are the norm, so you'd better be shooting with native 16:9 ccd's or your production is going to look like it was shot with a consumer camera.  And, with few exceptions, that means shooting with a hi-def camera.  Anyone want to buy three, very-used, VX2100's?

[kwshaw1]

A year later, a recession and Blu-ray players are still not the norm...BUT... those widescreen HD tv's are the norm, so you'd better be shooting with native 16:9 ccd's or your production is going to look like it was shot with a consumer camera. 

Exactly: the switch to widescreen TVs is a more crucial reason to upgrade from standard 4:3 cameras than the increase in resolution - which is basically icing on the cake. And it doesn't matter whether Blu-ray is standard or not if the customers with the most money are willing to consider some form of HD delivery, whether that be via Blu-ray or computers or something like the WD TV device.

It's been a bit strange for the past few years watching videographers try to resist the most dramatic change in video techology since the 1950s, but of course we'll all go along with it eventually.