This was in January – ish.  Frank was on holiday vacation and they hadn’t started to break down Season 2 yet in the writer’s room.  We waited to hear back, I constantly tried to touch base with Robert Kirkman and Gale Hurd (the producer of the show) via Twitter in order to continue the conversation about it.  Neither responded, which makes sense as I don’t run in Hollywood circles.  Frank got fired from the show – or left due to creative differences – or however all parties want to spin it.  I thought Frank’s leaving the show was terrible, but I recognized that it might allow us to produce the web series from top to bottom.

Now I find out that AMC has produced a web series which, although is not based on any of the specific stories that we pitched to them (although you can certainly see elements), it is definitely based on our proposal and strategy.  I’m interested in hearing what people think we should do next.  Just accept that that’s how studio and networks do business in mainstream broadcast and film and roll over about it?  Call our AMC contact and see if there’s other opportunity there for more seasons of the web series that we would actually produce?  I especially want to hear from other new media people as to what their next steps would be if it were them.

David and I had been very hush hush about this whole process for a few reasons – mostly though, it’s because we’re both superstitious that if we talk about a project before it’s actually locked in place, it puts a jinx on that project ever actually happening.  Stupid I know, but what can I say?  We’ve had stuff go down like that in the past.  Now, however, I want to put our whole process out there – partly because I’m really frustrated and disappointed right now with AMC for not at least getting back to us on this, but also because I want to learn what other independent web producers would do.

David and I love The Walking Dead and really had some creative ideas for stories in that world.  Yes, we are super indie and I don’t have any real desire to ever produce in the studio system, but Robert’s book is one of the few I would change that attitude to do.  So I think over the next few weeks I’ll be putting out there what we were thinking about doing with a Walking Dead web series and maybe even putting up two different versions of a short film that we did after talking with AMC that could live in Robert and Frank’s world.  I always welcome questions and comments and will try to answer them as quickly as I can.

-Matthew

Nice looking stylus, right?

Even with slapping scotch tape on the disc of their stylus (their suggestion), it struggles to work with my Zagg screen protector on the iPad. And this is the replacement disc they sent me. I get not testing with every screen protector – how could you – but Zagg is such a big brand in that market it’s surprising. So far the DAGi stylus is the best I’ve tried for that situation.  That being said, I will say that the weight of the Adonit Jot Pro is great. It’s got a really nice look and feeling to it. The magnet as opposed to actual pen clip is pretty useless, especially on iPad 1, but as a marketer, I understand the streamlining of one’s product to match with the Apple aesthetic. And it’s still small and feels sturdy enough to carry in my pants pocket comfortably.  Ultimately what I get is a nice looking product that I can only use if I’m swiping to the right or drawing lines and pictures to the right on my iPad.  Which is a shame, because it really is nice otherwise.

That said, it’s a heck of a lot better than the other Kickstarter project I supported – the GoPano Micro from GoPano.  I put money behind this towards the beginning of this year I think, because I felt like it would be a great, unique way to capture behind the scenes footage of the new show that we’re working on.  The idea is that this lens attaches to your iPhone and shoots video in 360 degrees.  You can then play back that video with an app on your phone (and from what I understood, a player for a website) that let’s an audience member pan around in real time, letting them choose what they want to see of what was shot.  Cool, right?  They can check out the scene being shot, then check out how the crew works to shoot it!  So neat!  In theory, yes.  After a number of delays – which I get, because we’re still waiting for me to finish the Fallout piece – I finally got the GoPano in the mail the other day.  Excited to try it, I opened it up, put the case on my phone, downloaded the app and attached the lens.  At that point, I tried to focus with what I thought was success, but ended up shooting final video in a blurry, unfocused mess.  And not in a cool, bokeh kind of way.  In a “this is bad video quality” kind of way.  And I can’t figure out how to focus the damn thing to a sharp final image.  There are no real instructions on how to do it and I can’t find anything about it on their site.  Admittedly, I’m terrible with web-fu and searching for things, but you would think they might provide some sort of instructions on focusing with the product itself.

So far for me, Kickstarter projects have been good ideas that need a little more time to bake before they’re ready to be delivered.

The cost is the time that you spend on it to create effective conservations with people, build an audience and then engage that audience.  That takes time, and time is worth something.  I’ve seen plenty of businesses try to hop on Twitter and then simply throw information at people.  That’s not conversation, that’s not engaging, that’s spamming.  It’s not just about finding somewhere that enough people will read or see what you have to say, it’s finding that platform and then saying something of value that engages those people.  Only folks who are providing some sort of direct connection and making their audience feel valuable will yield positive results.  Again, time spent is the cost.

That said, I think Twitter is a very unique tool in that the potential return on investment can be very, very high.  Use it as an effective extension of you, and it can really produce for you.

This is evidenced by their Facebook page, which shows more than 1,600 fans, but more importantly in my opinion, comments, feedback, and discussions from those fans.  You can also keep tabs on their events and see videos and photos on the fan page.  When I talked with Richard about how Smithfield’s was using Facebook, he gave me the following insights:

Richard: Facebook has helped us realize how well known our brand is and gave us confidence to expand outside our borders.  You would not believe the positive comments folks post from all over the country.  Most importantly, it has given us some insight on our customers.  Once, we asked the question “where you would like to see a store?”  We received an incredible response and the majority were areas we have already considered.  A few months ago, I was considering using a company that printed coupons on the back of grocery receipts.  It seemed like a no-brainer to me – women hold the purse strings in 80% of households, women usually do the shopping, grocery stores have seen sales increases in this horrible  economy, people are using coupons now more than ever, etc.  I was all set to sign the contract.  Before I did I posted the question on FB (and Twitter): “Would you use a coupon on the back of a grocery store receipt?”  Over 31 people responded with 26 being “no”.  I was shocked!  I passed on the contract and our fans saved us $2,000!  One could argue this is small number of people to base a decision.  On the other hand, these folks are our customers.  This was not asked to a random group of people!  Facebook also allowed us to connect with a soldier from NC originally.  We have “adopted” his unit and send his unit goodies every month, http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/news/story.phtml?id=9009

To me, the interesting thing here is that Richard smartly uses Facebook as a free focus group to poll his customers.  And again, it’s not just a polling of random people, these are the actual customers of the restaurants, the people who come in everyday and supply Smithfield’s with their core business.  By engaging these customers, Richard embraces their viewpoints as assets and communicates to them that their opinions have value.  Richard is using Facebook to create conversations with his customers.

I know of much larger businesses that should be doing the same thing.  Think about your business and ask yourself – am I just talking at my customers?  Or am I having a conversation with them?  Which has more value for my business or offering?

What are your opinions about engaging customers in conversations?  Is it valuable to you, or do you find that a more traditional approach to speaking at your customers is a more valuable strategy for you?  Why?

Where you go for pulled pork.

If you want the best pulled pork BBQ in the south, you need to get out to Smithfield’s Chicken N’ BBQ.  They have 33 locations in North Carolina and I haven’t had a bad meal there ever.  Are they paying me to write this?  God, I wish.  Tragically, they’re not.  And before you think that this is just a big ad for their delicious, delicious pulled pork (and hush puppies and fries that are equally as fantastic), I want you to know that the main reason that I’m writing this up is because Smithfield’s is also a perfect example of how social media can truly work for a business.

Richard Averitte is the Marketing Director for Smithfield’s and manages their social media efforts.  We connected via me raving about their BBQ on Twitter.  He oversees their Twitter account (follow them!).  I had planned a series of blog posts about how social media works for specific business – and what businesses could be using it better – and based on their Twitter activity, it seemed to me that Smithfield’s was having success with their social media efforts.  What Richard understands, that I think is a stumbling block for other businesses, is that social media works best when it’s about communication and interaction, as opposed to just broadcasting their message in a traditional media one way fashion.  I emailed Richard to chat with him about it, and I’d like to share with you his responses back to me on how things are working for them.  Part one is his answer on blogging:

How has blogging worked for you?

Richard: “This has been great for a number of reasons.  It allows us to post photos of new stores, fundraisers, etc.  It’s good for tagging and SEO.  We post all of our press releases and articles here.  It also can give some insight on why we do the things we do and ask for feedback.  It also allows us to post announcements immediately.  When the whole swine flu thing went down in Mexico a few months ago, I immediately blogged about the fact there is no connection between bar-b-q and the flu.  I also posted links from the CDC.  We had an announcement up before the NC Pork Council.  This positioned us as leaders in the industry and an agile company who can be proactive.  That following week, I was interviewed  by local radio and t.v. and I appeared in the Wall Street Journal blog, http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/04/29/swine-flu-fears-worry-restaurants-hog-farmers/“

The one thing that Richard mentions that I want to point out and emphasize is agility.  Richard understands that being able to respond quickly, address concerns and try new ideas, and most importantly  - communicate with your customers, talking with them and not at them, is key to successfully positioning yourself in the online space, building a loyal audience, and converting them into people who promote you because they not only love your product but also the fact that you listen to them.  And Smithfield’s is a business that gives Richard the space to move and allows him to move quickly.  If you’re a business that’s not agile in the online space, then I would say take a look at Richard, Smithfield’s, and what they are doing.

Next up, Richard talks about how Facebook works for Smithfield’s!

Rumor has it that Marvel was also being shopped around to Sony and Viacom, so why Disney?  The immediate benefit for Marvel is that Disney has major distribution channels all over the world, which Disney will now be pushing Marvel characters and product out to.  Marvel has been making the majority of its profits through merchandising and films for a while now, and who better than Disney to potentially maximize the fantastic groundwork that has been set in place?

But I think “potentially” is the key word there, based on how much creative control Disney decides to assert over Marvel as a result of this deal.  A lot of what I’m reading is saying that Disney is picking up Marvel to help them go after the 8 – 18 male demographic.  And as long as Disney runs Marvel like they do Pixar, then everything might be okay.  Then again, Pixar isn’t really known for having a MAX (mature audiences) line where Mr. Incredible has graphic sex with Mrs. Incredible before brutally murdering Mirage for taking part in a criminal scheme.

Man, do I miss Garth Ennis on Punisher MAX.

I know a lot of people have bad feelings about the sale of Marvel, but I haven’t heard a really strong reason as to why yet.  I feel like if Disney lets Marvel continue to do its own thing on the comics side of it and lets Marvel Studios keep making strong movies, then this could be a really great time for Marvel.  Perhaps this will allow them to experiment more – saaaay – in hiring an award winning production house to create an original ongoing comedy series for their Marvel.com site that would feature videos like this.  You just got bought for 4 billion Marvel.  The money is there now, John.  Just saying.

Thoughts?  Opinions?  Can anyone give me a reason as to why Disney buying Marvel right now is not a good thing?

After I finished editing that first episode, I put it to VHS tape, met Terry at some point and handed it off to him.  g14 even got some press on the whole thing, as we were featured as part of the cover story (along with Ghost World, who would’ve thought?) of an independent film magazine.  Terry came back with a very complimentary email about the work, which was very flattering to me.  He and I continued to email occasionally and I spoke to his agent at the time, who was also incredibly nice and helpful in guiding me on what the process would be.  In 2001, I produced four different “spec” scenes using much nicer production equipment (Panasonic AJ-D95 cameras, shooting on their Pro-50 format) and again sent them off to Terry, again with complimentary results.

I think that part of the reason that nothing ever came of it is because I refused to follow the Hollywood format of creating a show and that’s really all anybody knew at that point.  New media and online video were just being conceived and bandwidth was just starting to get to the point where you could have video on a web site successfully.  So, would you trust a kid who was saying that he wanted to produce a live action version of your successful book with little money and no love of traditional distribution?  Especially at a time when comic book properties were just starting to get hot in Hollywood?

In around 2003, I lobbied Terry again to let me produce a version of the show.  I had remembered that he had told me if I could find a way to produce something outside of the traditional outlets, he would consider it.  We were starting to have some success with video and putting it up on our website and I was visualizing how it could be effective and how Terry could monetize a live action “web show” based on his audience.  I believe what I found out was that the rights had been optioned, and that I’d have to wait until that expired before anything could happen.  And then I just fell out of touch with Terry, because I felt like third time was a charm in being turned down.

But every time I heard a rumor that SIP was going to be a TV show, or a movie, or an animated series, etc., I felt a little bit of a twinge.  That urge to create a live action version of the story has never left me, and seeing Terry and Robyn really re-ignited that desire to do it.  So much so, that in my free time, I started re-editing the spec footage that we shot to eventually put up and actually show other people.  And I’m going to try something here.  I’d like to lay out my thought process for an SIP series, who I would cast, how it would work, etc. on the blog.

So every few posts, I’ll put up part of my plan about how I would go about producing SIP for online distribution (to start) if I had the chance and the blessing from Terry.  I don’t know if anything will come of it, but if nothing else I’ll get it out of my head for a little while longer.  At least until I read the books or see Terry again.

Take a brand such as Lenscrafters and partner it with an online show such as ThreadBanger.  Position the partnership such a way that it doesn’t feel forced to the core audience of that show (i.e. – Lenscrafters challenges the ThreadBanger crew and audience to create a unique homemade outfit based on a pair of their glasses).  In my experience, the brand wins because they are reaching a pre-built and passionate audience, they are viewed as “getting it” and not pushing a brand message down the audience’s throat, but rather supporting their show in a unique way that garners positive feedback from fans that will spread that example to other people (beginning a word of mouth chain).  The creators win, because they are obviously getting paid for the sponsorship, they are now associated with a national brand which potentially raises their profile, and they haven’t had to alter their style or production from what has made them successful in the first place.

I feel like Next New Networks has done this very well for some of their shows, what are other examples of this type of partnership working out?  Do you feel like this is an easier way for clients to feel more comfortable about jumping into the big scary world of online video?  Is it even that big or scary of a world anymore?

Cows like it too.

One of, if not the best, examples of what you can do with video online right now is the Midwest Teen Sex Show.  Created by director Guy Clark, the show is really driven by host Nikol Hasler and main cast member Britney Barber. It delivers smart advice to people of all ages about sex in a host/sketch comedy format, one that makes me laugh with each episode I watch.

Here is a show that is honestly dealing with sometimes hard to talk about topics in a way that makes it accessible and approachable to a wide variety of people. To me, it seems the main goal of the show is education through comedy. Nikol’s dry wit delivery of the subject matter contrasts well with the over the top wackiness of the skits and it delivers the material in a tone that never talks down to its wide demographic.  Most importantly, it opens up the door for conversation.  I don’t know that a teen would ever see this and take it to their parents saying, “Look what I’m watching!”, but I can see a parent using the show as a tool to engage their teen and begin one of those “birds and bees” conversations with them.

Honestly, it’s the type of show that I wish I had thought of first, because I’d love to produce comedy with the type of positive impact that I think this show has.  Which is why it disappoints me to see this.  It’s not that I don’t understand it, the content of the show is definitely not work safe at times, and the particular episode in question here was risque (and equally hysterical).  But it disappoints me that Guy, Nikol, and team can’t even get a response from the social media higher ups with an explanation.  Something tells me that the MTSS team all understands the ‘whys’ behind the video removal, but a response with even a cursory explanation would be nice.

I found this show when I was working at Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, and it’s a show that I racked my brain trying to figure out which of our clients might have the stones to sponsor it.  I don’t know Guy or Nikol, have never spoken with them, but I think the show is good and I wanted to help it stay around.  Tragically, there aren’t a lot of companies that feel putting money behind a show that explores sex with a teen demographic as their primary audience is a good idea.  Hell, I used to work with a company that made personal lubricants, and I know that they would’ve been too concerned about the demo to put money behind the show.  But how is this show target any different of a demographic than Loveline of ten years ago?  Adam Corolla and Dr. Drew got more than one sponsor, why not MTSS?

So – the questions of the day are these:  What is the best way for MTSS to continue to be produced?  How can they fund future episodes?  What type of businesses could or should be sponsoring a show like this?

To me, the main problem with this is it’s distracting.  Very distracting.  It also takes away from the overall effect of the commercial itself.  I understand the idea behind it – trying to compete with DVR, etc., so you put your info in plainly and visibly throughout your spot so that it can be seen even in fast forward.  It’s an old, old local advertising trick.  Account Executive’s would push to have a local clients’ information on screen in faux letterbox bars because they think that it strengthens the branding on the commercial, adding more value overall.  But in most cases, it weakens the brand and the effectiveness of the spot, because it’s this huge distraction through the whole thing and it looks cheap.  

And so it happens with movie commercials now.  And I think it is just as distracting and cheap, looking more like a desperate grab at audience instead of a piece of media designed to entice and incite you to go to the theaters and check out the movie.  

Thoughts?  What is an effective solution here for movie commercials?  Something that keeps the intensity and excitement of the “mini-trailers”, but also clearly brands it and its release date.  If you made commercials for movie releases, what would your strategy be?