The three roundtable were attended by
producers and sound designers, in approximately equal numbers. The discussion
focused primarily on what kinds of vital information the attending parties
felt they were often not privy to, and how to remedy this lack of communication.
It was decided that identifying specific matters of concern and dealing
with them individually was the most efficient way to develop usable
strategies. Real-world anecdotes were surprising helpful, and often
served as real eye-openers for members of both sides of the discussion.
Several areas were pinpointed as necessary information that often was
not imparted. Given the items on the list, it was most surprising to
all involved that often even the most basic knowledge was not being
passed along. Items identified as "Stuff Ya Gotta Know" included:
* Who has authority*
* Target platform
* Amount of content the artist is to provide
* Compensation
* Milestones
* Change orders
* 3rd party software
* Target market
* Flexibility
AUTHORITY -- This one was the
biggest surprise. The main issue here is: does the producer have the
final say on whether the content is accepted or not. We had numerous
horror stories about anonymous VP's nixing material that had ostensibly
already been accepted by the producer. This situation not only undermined
the producer's authority, it is a great way to destroy the morale of
content providers.
PLATFORM -- Another big shock was the discovery that almost all
attendees had been exposed to content having to be reworked as a result
of its having been developed for the wrong platform.
AMOUNT OF CONTENT -- Though particularly in the case of music
and sound this can be hard to pin down, too often the amount is left
so vague initially that neither to artist nor the producer are sure
how much material remains for the content providers to deliver after
the project has started.
COMPENSATION -- Contractors actually sign contracts without pinning
down how much and in what manner they are to be compensated. Yikes.
MILESTONES -- Too often, if milestones are present they are vague
or unverifiable. The contract should specifically state what constitutes
a milestone being reached, and how the developer is to respond when
it is agreed that one is reached.
CHANGE ORDERS -- How much tweaking will the content providers
be expected to do? How often should they be asked to re-work a submission
before scrapping it and starting anew? Is there extra compensation for
extraordinary re-work?
3rd PARTY SOFTWARE -- Is the developer using a sound kit? An
animation delivery kit? If so, which one? Which version? Whose responsibility
is it to seek support it it's needed?
TARGET MARKET -- Who is the expected customer? A musical arrangement
targeted to an adolescent male is probably going to be different than
one targeted to 3-6 year old females.
FLEXIBILITY -- What happens if the developer's needs change during
the project. Our business is a dynamic one, the possibility that what
a developer ultimately needs might differ from the initial request should
be addressed.
Some other issues were addressed as well, but these were the ones which
consistently appeared in all round tables. After compiling a list of
concerns, our attention turned to solutions, specifically, strategies
by which both producers and content providers could address all the
issues, and avoid time consuming pitfalls. These strategies fell into
the following categories:
* Contracts
* Planning
* Proactive behavior
* Feedback
CONTRACTS -- Specificity is vital.
The more specific information regarding the earlier mentioned issues
you can put in the contract the better. This will avoid confusion later
on, and give both parties a fair starting point should the developer's
need change dramatically during the course of production.
PLANNING -- How can you possibly hope to avoid surprises if you
don't know what you're going to need before the content providers start
working? Musicians especially seemed to feel left out of the loop. At
the beginning of the project, there is often not much to show a sound
designer, but any design documents, storyboards, character biographies,
etc. will be helpful. The more your content providers know about your
vision of the final product, the more likely it is they will give you
what you want the first time.
PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR -- Content providers may have to "bring the
mountain to Mohammed" from time to time, offering their views on the
best way to accomplish a goal, asking for consent, and running with
it. Sitting around waiting for direction from a producer to the detriment
of the project is self-defeating.
FEEDBACK -- Artists are by nature somewhat egotistical (well,
we are!). Timely feedback concerning submissions with specific reasons
for rejection or encouraging words for an accepted submission are vital.
Nothing hurts morale more than waiting two weeks to reject a submission.
Except perhaps rejecting it without comment.
Other topics broached included team communication (that is, the ability
for the graphic artist to see what the sound folks are doing, and so
on), and concerns about artist's rights. Rights is such a large topic
that we decided to postpone it for another roundtable.
Overall, though the turnout was modest, the discussions were extremely
enlightening and productive. There were a number of audible "ahas" and
"no kiddings." My concern that the discussions would degenerate into
an adversarial producers vs. artists epithet hurling match proved happily
unfounded. The attending producers were genuinely interested in improving
their communication process with artists, and the artists seemed happy
to have a chance to get some things off their chest.
I believe the issues discussed and the conclusions reached could benefit
all who have a vested interest in providing content, or procuring it.
