All,
Regarding ProSolo2 as a marketable TV commodity from the perspective of
another guy on the net, who happens to do TV for a living...
People on this net are very creative, and it shows a depth of
understanding and talents within our sport which is very broad and -helpful.
That's pretty cool. Collectively, we've covered all manner of creative
angles for
camera placement, time management, drama building, etc. etc. Truth is,
that's the
easy part. Doing television right is one hell of a lot harder than it looks.
There are few ways to get it right, and a million ways to mess it up, or get
rained
out, or back-doored electronically, or marketed poorly.
Am I being "negative" on this? Not really. I hope you'll read what
follows as a realistic outlook. Oh, grab a cup of joe, this may take a
while:
What makes good TV? What would make ProSolo2 or its sponsors products
"marketable" through this medium? I was thinking about this over the
weekend, because I was shooting with Bennet Productions for FOX Network
on the World Pro Skiing Tour. Shooting skiing is easy compared to shooting
Solo. It's got drama: My camera had a lens full of contorted facial
concentration, agony of defeat, sexy bods on skis, Emotion, Emotion,
Emotion. Not just Motion. And even the motion thrills are greater than
in Solo. You've got steep slopes, knife edged skis, thunderous thighs
straining against the mountain, broad shoulders banging through gates,
bodies diving over headwalls, sometimes gracefully, sometimes barely in
control and flailing... and the whole thing is literally on the edge in
a way that people who've never skied can understand. You don't have to
have expensive telemetry superimposed on the screen. Still, with only
seven cameras
covering the course, twelve crew, equipment, lodging, travel,
etc., the shoot was probably over 20-k. That's before its edited or aired.
BTW, this one airs January 3rd on FOX at noon EST. I'm the camera geek on
the last headwall before the finish. ;-)
The technicalities of putting a Solo TV program together go way beyond
site production. Bob Tunnell recently illuminated this, and his comments
were perfectly true. I'd agree that it WILL take over $30,000 to do it well
(by
calling in a lot of favors and good will), and more like $60,000 minimum to
do it
right and tight. That's BEFORE you buy the airtime. What
advertiser stands to realize a decent ROI (return on investment) from this
one shot deal? Or, let's take Byron Short's series based model and explore
it. Any
sponsor(s) who get behind a "series" with serious money will want
certain guarantees. I can pretty much assure you that such sponsors will
ask or demand to be on ESPN, TNN, or at minimum, ESPN2. Speedvision would
be the
alternative choice rather than first choice. This is not knocking
Speedvision. I would personally love to give them the package, because
their programing supports things in which I'm interested . But from a
major sponsors' perspective, their numbers aren't going to play like TNN
at ratings time. They (sponsors, agencies, Joyce Julius...) will tell you
that if you want to guarantee the highest probability of return on
investment for whomever ponies up major bucks for this, you have to get
a net with the widest possible cast (audience). Yes, Speedvision has a
better "target" demographic, but when you balance numbers and noses,
sponsors will almost always opt for noses. Matt Murray can jump in a
correct me on this, but the last time I checked, Speedvision didn't have
near the reach of ESPN or TNN. He may also argue that the demographic,
albeit smaller, is the only one we care about anyway. I'd probably
agree, but I'm not paying for this thing... That having been said, if we
go to a "one shot deal" on a TV show, then Speedvision can offer us more
than the
others, because their programing capabilities also allow for easier
insertion with
that kind of show with a greater likelihood of repeated performances.
Lets talk about what happens at a ProSolo2 on site. The production crew
will be in charge of the show. That is, cars will go when the director
signals that all cameras are in place and rolling. Need to change tape?
Battery? White balance? Move the POV cams? Telemetry giving you
problems?
The event gets shut down for however long that takes. This is extremely
intrusive, but that's the way good television happens. Communication
between crew and ProSolo2 staffs will have to be highly coordinated, if
not entirely scripted. That is, to ensure a really good one-shot type of
show, the whole thing would play from a script. Let me be clear on this
last point. If what we're after is to make Pro Solo2 a televised venue,
then
the production crew, sponsors, drivers, and SCCA have to be in bed
together in a way that most people may not presently contemplate.
Television will override to a degree that will seriously compromise the
power of the SCCA
to run the events as they are now presently run. Right now, we're doing it
for the
drivers.
Doing it for TV is a whole different game. I'm not saying that's bad, just
very very different. ProSolo2 is not strong enough in the same way that
NASCAR,
CART (or whatever its called these days...), or even Sprint car racing are
strong
visual draws. In those venues, the race dictates the pace, and the
excitement
does not have to be "manufactured" with the addition of in-car, telemetry,
on-car,
ant cam, and other speed/drama inducing devices. The speed, danger,
emotion,
tension, and story are big enough to see without these devices. The fact
that they've become part and parcel of motor racing teleproductions' bag of
tricks means only that even NASCAR needs -help, but not so much -help that
these things are mandatory.
In producing a successful show, there is no "beta" version you can
release and fix later. It has to be right the first time. This takes an
enormous amount of planning, trouble shooting, and can involve scores of
people, all of whom are paid professionals. And while you can do a "cheap"
version, no
matter how well intentioned and clever, it diminishes the sponsor's
probability of
return. This is not "negative" analysis, it's just analysis.
I could go on with more ideas, because believe me, I've had lots of time
to think about it being a full time producer and a part time autocrosser
for the past fifteen years. The things I'd like for people to think about
are the kinds of things that come with TV that may not be expected. The up
sides and the down sides. What it does to unite us and what can happen
that divides us. I seriously doubt it would happen, but _If_ Pro Solo2
caught on in a big way, most of us would end up not doing it. The sport
would be a cadre of about 60 people who went from venue to venue, with
new blood coming in by way of some sort of qualification system which has
yet to be considered. That's how TV sports works. This is the world we're
casually talking about. I want this sport to continue to be fun,
personable, and accessible. TV may not change that, but it will
introduce a dynamic that can bring a certain amount of added strain and
separation to the sport we all love. Not just administratively, but
socially. I've
seen this happen in skiing, volleyball, kayaking, and mountain biking (The
most
recent amateur sports to go pro.). In the common sports package, directors
look for
stories within stories. Who are the players? There aren't any?
OK, we'll create them based on who wins the most, who's a continual
brides' maid, who's the underdog, who did Dodge choose to drive for them,
etc. Especially the last one. Sponsorship and sponsors get mentioned and
woven into every story. These days, they're paying for it, and it's
expected... After all, they'd own us... we'd just be there to make them
look good. (If this sounds cynical, then I'd suggest a quick edification in
the field
of professional motorsports sponsorship.)
Back on point, what we'd develop is a field of elite semi professional
drivers. I'm not blind to the up side in this. There are many ways
such exposure brings positive side benefits. But lets keep our eyes on
what we presently have, and how it may change. If you think you can manage
or
direct that change, you've got more money than those who would sponsor
it.
Again, I hope this doesn't come off as negative, although I know some
will read it that way. I love being a TV producer. I love being an
autocrosser. It's my experience that these are just a few of the
things that can happen when these two worlds combine.
Realistically, Pro Solo2 may never create the kind of excitement that
brings it yearly TV sponsorship, and all the things which would flow
from that. But I think it's interesting to think about what kind of primary
and secondary ramifications a commitment to TV brings. If we want to do
that, fine. If not, then lets "publicize" the sport in another way via TV.
What I'd suggest is that we create a made for television event which is
totally scripted to look as good as possible. Bring in the loud cars,
the interesting cars, the best drivers, an audience on bleachers, and
script it. This will not be a part of the regular Pro Solo2 Series, but a
separate event made specifically for television. We'll still need a
minimum of $30-k, but the "show" will be a better investment because we
can control the pace, visual impact, and story. It'll look great, play a
few times, and expose the sport to thousands if not millions of people. If
it generates a lot of excitement, sponsorship for bigger packages may come
more easily. If not, we've lost nothing, (except for those who must
measure their ROI) gained an opening to a TV audience, and a product that
can serve as a promotional tape for SCCA Pro Solo2 sponsorship efforts.
In the mean time, be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.
Rich Fletcher
Group Four Teleproductions, Inc.
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|