wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I actually work in the TV industry and I can
> confidently state that "making a film" is a
> none-starter.
>
> Firstly, it`s incredibly expensive. A crew will cost
> you at least £200 per day per person and camera,
> lights and sound hire runs about £300 per day.
> The bottom line is a minimum outlay of £900 before
> you
> begin shooting.
>
> Secondly, post production or editing is also
> expensive
> and a three minute piece will between 1 -2 days to
> cut.
Enough of the "can't do" attitude! As I understand
it, people are already working on making some footage,
we're getting it done, and it's going to be done
cheaply. If it can be done cheaply for a 30-second
piece, why not also a 3-minute piece?
>
> Three. Producing, directing, getting clearances and
> finalizing scripts will take weeks.
Again, that depends on who is willing to do what and
what exactly we want to say in our piece. Also, we
actually have weeks, even months, to be able to do
this. The general public are unlikely to write
responses to the consultation paper, so the 2nd
December deadline is meaningless for this particular
piece of work. Much better to have it available
ready for when the consultation reports back.
>
> Lastly. No broadcaster will run the film for the
> reasons stated earlier in these newsgroups.
I am not convinced by this argument. Even if it is
true, why should we object to the other side having
their say? As I understand it, that is the main
reason why it wouldn't be run.
Even if it didn't get run, a 3 minute piece could
still be used in other ways.
>
> My suggestion is that Backlash puts together a nice
> professional press-pack ( use Microsoft Publisher
> )and
> circulate this to the News Editors at:
>
> Channel Four News ( ITV ).
> Newsnight ( BBC 2 ).
> Reuters New Service ( Docklands).
> Sky News.
>
> They will listen and a follow up phone call may
> result
> in this issue being the subject of a five minute
> discussion ( Warning. Do we really want to get into
> a
> "renta mouth" TV debate ? ).
Actually, we have discussed this possibility, and my
understanding was that the group seemed to be in
favour of being ready for the opportunity, and having
a strategy worked out for presenting the best possible
image of us.
My understanding is that this sort of thing is a part
of the PR group's remit, but I could be wrong.
> --- admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>
> > I hate to say this, but it's probably best to have
> > this out in the open from the start to prevent
> > wasting time and money. The Tellyban (Ofcom) would
> > probably object to this in a program unless it was
> > 'balanced' by a similar opposite viewpoint.
> >
> >
>
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/?a=87101
Incidentally, I find this hard to credit; I have seen
plenty of opinion-piece programmes that did not appear
to have an equivalent "balancing" piece.
Since my understanding is that someone is already
chasing up the possibility of getting the Channel 4
3-minute slot anyway, I think we should wait and see
what we can get, rather than shrugging our shoulders
and admitting defeat on these things before we've even
tried.
I don't know what is possible; i don't know how much
can be achieved with how little, and i don't know how
much people are willing to spend without a guarantee
of getting the footage on the telly, but unless we
give it a go, we'll never find out what we could have
won.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Nov 2005 23:14:18
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Right - a little perspective.
>
> The little script I tossed out was partly a way of
> amusing myself, partly a way of making a point.
> Sometimes it helps focus on an issue if you use the
> discipline of writing it up for a particular medium.
>
> I would not for one instant see the sort of thing I
> wrote as being suitable for TV. However, the idea
> of viral marketing something is not a bad one....if
> the production was decent.
Well, what happened was that I took your idea and
said, "how far can we run with this?" to the point of
suggesting that we could get together something else,
suitable to go in that 3-minute "vox-pop" slot that
Channel 4 seem to have at the end of their news
programme. I think somebody said they were already
investigating that possibility, or at least the
possibility of getting Channel 4 to put us in that
slot.
Since someone else (was it DemRed?) said that it was
possible for us to get together the expertise and
equipment to make the short clip on the cheap, I
simply thought it might be possible to do the same for
a more ambitious piece.
> Making an ad is neither a priority nor a real focus
> for activity right now. Getting on telly - with a
> slot in one of the many vox pop programmes around
> sounds pretty likely if we have a year or so ahead
> of us.
>
> We shouldn't mix up the two ideas.
Agreed.
The "getting on telly" idea was a separate idea to
"making an ad".
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
AV8R, 03 Nov 2005 23:22:03
All of these things need to be done.
A promo film is important, if it cant go on tv, it can be shown at workshops, in lobbying meetings, at events, at munches, etc etc to help drum up support.
An edited version can be used for viral marketing via email.
Video images actually "get through" to people far more readily than the written word, and is far more effective at provoking an "emotional response".
I've been involved in video production, and something like this can be shot in a day, and edited in a day, if the pre-production planning is thorough. To also do a second 30 sec piece for viral marketing might take an additional half day.
All the pre-production work, location planning(if any), light plots, script writing, story boarding, etc can be done from the resources we have.
So, as the previous poster said, 3 days or so would cover it. Should cost no more than 1500 quid on the open market, a lot less if we can find a sympathetic professional.
But this brings me to another point. Some people seem to think that a video at 1500, or a lawyer at 1200, is expensive.
I would think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Think of the enormity of the task we are setting ourselves.
The govt and longhurst trust will be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this bill passed.
It is wholly unrealistic to think that we will be able to defeat them with 1500 quid in the bank.
I think we all need to get our head around the concept that to do the best job we can (and this battle is too important to do anything less) we will need to raise at a minimum tens of thousands of pounds in the near to mid term.....
But from a community of millions, and an ACTIVE (clubs & munches) community of what, 10,000+ nationwide, that shouldnt be too difficult to achieve.
10,000 people at 5 quid each = 50 grand.
1000 people at 5 quid each per month for 12 months equals 60 grand.
And 60 grand pays for a lot of professional help, in lobbying, lawyers, media advertising, educational efforts, printing, bandwidth, etc etc etc.
And I'm sure we can get a greatly reduced rate through our network of contacts, and that 60K might buy us 120K worth of services.
But even on that level, it would still fall far, far short of the spend our opposition will be doing.
Fundraising should be a full time task for a committee of several people.
And if we are to win this thing, we cannot be put in a position of not doing the absolute best job we can, with the best possible resources, due to lack of funds.
Av8r
demolitionred, 04 Nov 2005 08:03:02
Author wrote:
> Hi,
> Firstly, it`s incredibly expensive. A crew will cost
> you at least £200 per day per person and camera,
> lights and sound hire runs about £300 per day.
> The bottom line is a minimum outlay of £900 before you
> begin shooting.
> Secondly, post production or editing is also expensive
> and a three
> Lastly. No broadcaster will run the film for the
> reasons stated earlier in these newsgroups.
> My suggestion is that Backlash puts together a nice
> professional press-pack ( use Microsoft Publisher )and
> circulate this to the News Editors at:
> Channel Four News ( ITV ).
> Newsnight ( BBC 2 ).
> Reuters New Service ( Docklands).
> Sky News.
> They will listen and a follow up phone call may result
> in this issue being the subject of a five minute
> discussion ( Warning. Do we really want to get into a
> "renta mouth" TV debate ? ).
> Regards,
> Stuart.
I have a production team, lights, camera and post production facilities all free.
I'm happy to make our view and send it. We can suggest they interview us and the other side.
Since this is likely to be at least an 18 month long campaign we do have time for scriptwriting etc.
Stu, 04 Nov 2005 09:43:48
Now that is one positive and generous offer.
Lets work together on this. I can offer my services as
crew and post preduction.
-But first we must all submit replies to the
consultation paper.
Regards,
Stuart.
--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I have a production team, lights, camera and post
> production facilities all free.
>
>
> I'm happy to make our view and send it. We can
> suggest they interview us and the other side.
>
>
> Since this is likely to be at least an 18 month long
> campaign we do have time for scriptwriting etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or
> start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email:
> Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2970
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Manniq, 04 Nov 2005 10:53:08
Thank you av8r.
This is, in part, a point I have been hinting at over the last few weeks.
The 'other side' have hundreds of thousands if not millions in the bank with which to fight their corner.
Yes. The 'little guy' sometimes wins. But mainly in Hollywood.
The reality, right now, is that they are ignoring us. But as/when we start to become an irritant, they will take us on. Expect dirty tricks. Expect legal shennigans. Expect malicious denouncements to the local plod.
By the time that happens, we need two things in place. A legal helpline that people can call on the moment something untoward happens.
A fighting fund of thousands - not hundreds.
I think the fund-raising that is happening right now is brilliant. However, there is a dimension to it that we aren't even beginning to tap. There ARE people out there with very big bank accounts who could probably be persuaded to part with thousands at a time.
We need someone - I am not sure there is ANYONE here I have seen yet with the right skill set - to do nothing other than go out and chase these people.
And if we don't have anyone of that calibre, we need to get our heads around how to do those things.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> All of these things need to be done.
> A promo film is important, if it cant go on tv, it can be shown at workshops, in lobbying meetings, at events, at munches, etc etc to help drum up support.
> An edited version can be used for viral marketing via email.
> Video images actually "get through" to people far more readily than the written word, and is far more effective at provoking an "emotional response".
> I've been involved in video production, and something like this can be shot in a day, and edited in a day, if the pre-production planning is thorough. To also do a second 30 sec piece for viral marketing might take an additional half day.
> All the pre-production work, location planning(if any), light plots, script writing, story boarding, etc can be done from the resources we have.
> So, as the previous poster said, 3 days or so would cover it. Should cost no more than 1500 quid on the open market, a lot less if we can find a sympathetic professional.
> But this brings me to another point. Some people seem to think that a video at 1500, or a lawyer at 1200, is expensive.
> I would think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> Think of the enormity of the task we are setting ourselves.
> The govt and longhurst trust will be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this bill passed.
> It is wholly unrealistic to think that we will be able to defeat them with 1500 quid in the bank.
> I think we all need to get our head around the concept that to do the best job we can (and this battle is too important to do anything less) we will need to raise at a minimum tens of thousands of pounds in the near to mid term.....
> But from a community of millions, and an ACTIVE (clubs & munches) community of what, 10,000+ nationwide, that shouldnt be too difficult to achieve.
> 10,000 people at 5 quid each = 50 grand.
> 1000 people at 5 quid each per month for 12 months equals 60 grand.
> And 60 grand pays for a lot of professional help, in lobbying, lawyers, media advertising, educational efforts, printing, bandwidth, etc etc etc.
> And I'm sure we can get a greatly reduced rate through our network of contacts, and that 60K might buy us 120K worth of services.
> But even on that level, it would still fall far, far short of the spend our opposition will be doing.
> Fundraising should be a full time task for a committee of several people.
> And if we are to win this thing, we cannot be put in a position of not doing the absolute best job we can, with the best possible resources, due to lack of funds.
> Av8r
Paul Tavener, 04 Nov 2005 21:48:17
I would agree the most important thing right now is the consultation document response, although the ad idea is a good one.
Going back to the previous point it would be useful if people keep an eye out for adverts / bias from the media because the law's the law and if the other side break the rules we need to shout loud and long about it to Ofcom.
In the longer term we might be able to get that ad on telly if they change the rules and I see that some people are taking the Government to court over restricting free expression in this area
http://www.freelanceuk.com/1425.shtml
Author wrote:
> Now that is one positive and generous offer.
> Lets work together on this. I can offer my services as
> crew and post preduction.
> -But first we must all submit replies to the
> consultation paper.
> Regards,
> Stuart.