Guarantees

As most of us know, there are never any guarantees in the entertainment industry. If a talent agent guarantees that you’ll be the next big star or that you can have your pick of roles when you’ve completed the requisite training, be wary.

Pressure Tactics

Studies have shown that high pressure sales tactics that urge you to sign right away are successful because they eliminate the time you need to consider something objectively and with a critical eye. It’s never wise to make a large financial decision quickly, and chances are, if someone’s pushing you to do just that, it’s because they know that you’ll walk away if you decide to take some time to think about it. Do yourself a favor and at least consider your options before you give into someone’s high pressure sales pitch.

Demand for Upfront Payment

Most legitimate talent agencies, particularly in Hollywood, work on commission, not for an upfront amount of cash. If your agency of choice is demanding a large payment before they even start working for you, chances are, it’s a scam. Some legitimate agencies do require fees for photos, promotional materials or other “start up” costs, but they’ll be more than willing to show you a list of these charges and explain each one.

Want a surefire way to avoid these scams once and for all? If you or your child is thinking about getting into show business in any capacity and are in search of a talent agent, be sure to ask anyone you interview if he or she has a current talent industry bond. The talent agency bond is a guarantee that the talent agency purchases from a bond company to demonstrate its willingness to abide by laws and regulations governing the industry. As one can imagine, talent agency bonds are very common types of California surety bonds, but most (if not all) talent agencies in the US are required to have one by state law. The best part is that finding a talent agency with a current surety bond costs you nothing but a little time and can pay off with plenty of peace of mind later.

This is a guest post by Kevin Kaiser, a principal at SuretyBonds.com, where they are committed to educating consumers about fraud tactics and how to avoid them.

The phrase, “Just do it,” was thought up by the advertising agency, Wieden and Kennedy. Wieden and Kennedy is an independent ad agency, started in 1982. It is located in Portland, Oregon, and is famous for its work for NIKE. Dan Wieden, one of the founders of Wieden and Kennedy, credits an interesting source for the creation of the phrase, “Just do it.”

On a not so unrelated note, a man was executed in Utah last Friday morning. Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad on Friday, June 18, 2010. When asked if he had any last words, he replied, “I do not. No.” Does anyone think that the last words of a condemned murderer are ripe grounds for trademark goodwill? In Ronnie Lee’s case, perhaps not. But Utah’s death row is the source of the NIKE trademarked phrase, “Just do it.”

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional. In 1976, the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in a case called Gregg v. Georgia, and Utah immediately wanted to put down one of its inmates who had very recently been convicted of armed robbery and murder. This man’s name was Gary Gilmore, and he would be the first to die under the reinstated death penalty.

Gilmore murdered a gas station employee and a hotel manager. The murders took place after car thefts, assault, and robbery. Growing up, he struggled. His mother and father told him that he was illegitimate, and that he was actually the son of Harry Houdini. His father earned a living selling advertising space in magazines, perhaps helping to secure Gilmore’s place as the source of a world famous trademark.

On January 17, 1977, Gilmore was executed by firing squad. He requested that, following his execution, his eyes be used in corneal transplants. It is rumored that Gilmore’s uncle smuggled some Jack Daniels whiskey into the prison for Gilmore to imbibe prior to execution.

After Gilmore was shot by the firing squad, his brother reported that five holes were left in the body, rather than four. Thus, the firing squad did not have the traditional “blank” loaded into one of the guns. In the memoirs of the brother, titled Shot in the Heart, “the state of Utah, apparently, had taken no chances on the morning that it put my brother to death.” When Gilmore was asked for his final words, he said, “Let’s do it.”

This phrase became famous in pop culture. Gilmore’s life (and death) became the basis for a movie, where Gilmore was played by Tommy Lee Jones. Gilmore inspired one of Jack Nicholson’s performances, in a movie called The Postman Always Rings Twice. An episode of Saturday Night Live featured a skit with a Christmas song satire called, “Let’s Kill Gary Gilmore for Christmas.” Gilmore inspired a UK top twenty hit, called “Gary Gilmore’s Eyes.” In a deleted scene of an episode of Seinfeld, Jerry says, “Well, in the immortal words of Gary Gilmore, ‘Let’s do it.’” In an episode of the television show Roseanne, Darlene is asked if she is ready to get married, and she says the same thing that Seinfeld said, quoting Gilmore.

While this list of references to Gilmore is not exhaustive, it is certainly highlighted by Wieden and Kennedy’s use of the phrase, “Let’s do it,” when crafting NIKE’s “Just do it.” Gary Gilmore, the convicted murderer and armed robber, who gave away his corneas, got drunk before getting shot, and was lucid enough immediately before being shot to use a very catchy phrase, would live on in the goodwill of NIKE.

When an article about Gilmore’s death caught the eye of Dan Wieden, he changed the contours of the phrase slightly, and it became, “Just do it.” Thus, a condemned man, who was drunk, who donated his eyes, and was in a rush to just do it (i.e., be shot by five bullets), inspired Dan Wieden to create NIKE’s famous trademarked phrase. One of the most popular phrases in the world has a dark pedigree that seems to have faded over time. The “goodwill” attached to the phrase is likely worth billions.

Considering some of the “Bottom Lines” Jones covers in his email, let’s take a brief look at the industry now:

Due to the lack of studio feature film production, BOTH film and TV actors are competing for a limited number of jobs in the episodic and pilot environments.

Production companies are currently doing everything possible to diminish costs and risk.  This means producing low risk films with solid scripts, good marketing and within certain genres. In other words, they are taking a very conservative approach.

The reality is that even though the US economy is slowly recovering, a rash, imprudent decision could cost someone their job.

The economic conditions are forcing the industry to be as ‘thin’ as possible.

Reality TV is all the rage – why? Because it can be produced for a low cost and usually generates solid revenue. However, even reality TV has suffered from the impacts of the GFC. The past year saw many production budgets cut and large projects postponed.

A state of flux

Meanwhile, MGM is on the auction block and Miramax is now part of Walt Disney.  It’s important to remember that MGM fetched $4.8bn when it was bought in 2005 by its current owners Sony, Comcast, Texas Pacific Group and Providence Equity Partners. DVD sales are also in decline. The introduction of DVD rental kiosks such as Red Box, have eroded traditional DVD sales figures.

More platforms = more content = more revenue!

Many new technologies are being introduced to encourage viewer participation and increase revenue for studios. For example, increasing viewers control over when and how they view films in their home. Studios are also looking at gaining more information about individual consumer preferences via electronic devices (such as the Internet and through cell phones) in order to tailor service offerings to consumers.

One only needs to look at the recent LA Times article on digital 3-D to see where the future of the industry lies: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-3d-20100425,0,3625039.story

There’s also no doubt that making it possible for viewers to see films such as Avatar in 3D only helped boost ticket sales and revenue for Fox.

Moving forward …

The GFC started in earnest in 2007 … things are improving – the US and world economy are getting stronger. More money is being invested into projects and the effects are being seen.

For the time being though, solid defense is still winning the game.

Gene Goodsell is a lawyer and agent currently based in Sydney, Australia.

In a court case similar to those against Kazaa and The Pirate Bay, the High Court had the duty of determining the law on “internet intermediaries” that allow users to host and download illegal content, even if they may not be supplying it themselves.  The High Court has declared that Newzbin is liable for the copyright infringement of its users as it did “authorize” the downloading by providing a system that encouraged illegal behavior.

Prior to this ruling, UK ISP’s, indexing services, and other online service providers were treading on murky waters, not knowing the true scope of the law due to the lack of any test court cases.  Companies formerly had nothing but a physical tape-to-tape copying case to answer any of their copyright infringement questions.  Silencing those concerns, the High Court has provided enough information to clarify all potential issues.

The High Court held that most of the companies should continue acting as they previously have; they should proceed with “notice and takedown” policies and also implement them.  The High Court stressed the importance of the call to action.  Newzbin was successful on the first front in that it posted warnings telling its users not to infringe on copyright law.  However, their true actions were described as “window dressing” in that the company’s behavior rarely matched its rhetoric as they did little to remove any illegal content from users.

This result should surprise no one, but will provide welcome clarity to European law.

When: March 25 & 26, 2010

Where: San Francisco, CA (Sheraton Fisherman’s Wharf)

View the program agenda here.

Cutting edge legal and business issues for finance, development, publishing and distribution including:

• The future of the industry: Social media and retiring baby boomers
• What new technologies are on the horizon?
• Litigation update: Top 10 IP cases
• Ratings: Differences in rating systems, their significance, and how to avoid adverse impacts from incorrect ratings
• Consoles as the media hub in the home
• Best business models for long-term survival
• Social media platforms and game development
• Movie studios and their renewed interest in the video game industry
• Buying or selling game companies
• Packaging of music and video games together
• New developments in employment law

Cost: Standard Rate: $1,245.00 per person, Government Employee: $945.00 per person, Student / New to Job: $622.50 per person. Register here.

Available Credits:
CA MCLE 13 inc 1 Ethics | GA CLE 12.5 inc 1 Ethics | MN CLE pending | NC CLE 12.5 inc 1 Ethics | NY CLE 14.5 inc 1 Ethics (nontransitional) | TX CLE 12.5 inc 1 Ethics | WA CLE 12.5 inc 1 Ethics | Other credits available upon request.

When: April 2, 2010 9:00 AM – 12:45 PM

Where: CLECI Large Classroom, 1900 Grant Street, Suite 300, Denver CO 80203, (303) 860-0608

CLE Credits:

• General credits: 4.00
• Ethics credits: 1.00

Cost:

• Non member $209.00
• CBA Member $189.00
• Gaming Entertainment & Sports Section Members $169.00
• New Lawyers (in practice 2 yrs. or less) $149.00
• CBA Student Member $25.00
• Student Non-member (ID required) $95.00

Description: In this rapid-fire half-day program, nationally recognized Entertainment Attorneys, Music Artist Managers and film executives discuss entertainment industry ethics, hot button legal and litigation issues, music industry developments and how to get a film made in Colorado.

Agenda:

8:30 – 9:00 a.m. - Registration & Continental Breakfast

9:00 – 9:50 a.m. - Film Panel
- The How to Get a Film Made in Colorado will include a step by step analysis of the process of cutting through the legal red tape of getting a film made from tax incentive issues to permitting.

9:55 – 10:45 a.m. - Entertainment Law Ethics
- This topic will include a detailed discussion of ethics in the entertainment industry from multi-state practice issues to conflicts of interest

10:45 – 11:00 a.m. - Networking Break

11:00 – 11:50 a.m. - Entertainment Law Litigation Update
- Entertainment law litigation and hot legal issue update including developing trends in video and music content ownership in digital media and video games, films and the Internet

11:55 – 12:45 p.m. - The Convergence of Major Record Labels and Major Management Firms: Who wins the 360 Deal Battle
- A Discussion on the convergence of management firms and major labels including a review of 360 deal trends and contract terms from both management and label perspectives, updated negotiation deal points in management and label deals, the role of managers in the new label environment and what the industry may look like in 10 years.

12:45 p.m. - Adjourn

Faculty

Stephen Erwin, Program Chair
Highlander Wealth Services, LLC
Boulder, CO

Ken Abdo
Vice President
Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P.A.
Minneapolis, MN

Alex Brahl
Red Light Management
Denver, CO

Julie Crane
Executive Director
Screen Actors Guild
Colorado and New Mexico

David Given
Partner & Co-Founder
Phillips Erlewine & Given
San Francisco, CA

Debra Hodgson
Law Office of Debra Hodgson
Greenwood Village, CO

Dave Ratner
Replin, Rhoades & Roper, LLC
Denver, CO

Kevin Shand
Director
Colorado Office of Film, Television & Media
Denver, CO

Stan Soocher
Associate Professor, Music & Entertainment Industry Studies
University of Colorado
Denver, CO

An MEP from Scotland happens to be my Facebook friend. After Nick Sarkozy implemented his “three-strikes” laws in France, the Scottish MEP made his voice heard, which caught my attention. He, along with many other MEPs, believed that one’s internet access should not be terminated unless there was a prior judicial ruling – in contrast to Sarkozy’s laws, which allow termination of internet access at the administrative level. This was around the time that ThePirateBay was shut down, and its founders sentenced to prison and ordered to pay damages. The MEP even had a web page advocating his position, with links to his Facebook page. Naturally, I clicked on his Facebook page and added him as a friend.

Now for the topic of this post: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – a far reaching and secretly negotiated treaty that may soon come into effect. This treaty, lobbied heavily by the motion picture industries and recording industries, has vast potential when it comes to reducing civil liberties. For example, the ACTA may subject you to searches of your laptop’s hard disk contents before any international flight (also applicable to iPhones, mp3 players, phones, and anything else that is arguably a computer). Or, imagine if Comcast could terminate your internet access permanently without a court of law having to say you did anything wrong (which is the state of affairs in France thanks to Sarkozy).

This treaty has been under secret negotiations since 2008. On March 10, 2010 however, the European Parliament voted for “maximum transparency”, among other things. My Facebook friend sent me the debrief from his group staff member:

“with an overwhelming majority of 633 : 13 : 16, the ACTA resolution was carried. The key Par 3 on transparency was carried even with 651 : 3 : 16 votes.

This overwhelming majority had been our Green political objective from the beginning, and we achieved it. However, it has not been easy, and it is to be seen whether this unity will hold in the upcoming months of the political struggle on the contents of ACTA and the (transparent or opaque) way it is negotiated.

Nightly backdoor deals and strange demands for separate and split votes had made the outcome of the vote doubtful until virtually the last minute. Many of our Green MEPs had to intervene on many fronts at strange hours; thanks to them all, wholeheartedly. They made that the first victory on ACTA is ours.

On the controversial issues, we obtained a sufficient majority:

- against EPP/ECR, the second part of Para 2 on the democratic legitimacy of the of the EU engagement in the ACTA negotiations was carried with 363 : 292 : 5

- our Amendment (together with ALDE) critizising the “calculated choice of the ACTA parties” to negotiate outside the frameworks of WIPO or WTO, was caried by the narrow margin of 331 : 326 : 8 (sorry, no RCV avaliable on this)

- our key amendment (together with SD) calling to continue ACTA negotiations but limit it on just the issue of Counterfeiting of Trademarks or Geographical Indications (hence cutting the entire dimension of copyrights and patents out of the ACTA negotiations) was carried with a large majority of 513 : 129 : 17. This is arguably the most important content message of the entire resolution, on which we need to build in the coming months. It was equally the paragraph on which the nightly skirmishes had focussed

- our amendment together with SD, ALDE and GUE to guarantee access to legitimate, affordable and safe medicinal products, including generics and innovatives, was carried by a grand majority of 573 : 60 : 22, proving again that the 5 year old EP unity on TRIPS and Health still holds.

Moreover, a GUE amendment was carrie calling on ACTA negotiators to establish a clause that no individual can be cut off of the Internet without a prior court case (346 : 306 : 12). This is important in the follow-up to the Telecom Package (though in the frame of the ACTA resolution the point is slightly out of frame, since we have the resolution say that ACTA should not have any clause on “three Strikes” in the first place.

As soon as RCVs are available, we will give you a more detailed picture about the contested items.”

In other words, European Parliament voted for transparency, voted to limit the ACTA negotiations to Trademarks and Geographical Indications, and voted in favor of establishing a clause in the ACTA so that no individual can be cut off of the Internet without a prior court case.

This is not the final word on the issue of the ACTA negotiations. The effect of this vote is basically a statement of the position of Parliament. They have expressed their wishes in the context of the ACTA, but do not have absolute legislative authority in the European Community, and even less authority when the rest of the prospective signatories to the ACTA (those situated outside of the European Community, like the US) are considered. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union together form the bicameral legislative branch of the European Community, thus requiring the Council to approve the votes before the positions voted for may become effective. However, there has been talk of the European Parliament bringing a complaint to the European Court of Justice in the event that its resolutions do not carry their intended weight.

In summation, European Parliament has taken a position on transparency of the negotiations – it wants the negotiations to continue with maximum transparency. European Parliament also took a stand against laws like Sarkozy’s – it does not want a user’s Internet access to be terminated without a prior judicial ruling. Finally, the Parliament voted to limit the negotiations of the ACTA to trademarks and geographical indications.

It appears as though Lil Wayne may not be in the studio ‘rapping’ for a while. On Monday he appeared in a Manhattan criminal court to officially be sentenced for having a loaded gun on his tour bus. The incident happened in the summer of 2007.

Luckily for him, his one year sentence will be of a more elegant nature – apart from the rest of the prison population. If good behavior prevails, he may see parole after eight months.

Ironically this criminal sentence dawns on his rising career as rap icon, and recently ‘actor.’ The last year (2009) has proven quite lucrative for him with his tours grossing almost $42 million, supporting a wide variety of artists along the way. In addition, according to Billboard, in 2008, he earned $57.44 million personally.

As one of the ‘richest’ and most well known rappers and music artists in the world, this incarceration could cause not only a financial stress to him, but also groups that cover on tours and even the few that collaborate on albums. Lil Wayne is a catalyst and a transformational figure in the music industry; with him out expect some sort of ripple effect to follow.

We know he’ll be back, better than ever – expect ‘Tha Carter’ to be developing some new material in these next few months. However, what will the affect be on the entertainment and music industry while he’s away?

When the video game, Call of Duty: World at War first came out, all kinds of sales records were broken. Although some of the novelty of the game had worn off after the launch date of the title – as is true with most games – the sales were spurred by release of new maps that players could manipulate. Additionally, players of the game found out that, when the “Campaign” mode in the game was completed, a mini-game would be unlocked. That mini-game is called “Nazi Zombies”, and many of us are quite aware of its existence.

The inclusion of the new maps and the “Nazi Zombies” mini-game effectively prolonged the commercial viability of the game. Purchasers of Call of Duty were likely to at least try the mini-game, “Nazi Zombies”. Those people who tried the mini-game and liked it were potential purchasers of all the new maps that were released for it. Thus, the inclusion of the mini-game meant that at least some of the end users would download the extra maps.

For those of you who have not played “Nazi Zombies”, it is a first person shooter game set in the same place and time as the full version “Campaign” (ie World War II in the European and Pacific Theaters) of World at War.  In “Nazi Zombies”, players are placed within a bounded area and wave after wave of dead Nazis or Japanese soldiers turned zombies attack from the surrounding area. The players have to fend off the zombies with weapons from the “Campaign” mode which can be purchased using points earned while the player runs through the structure. The player earns points by injuring and killing zombies which can be used as money to purchase weapons and other items in the map.

The point of the inclusion of such mini-games with their full-version counterparts is that sales increase, whether those sales are of the full version game or are back-end sales. Some people (like me for example) have purchased copies of the game primarily for the “Nazi Zombie” mini-game, and then pay more to download the extra maps.  These back end sales are easier to make than new sales; if I sell you a video game for $60, you are more likely to buy a $10 map pack for that game than you are to buy another $60 game – you are already invested and are willing to improve upon that investment before you are willing to invest in something entirely new.

This is the major premise on which my proposed licensing system is based: the more “stuff” included with a video game that can be used to leverage more profit from the end users, the better. But, as of now, there is a limit on what types of “stuff” is included with video games.

Minor premise: If this “stuff” is released at intervals (rather than all at once) in such a way as to give end users piecemeal access, commercial viability of the game can be maximized. In the context of my example with World at War: the game was popular, so it sold well, but the popularity declined in time; the inclusion of Nazi Zombies helped stimulate the popularity, but popularity still declined over time; the inclusion of downloadable map-packs helped stimulate popularity as well, but when end users lose interest in the gameplay of a given video game, map packs only help marginally.

Thus, a typical owner of World at War purchases the game for $60, then coughs up even more money on the back end in order to get the slick new maps (required to play online). In other words, if the end user likes the “stuff” that comes with a video game, he or she is likely to buy all of the incidentals – the back end sales –  and he or she will be satisfied paying money for what is effectively a greater freedom in using the video game.

So, if another extra could be included with games like Call of Duty, wouldn’t commercial viability be further increased? And if commercial viability could be increased, while at the same time adding value from an end user’s perspective, why not release the extra? I believe that there is at least one kind of extra which may still be released – modifications, or mods.

Mods “can include new items, weapons, characters, enemies, models, textures, levels, story lines, music, and game modes.” Right now, mods are only created by developers – “Nazi Zombies” is such a developer created mod. But, back “in the day,” mods created by end users were abundant. In fact, one of the most popular first person shooters of all time, “Counterstrike,” was a mod created by an end user, but which later became a commercial developer-backed mod of the full version game of Half Life.

This could be accomplished in a number of ways. The rights holders of the video games could open up the source code for a fee – so called open source software, or the rights holders could merely allow owners of copies of the games to modify the gameplay, a la Half Life: Counterstrike – again for a fee. Either way, freeing up the end users rights to the video game’s code would create a community for any game that could be modified to create new gameplay. The developers, publishers, producers, and distributors of the game could charge a reasonable fee for freeing up rights to modify the game, and assuming the provision of greater rights gives the game more playability, the commercial viability of the full version game will be increased.

Allowing the end user of a video game to modify its content spurs creativity on behalf of video game fans. End users could modify games so that players could interact in different levels or maps, like in Duke Nukem 3-D. In fact, Duke Nukem 3-D came with a “build engine” that would allow users of the game to create their own maps, complete with new textures and 2-and-a-half-D “sprites”. New textures and characters can be added to a game. New game types, like those in “Counterstrike”, can be added. Weapon characteristics, character types, armor types, and any other configurable piece of code in the game is prospectively subject to a mod, like the PC game Tribes.

When each video game extra costs between $9 and $10 on the back end, selling twice as many due to something as simple as including an interesting mini-game or map pack is a lucrative prospect indeed (at least for the developers, publishers, producers, and distributors). Back end sales are also beneficial to end users to the extent that the video games are decent and the extras sold on the back end somehow improve upon this decency.

These days, rights holders can lock up their content pretty well. They have DRM and the DMCA and plenty of lawyers who do not care who they sue. But, what is the point with locking up the content of a video game that is losing its commercial viability merely because its content is locked up? If users were able to manipulate the code of a game, amateur creators would be allowed to hone their skills in creating modifications of existing games. All parties involved would be benefited; the developers, publishers, producers, and distributors all benefit from a longer commercial life of the video game, and end users benefit from increased playability of video games in which they invest.

Assuming such modifications are made during a time when commercial viability of the original is in decline, the market for the original is likely to be helped, rather than harmed.

The task of freeing up the rights to these video games could be accomplished by allowing users of whatever platform the video game is released on – XBOX 360, PS3, WII, or computer – to download a patch to free up the rights, or simply to download the source code of the game.

Let’s bring back the mods…

First, I think Seth is correct.  Obviously, or I wouldn’t be posting.  Right off, I’m thinking about whether I’m one of the “mass” group (those that ignore ads) or in the early adopter group (call me a laggard and we might have beef).

With few exceptions, I’m in the “mass” group.  Those exceptions are few because there’s only a few things I’m truly interested in or find extremely important. Sound familiar? I early adopted Google Chrome, for example, because I spend so much time on the web and was not happy with Firefox, let alone Explorer.  But for the most part, I’m in the mass group even in areas of interest such as music.  There’s just too much available NOT to apply a significant filter and just plain ignore most of what comes across my field of perception.

I was at Bonaroo several years ago.  It was fun, but I actually remember very little.  Substance-intake aside, I do remember a band that I didn’t stay to watch (I went to the Medeski, Martin, & Wood tent instead): The Flaming Lips.  Why did I remember?  Because everyone was talking about them and how crazy they were and that they jumped around in bunny suits.  This is just an anecdote that doesn’t prove Seth’s point.  My point is, The Flaming Lips achieved the first levels of marketing success–recognition and recall–just by being remarkably different and garnering the interest of a select group of early adopters.  (For those that haven’t heard of them, The Flaming Lips are not new; they’ve been  successful over the long term and are known for exceptionally bizarre live shows.)

I came across an interesting example in another area of entertainment with the guerrilla-advertising campaign for Dante’s Inferno, a video game based on the first part of a medieval epic novel in which a man descends through hell.  Their advertising campaign was most successful when it targeted the early-adopting and truly interested few: Video Game Bloggers! (there’s some fun stuff to read in this breakdown of the campaign)

Okay, so if this has piqued your interest to consider how this might help you, here’s my thoughts on the how:

The Agent

How are we and what we offer clients remarkable?  Across the way at SportsAgentBlog, we find a piece on the potentially damaging result of agents’ intuitive knowledge that remarkable is important to marketing.  However, the difference for those that promise big results and what Seth was talking about is to focus on whether the PRODUCT is remarkable (i.e. the agent and what he’s doing).  The RESULTS, which are the subject of so many false promises, are to be judged by the consumer/entertainer/client.

The Client

How are our clients and what they offer remarkable?  I think this is an area where agents can start to contribute much more value to clients.  The old saw is that artists don’t want to sell out and adhere their art to the “business realities” espoused by agents, producers, et al.  The revelation based on fringe sales is that it’s not about selling out or buying in, but pushing the art to the extreme and striving for perfection.   And if that artistic extreme incorporates neo-strange oddness ala The Flaming Lips bunny suits, that’s cool because they are remarkably different.

The Target

Lastly, we need to consider our clients’ clients; i.e. the consumer.  Who are the select few early adopters that care so much that they’ll spread the word and make your clients’ product successful?  For music, I am patting myself on the back some because I’ve written about this in earlier pieces: DJs that actually put shows together (unlike many U.S. terrestrial-radio DJs) are a perfect example.  For actors and many others, we realize there are folks between the artist and the end-consumer.  A film actress needs to self herself to a director before an audience of film-buffs can give the thumbs up and spread the word.  However, applying Seth Godin’s thought, we can see some other opportunities, such as focusing on getting exposure with film societies and (again) bloggers devoted to serious acting.

That said, there’s an implied point in Seth’s talk that will be very important to your client.  While “safe” is risky (because it’s near-guaranteed failure/mediocrity), “risky” is still risky–i.e. your client’s remarkable will not necessarily match-up with enough folks (or the right kind of folks) to proliferate via word-of-mouth or reach enough folks to make money.  In other words, the counsel we agents might find ourselves providing would-be entertainers is:

Commit all the way and make your art remarkable.  If that doesn’t grab people , then we’ll have the opportunity to reinvent ourselves and give it another go.