Please excuse me as I rant on for a little bit. I uploaded a video yesterday about Adobe Creative Cloud which has received some very harsh and derogatory comments. Several of the comments got me thinking about the current mentality of many “no-budget” filmmakers. While I know that these aren’t the views of everyone, I still feel like sharing my responses in a general blog post. So…here we go…
When I started getting involved in video six years ago, the world was a bit different. There was very little YouTube/blog/forum content out there. I had to piece together scraps of education since I wasn’t able to go to school for it. I started out with a JVC miniDV camera I bought off of ebay for $26. As I started investing in more equipment, I bought an HV20/30 and a DOF adapter rig. At the time, there were no rigs designed for consumer level cameras. Everything I used was a modification from its original purpose. The rig was designed for larger pro cameras…the monitor was designed for car dashboards…the battery pack off-the-shelf for basic electronics.
Fast forward to the HDSLR Revolution and everything changed. Not having to combine a camera, DOF adapter, lenses and a giant rig of accessories made costs drop for new filmmakers. And when small-time manufacturers started seeing the surge of low-budget filmmakers purchasing HDSLRs, they started making gear aimed at those users.
One problem this created was a sense of “entitlement” among some novice, no-budget filmmakers. Everything should be cheap and anything that cost money was a “rip-off”. A $3000 jib? Rip-off. A $2000 monitor? Rip-off. A $800 light? Rip-off. And so it continued. In fact, when Canon was getting ready to announce their first professional, large-sensor video camera, there were a large number of people who expected the price to be under $4000. When the C300 was announced at several times that price point, some people were enraged thinking Canon had abandoned the low-budget filmmaker. That was of course never the target market with the C300 which has enjoyed positive reviews and sales since its release.
Even recently, with the 5D MkIII Magic Lantern hack to shoot RAW, those no-budget filmmakers can’t see the justification in spending extra for something better. The 5D MkIII hack is great, but what if you want to shoot higher frame rates? Or have a more reliable recording system? An example might be the FS700 and Odyssey 7Q combo which will probably go for over $15,000 when it’s all said and done. So even though a camera setup like the 5D MkIII & RAW hack might get you 70-80% there, that extra few percent is a major price jump.
So is it worth it? Are any professional tools worth the price of admission?
Pricing is all about recouping costs of research and development, supply and demand, and being competitive while still making a profit. No intelligent company can afford to overprice their product very long. But target markets vary dramatically in price points even though they often overlap in consumer bases. A 5D MkII while designed for photographers appeals to filmmakers. But who is the target market? This is the most important question any consumer should ask before they get their feathers in a ruffle about the financial decisions of a company. Ever notice how consumer products tend to have more “easy-to-use” features than professionals do? A $100 point-and-shoot camera can do color effects right in the camera while a $50,000 Hasselblad can’t. Why? Cause the target market for the PaS wants that and the target market for the Hasselblad would rather do it in post themselves.
Software is a huge gray area when it comes to this topic. With the ability to torrent a lot of the popular software out there, this entitlement mentality continues along at a frighting rate. In fact, I promise you there are people complaining about Adobe’s change to Creative Cloud that have never paid for a single copy of Adobe software ever. Others have purchased a cheap copy of CS4 on ebay and have used that for several years. If you asked a video game manufacturer if they consider used games buyers a customer, they would say no. Only the people who pay full price for a game off the shelf right when it is released is a true customer (and subsequently a target market) in their mind. The push is going further and further towards not being able to purchase used video games (i.e. digital licenses) and I’m sure many software manufacturers would prefer it if used software was not available to anyone (App Store anyone?). Adobe seems to be the first to make the move in a big way. We’ll have to see how their target market (the professional) adopts this format in the long run.
One comment on yesterday’s video really got me thinking. They wrote:
Just because we’re not pros doesn’t mean we don’t use what the “pro” versions of the software offer. What are you suggesting Tony? That the former Creative Suite was exclusively used by pros?
In a way, yes. Not that Adobe CS was used exclusively by pros but that it was targeted towards pros. The price and features demonstrated that. Just because some things are cheap doesn’t mean everything will be. And to be honest, the “no-budget” filmmaker is nobody’s target market, save a few small rig or camera accessory manufacturers. Everything is aimed at someone who has a budget…small or large. Filmmakers who want to have access to professional tools need to be willing to pay the price, otherwise they need to be willing to work with more budget friendly options. Whether it’s gear or software, the rule is the same.
I know most of my readers don’t fall in this category but this was a rant that I needed to get out of my system. Thanks for your time.
Tony, your logic is pretty solid here, but speaking as a professional
shooter who can afford to buy access to advanced features – so long as
the product is a “value” (reasonable balance of features and price under
current market conditions) – i was nonetheless a little put off by your
lack of critical examination of Adobe CC. the video has a “sponsored”
feel to it, since the only con you mention is “non-professionals may
want to us Elements.” i haven’t bought into CC, but i’m considering it. i have to believe there are some cons to either the model or the
specific execution by Adobe that are worth mentioning. when considering
reviews of any product, especially one labeled “pros and cons” i look
for such points as an indication of some level of objectivity even if
the conclusion is a buy recommendation.
Thanks for your feedback Jeff. We’ve honestly discussed CC quite a bit in our studio and how it will affect our company. The only real con that we’ve encountered is the shift from a purchased license to a subscription license. I understand that for some people will refuse to make this jump. In my mind that is the major negative of CC, everything else I’m very excited about. Believe me, if I had more to complain about, I would.
well, i did a quick Google. not sure how far you’ve gone in implementing it, but a great example of some deep exploration of the cons of the model can be found here: http://www.erichansen.tv/2013/05/11/adobe-creative-cloud-pros-and-cons/
they don’t necessarily make me dismiss CC for myself, but they show me that the reviewer dug deep, and they are important points which i’d love to hear more opinions on from folks who’ve dealt with them.
Comparing durable goods to software is a slippery slope but you made some good points. The issue here is lack of choice- Adobe is trying to fit a shoe that simply doesn’t fit the majority of their customers.
My feeling is that any sense of entitlement regarding Adobe software was methodically and consistently groomed through their establishment of regular upgrade paths from previous versions. Adobe cultivated a system of optional upgrading at an interval of one’s choosing. They also had extremely reduced academic pricing and legitimate upgrade paths after college.
It seems that people aren’t being selfish so much as Adobe has decided on a drastic change to break their consistency in that model for the past decade.
At the end of the day, the only useful point to be made, which I’m not sure I’ve ever heard made, is an explanation of how CC exclusivity guarantees a better product compared to the previous model of both CC and Creative Suite coexisting.
Any other discussion of the benefits of CC are irrelevant and just seem like noise that don’t address that singular point.
You are talking hobbyist versus pro. If you’re a pro non of this is a consideration, you have the income that justifies your investment in equipment and software, and it’s all a write off on taxes as part of your business.
There is something to be said for investing in software than can sit on your self and be installed any time you want to use it, but doesn’t cost a penny while it sits on your shelf. For many monthly payments are just not an option.
I think Hit Films 2 is a good bang for the buck and replacement for Adobe if you are a hobbyist.
http://hitfilm.com/
The reverse of all this is FCX – abandoning pros for hobbyists…!
What addresses the update issue is Apple’s App Store. FCPX for instance, is far more attractive at a reduced one off fee with no extra cost for updates. I had no need to pirate FCPX as it was so affordable. Something I wish Abobe would realise: lower cost=more sales. Adobe could produce it’s own store and then manage it’s product updates from there.
If you have been paying attention to Apple, they have less and less need for the professional market. Consumers outnumber pros by a large margin, so Apple turned Final Cut into a consumer friendly product. Professionals don’t use FCPX.
Your article was good but as you said a rant. You seem to be
fixated on the fact that adobes new model works for you and should therefore
work for everyone.. if it doesn’t they are clearly not professional. The fact
is adobe made a huge profit. The fact is.. this is adobe’s way of generating
more revenue.. and whilst all companies have the right to make profit, Adobe is
acting like the monopoly it is.
If you don’t think adobe is a monopoly then think about this. If you were to
take down every website that had a photo shopped image on it or a flash
animation or anything adobe.. there would be no web. Monopolies are perfectly
legal under US law but other countries have strict rules about it.
But let’s move away from price for one second. There are
many small and poor countries around the world that, will now no longer have
access to adobe’s software. This might be due to physical location and bad
internet. It may be also due to the fact
Adobe does not offer the cloud in their country. Check Adobe’s FB and community
forums and you will see this.
As a multinational company Adobe has amassed a huge society of creative
individuals. Societies are measured not on what they do for the masses and the
wealthy but how they treat the disadvantaged and poor.
So you know I am a huge Adobe fan. I have personally brought several
individuals over to Premiere and AE etc.. I did this because I see value in
their software. I did this because I love their software. There are many
smaller businesses affected by Adobe’s new pricing and these are the very same
businesses that have always stuck with Adobe.. These are the businesses that
have put Adobe in the position they are in today. These users aren’t asking the impossible..
they are merely asking for an option to buy.. an option available to them last
year.. an option removed.
Don’t be mad at them.. use your sites as way to understand where they are
coming from and help them.. 25k Users have signed the petition.. many more will
follow.. I love your site, your work.. don’t get lost in anger
God, can that union-gang self-moniker “professional” finally die? It’s an irrelevant term in digital video, and the great revolution of the past few years is that a teenaged kid with a D-SLR can kick a shoulder-cam veteran’s ass as a filmmaker. This is a GOOD thing. No one cares to go out of their way protecting old-skool “professionals” from competition. The consumerist ambition to secure tools at the lowest possible cost will never, ever, ever go away. But fogeys die hard.
Frankly if you cannot afford $50 per month for professional level software then A) you are clearly not a professional but rather a hobbyist and B) you have bigger problems to worry about than Adobe’s subscription model. Any paying jobs you have will easily justify the meager cost of this amazing software and if you can’t afford it then you should be focusing on getting paid gigs instead of griping at Adobe for making a profit.
@-T that’s a ridiculous assumption, it has nothing to do if one’s a professional or not, it’s not about AFFORDING the $50, it’s the principal of the whole thing. It’s called a negative option, by a company that by doing so, makes more money. Is it wrong, depends upon how you look at it. But, the fact many are opposed to paying has nothing to do with whether they’re a professional or not. $10 bucks says in the near future Adobe has options on this.
I think Tony makes valid points. I’m a business man so if the software will pay for itself then it’s a good investment. The software cost $1,695.00 so why not pay $50.00 (Legally) to rent it for 30 days & have over $1,600.00 left for gear.
Now you can purchase good DSLR cameras like Canon T31, 60D, 7D, Panasonic Gh2 or Gh3 etc. for under $1600 new & even less used. Then shoot, edit & make your money back as your business grows.
As a business person it’s always wise to keep cash on hand.
Proverbs 4:5
Tony, love the rant. Valid points all across. I especially love that you called out the squeaky wheels that are using pirated software. I offer this perspective:
While Adobe has likely lost short-term sales due to pirated software, I’m sure that piracy has added to the number of people who are familiar with their software, making it a legit competitor for FCP7, Sony Vegas, or Avid Media Composer. Because the average 10-year-old can steal Photoshop and become proficient, it is more likely that Photoshop remains the standard photo editing tool. I don’t have the data to substantiate that claim, so I don’t know to what degree the phenomenon occurs, but I can say that Adobe’s stock is up 33% YOY and they have a healthy 16% profit margin, so I doubt they are sweating it too badly.
Although I do lament the drying up of the secondary markets. Imagine if that happened to cars or houses—if we were forced to lease or rent in perpetuity. Software used to be delivered in cartridges and discs, which could be exchanged, thereby increasing the brand value for, say, a certain plumbing-based video game. You would have more fans (and I don’t mean of the Facebook variety) than you otherwise would have, and your brand awareness grows, meaning more people are aware of subsequent products. So instead of the privileged few who can afford to drop 65 bones on a video game, you have those who purchase it from Gamestop for $20, but then purchase high-margin DLC, or strongly consider other games from that producer. Will you get everyone? Probably not. But by eliminating the secondary market, Microsoft will be shrinking its subscriber base to Xbox live, as well as other streaming services for which Microsoft receives a percentage of sales.
It’s give and take, with now, it seems, a greater focus on the take.
I loved the article. There are lots of new Low-Budget filmmakers on the boat today. I think we are in a time where everyone can make qualilty films with no money. You can rent, you can borrow from a friend or buy. The lack of creative ideas is what really worries me. Adobe made the right move, now it is more democratic. Thats my opinion.
I agree with what you say. It goes to film piracy too. It sickens me to hear people say “information should be free” when they paid nothing at all to create this information. At some level Canon could charge $200 000 for a C300, it’s their choice. It’s a free market. Canon owes you nothing. It’s a not a rip-off unless they lie to you about what the camera does. Otherwise, take it or leave it, like any business deal.
As for the MKIII RAW video – it has noticeably poor texture rendition (either coming from line-skipping or bad scaling, not sure which). This makes everything look over-sharpened, and is very unflattering to skin as it sharpens wrinkles and pores. It is a very poor choice for filming women in an even moderately professional context. This over-sharpening also sometimes leads to strobing/flickering, and a video which compressors (blu-ray, online, etc.) cannot be efficient with. Don;t kid yourself, it’s a low end tool, and if you insist that it is “as good” as a Scarlet, C300, etc. you are showing yourself to be low-end to your colleagues and clients, with no eye for detail, no refined sense of aesthetics.
Absolutely! HitFilm is a fantastic option for the hobbyist/semi-pro. And you can get it for the Mac now too.