In SHOOT (6/3, p. 1), Richard Gillespie, speaking on behalf of the Association of Independent Creative Editors (AICE), speculates that agency in-house creative editorial is “not good for advertising–it’s not in the best interest of agencies or advertisers.”
This seems a misinformed generalization, considering all the facts and information I’ve collected during the initial development of the Association of Agency Creative Editors (AACE).
The fact is that in-house editorial facilities are a tremendous creative asset for agencies and their clients, both for current client work and as a competitive advantage in winning new business. Actually, I was very surprised by the sheer volume of agencies currently operating in-house facilities, the depth of services offered by many of these facilities, and their overwhelming desire to be a part of the AACE.
The motivating force behind creating the AACE is ensuring that the inevitable growth of agency-based post positively impacts our clients and the agencies in which they operate–just as the AICE has been a great asset to its editorial community. Indeed, there’s no doubt that the AICE’s own creation was, in part, prompted by a similar desire to guide its industry’s growth. The efforts of the AICE have led to industry standards and helped create a level of competition that is healthy for our market. The AACE will achieve a similar set of goals while embracing the differences of our two organizations and catering to the challenges of an increasingly diverse and ever-demanding agency environment.
It’s been years since an agency’s editorial domain was simply storyboards and rip-o-matics. With the rapid emergence of interactive and media-neutral creative and both long- and short-form content, in-house facilities are now exposed to, and contributing to, a much broader range of material than ever before. Therefore, it’s hardly our goal to “emulate the AICE.” Furthermore, as timelines and budgets for all types of new creative work become more constrained, the demands on agency editorial facilities continue to grow. But, even as our clients challenge us and we challenge ourselves, agency producers and creatives would still be remiss not to investigate and explore all options, including soliciting great AICE talent and resources.
As the financial barriers for entry into postproduction have eased, new entrants have prompted healthy industry-wide competition. The result of this competition is what pushes us to improve our facilities, broaden our scope of services, and attract talented staff. Ironically, the AICE benefits from this competition because talented agency editors, with impressive reels, regularly transition from “in-house” to “independent” shops.
So, before Mr. Gillespie talks about a talent gap, let me share my own experiences from our in-house agency facility. In 2000, the spot that won the Emmy Award for Best Television Commercial was edited at our in-house facility, with that agency-trained editor then moving onto an AICE-member facility in 2001. In 2004, another of our agency-trained editors, who cut many national network spots for a major advertiser, joined a top-tier AICE-member shop as an editor. Another of our agency-trained editors recently opened his own independent editorial facility. I cannot imagine that other agency in-house facilities haven’t contributed to the membership growth of the AICE as well.
I understand that at first glance the AICE may consider agency in-house editorial, and the creation of the AACE, a threat to their business. However, given how significantly agency and media businesses have evolved in the last five years, it’s very apparent how necessary in-house editorial facilities have become to agencies and their clients. We do, in fact, complement independent editorial facilities, and ultimately, the mutual respect and understanding between the two can only be good for advertising and in the best interests of agencies and advertisers.
Michael Aaron
Supervising Editorial Producer
Fallon, Minneapolis