For the last few weeks, I have been reading an increasing number of articles exhorting the advertising industry to keep all work, and its resulting dollars, within the country. The justification ranges from patriotism to outright fear. There has been little if any room for perspective, or rebuttal.
As a nation, as a city, as individuals, we have been bludgeoned into grief, terror and outrage by the recent attacks. In addition to our personal suffering, our economy has taken a massive hit, no question. It is natural that we seek to close ranks. I agree that a clear way to bolster the economy is to make our industry as healthy as possible; I suggest, however, that a discriminate use of the global market constitutes a major step in this direction. It is possible to help our economy without denying ourselves access to the considerable and varied talent available to us throughout the world.
It is a hard truism that had the desired range of talent and variety—to say nothing of realistic budgets—been available to our industry within our own borders, there would have been no movement to find it elsewhere. When I elected to include international companies in my special effects consortium some three years ago, it was in direct response to such a need. The experience has been generally quite positive, in terms of both quality and budget. Although travel has been an option during the course of our various projects, it has been by no means obligatory. In fact, on our last two jobs, both the agency folk and their clients elected to stay stateside and view all iterations via regular postings on the Web site, or through the FTP site at the editor’s studio. Ultimately, the finished spots were never shipped. Instead, they were sent via FTP as better-than-broadcast-quality files, assembled and shipped for air, all in the same day, thereby saving valuable time and anxiety in shipping the masters from Europe to New York. The technology is there, and it works; fear of flying is a non-issue.
The relatively recent SAG strike drove a tremendous number of American productions to other countries; it is a tribute to the successful conclusion of these jobs that so many of the international relationships thus begun remain in place, now that America is free to choose. Foreign companies are not the enemy. They simply offer us alternatives—stylistically, aesthetically, financially. America is not—cannot be—an isolationist country. If the lessons of history are not sufficiently clear on this, we need only turn to today’s news. Our government is seeking help and unity from those very countries that many in our industry are asking us, in essence, to boycott.
We do not live in a bubble, either culturally or economically. America is part of a vast global structure, and as such, is looked to for leadership and guidance. Our response cannot be simply to take a giant step backward into exclusionism. There is nothing unpatriotic about working symbiotically with off-shore companies; hopefully, when the initial shock to our systems has in some measure subsided, we will see that the rest of the world will not go away, simply because we close our eyes.
