Makers vs. Managers: Blocking Out Productivity

timeTime management comes to the forefront of everyone’s mind during the holiday season. Failing to block out enough time for events with friends and family can spin fun time into bouts of shouting. The approaching New Year also gives rise to planners and dreamers that require effective time management to succeed.

I’ve learned, during my tenure in the world of Fortune 50 corporations, small mom and pop type businesses and retail, that there are two primary ways of managing time. The organic processes naturally developed from the functional needs of two types of workers.

Workers who create, build, or produce are “makers.” Those who manage others are “managers.” Both require good time management skills to accomplish their charter, but each requires a very different structure of blocking out time for effectiveness.

THE MAKER
Professional makers need large blocks of time to create their product, content or intellectual property. Time is required to get in the zone, be productive, and document activities enough to pick up where they left off at a future time. Most industries require time blocks of 2 or 4 hours.

Makers tend to use the morning for creative blocks of time and the afternoons for logical endeavors. However, makers also break the rules and might find they are more productive during the wee hours of the night. Only 60% of the top 100 authors of the 20th century followed this pattern of creating in the morning and editing in the afternoon. Most wrote when they were inspired and fixed their writings at more logical times.

THE MANAGER
Professional managers typically oversee the tactical efforts of a team. They tend to block out their time in smaller half-hour increments, allowing some level of flexibility to put out the next “fire” that attempts to erode the team’s progress. The smaller segments allow for faster responses and adjustments to circumstantial changes in the tactical operations of the day.

Strong managers block out empty time slots to shift their mandatory work after a “fire” takes the team off task. In other words, they plan for the proverbial fires each day. Most managers primary goal is to support their team and make sure they continue functioning no matter what surprise issues arise.

Productivity crashes when a manager tries to block out 2-4 hour increments that keeps him or her away from supporting their team. Likewise, makers that try to touch numerous projects in a given day using half-hour increments soon finds their work less provocative, of a lower quality and far less entertaining.

Blocking out time based on function is the only method that supports the type of work the makers and managers face. Constant interruptions of a maker produce little results. Long durations of managers away from their team weaken their process and negatively impacts tactical results.

The right type of time and duration is critical to the success of both the makers and managers. Blocking out time based on function will always facilitate success. This will bring peace to the worker and confidence that his or her workload will be completed on time.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers

Analyzing Donald Trump and His Muslim Ban

TrumpDonald Trump is one of the best personalities for generating millions in free publicity based on his “off-handed” remarks. His latest remarks about banning Muslims from entering our country until we figure things out were a part of a well-planned announcement. The campaign generated huge visibility worldwide for Trump and high ratings for the radio and television networks.

It was also a big enough event for those entering the publicity queue to take advantage of riding Trumps coat tails. It generated thousands of interviews across the nation for every level of “expert” that local stations could find.

Analyzing the announcement and the world’s reaction can be revealing.

The first point of analysis surrounds the fact that Trump’s remarks were thought out, written, and accomplished his goal of grabbing the attention of the media. Trump typically appears to say things off of the top of his head, but with this announcement he sent out a press release with his exact wording and read it from the sheet of paper in the video I watched.

Here is the exact quote:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The “newsworthy” reactions from people like Mohammed Ali and others coming out of the woodwork were expected. All publicists know that reaction based news stories fuel the extended duration of free publicity, allowing the frequency of Trump’s name to be used well beyond what normal publicity could afford.

Keep in mind that none of the responses have anything to do with what Trump specifically meant, but what could be molded to fit their agenda for publicity. This pattern allows the original speaker to refute the comments or clarify his own, while allowing the responders to promote their agenda. It’s a media game that was started in the 50s and further exploited by bloggers to their sub-markets.

Trump’s campaign requires a media spend of $100MM to gain the predetermined number of votes needed for election. However, estimates show his free publicity stunts generate $20-30MM in media reach and frequency for his campaign. Last summer’s free controversial media campaigns were so significant that Trump was able to cancel $15MM in television commercials set to air.

Trump is the first person to effectively use the media for a highly visible and free campaign (although Obama’s campaign got some free publicity based on his use of social media).

Trump’s style of brusk and controversial remarks has driven much of the news since his announcement to run for office. Meanwhile, those candidates who are more diplomatic in their approach of “temporarily closing borders to all immigrants” until representatives can figure out what’s going on get little news coverage. But those opposing the controversial Trump by suggesting that America will always keep its borders open are getting plenty of airtime.

Free publicity requires a lot of showmanship and little knowledge of political science. Obama’s contrasting “change” campaign did the very same thing. Neither campaign revealing how the candidate would actually run the government once in office. Instead, we were entertained with showmanship.

The publicity is also filled with noise of ignorant people trying to make a name for themselves. The anger driven comments about Trump being a racist fit that foolish category. The reason is because Muslim is a religion, not a race. However, many are now trying to say that he has a racist attitude toward a religion, but the attempt of this positioning insults those who have endured a lifetime of real racism.

The bottom line is that Trump knows how to use his First Amendment rights to gain attention in the polls. And, those who try to ban him, like he wants to ban the Muslims, forget that they are opposing our First Amendment – The very Amendment that allows us freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

But there’s more to consider in a good analysis. We also need to reflect on what’s not being said. Hillary Clinton is purposely staying out of the arguments and playing it safe. Many know she is slipping in the poles and Bernie Sanders is gaining momentum. The key is to keep low until Trump falls, shifting the voting population from a “guaranteed” Republican ticket back to the Democratic ticket.

If Clinton jumps into the mix too soon and becomes one of Trump’s knee jerk reactionaries, she could drop further in the polls. If she waits too long, then Bernie Sanders can gain even more in the polls and pull her “undecided” voters.

Don’t forget that if its in the media, it’s all about entertainment value and ratings. Unfortunately, there is no other national forum available to learn what candidates would really do in office. The “running for office” system is broken and fixing it would hurt the media, as everything is about viewership.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers

Found or Not Found via a Short Film

For decades amateur filmmakers put their hopes and dreams into developing a great short film with the hope that it created an opportunity to make a feature. Since 1971 independent directors have created 294,499 short films to date (according to IMDB) that have received some form of distribution. Industry estimates reveal that only 6% of the films made get distribution, suggesting that just shy of 5MM short films were made during that time.

ChartShortFilmOut of the 5MM pictures made, only 19 filmmakers got a shot at making a feature film based on their short. That is less than a thousandth of a percent of the distributed films released and completely insignificant when compared to the total number of shorts made. From an accounting perspective the number would round to zero.

Oddly enough, there are new filmmakers every year that are convinced they can be the 20th person. They pull a team together and instill everyone with the hope that their film might launch the next director and his team.

The industry was intrigued by the phenomenon and built a multi-billion dollar sub-industry to help these filmmakers get their shot at success. In fact, the entire prosumer line of equipment came into being based on the demand independents placed on manufacturers.

Three new filmmakers recently asked me how they could make a short film that would get them a feature. I shared the numbers and suggested they instead focus on making a short that they can sell. They rebutted my comments and said that lots of people get feature deals from their shorts.

The adamant hope within the independent filmmakers is admirable, but not consistent with reality. Filmmakers would find it more plausible to redirect their efforts and focus on revenue. My first short film cost $3,500 to make and generated a net profit of $15,000. It never won an award or brought fame, but it did allow me to continue the pattern until I was fulltime in filmmaking five years later.

From a financial perspective, industry shifts has placed the risk of filmmaking into the hands of the independent macro studios. The small studios are pumping out monthly shorts that make an average margin of 70%. They also pump out television and independent features, both of which increase the risk factor and time before profits emerge.

Distribution has also changed to an independent model that allows filmmakers to sell their works directly to their fans. Major distribution contracts are no longer necessary for a macro studio to be profitable. The business model has shifted to the macro studio’s side, yet independents are still adamant about taking the nostalgic route that no longer exists.

While a psychologist might have a better handle on this phenomenon, I’m confident most newbie filmmakers are going after the glamour, not a functioning business of storytelling. There is no glamour or sex appeal in making profitable short films, but it’s how the market is now positioned.

This new process is more difficult for individual filmmakers, but a perfect fit for macro studios that house several individual filmmakers that team together. The new high quality equipment blazed the road for this format and it also forced audiences to sift through a glut of product.

Macro studios with numerous talented people attached have developed communication processes to keep their audience educated on future products. With each new release, the audience determines if the macro studio can be trusted in providing excellent entertainment and is worth following. If not, the audience hunts for the next studio to follow.

This fan-based process used to be associated with studios, then actors, but today has shifted to directors. Christopher Nolan fans see every one of his films regardless of budget or what distributor was involved in its release. The actor’s draw no longer has the same pull, with the exception of a handful of artists. Best selling authors can also create some draw if their book sold enough copies, but they no longer impact the box office like in the past.

This trend doesn’t stop filmmakers from trying to leverage other people and things to draw an audience. In the faith-based market there was a ten-year push to have a spiritual word in a title to draw an audience. Some believed titles could promote sequels, like “God’s Not Dead 2” reminding the audience of the “God’s Not Dead” successful box office run.

But today’s reality is that people follow people, not titles. Filmmakers must now step out from behind the camera and get to know their audiences. It’s no longer profitable to make a short and hope the audience likes it. The director must know his audience and make a film they will love. And, he must charge for it to survive.

Filmmakers must make profitable content and sell it to an audience that loves his or her style and ability to tell story. Audiences today assume the show will be high quality, as production costs have dropped and quality levels of affordable technology have improved. It’s no longer about being attached to a major studio, but about how well the filmmaker can tell a great story to the right audience.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers