Research – Company – Page 2 – Multi-film Audio

[GR1 + PER1]

A solidly dull topic for a research blog this but pretty useful to the general cause of managing five post on five films.

We should receive picture lock for our final three films by the end of this week, and we’ve been working post on the two we already have rough cuts for a couple of weeks prior to this. With multiple people now working simultaneously in different environments, we’re just getting to the point where things can potentially get complicated in terms of versioning and data management, which I thought was worthy of a look over to see if our process can be made fitter.

At present, the only nod towards sensible data management we operate (I say we, really I operate it and people tend to follow my lead in the matter because I tend to get in first and set the basic sessions up) is a basic versioning of session files and semi-regular backups of our work in two places. This isn’t very effective, and our semester A project’s main folder ended up looking like this –

It’s pretty straightforward though, V15 is four versions later than v11, and I add extra detail where appropriate like ‘SC3 Foley Work’ for example. This is just about workable when we’re a small group working largely on one system with the only external work being that of importing occasional files like comped music tracks into the pre-existing session, but is going to need improving as we’re now working on multiple assets for the same film simultaneously in different places.

A quick google search brings up some advice on simple changes that can be made, which is actually aimed at software app makers but is applicable here –

(Zurb.com)

My current system definitely means files suffers from being indistinguishable from one another, especially since I tend to put the V number at the end of the filename, where it’s always helpfully cut off by the Mac finder dialogue in load screens which leaves me reliant on the system’s date ordering and the presumption the top file is latest in the list.

“…Strong naming conventions are essential in order to maintain an efficient pipeline,” (Production Pipeline Fundamentals for Film and Games, 193)

Digging a little deeper into more specific literature for audio project management (actually referring to the even more data-complex games industry) I found the following key concepts to help me hit some of the aims above, demonstrated on George version 1.1 below.

Seperation of name elements – So, georgev11foleyfinal becomes george_v11_foley_final
Consistent use of capitals – george_v11_foley_final becomes George_V11_Foley_FINAL
Better structuring of sections for listing purposes – George_V11_Foley_FINAL becomes V11_George_Foley_FINAL
Better use of the numerics (add 0’s) – V11_George_Foley_FINAL becomes 01-1_George_Foley_FINAL
More consistent and specific descriptives – 01-1_George_Foley_FINAL becomes 01-1_George_Foley_COMPLETE

I will be adopting this regimen for Descent as it’s post-production begins, and all our groups’ films should have a designated central machine upon which all the audio and session data is regularly consolidated which would sensibly be the machine upon which the film is going to be mixed. it will then be up to the mixer and supervisor to manage any incoming data from anybody working on the film elsewhere such as music files and sessions or editing sessions, and I would suggest the regimen here is augmented with something like an x01-1_George_Dialogue_EDIT_GB filename to differentiate work that is taking place elsewhere from the ‘master’ files.

This thinking about process will also naturally lead on to discussion of our system of backups, and I think it’s prudent and will be suggesting that supervisors for each film get into the habit of backing up the main version of their work at least every couple of days when post-work is in regular progress. [GR1 + PER1]

—– 650Words

———————————————————————————

KEY POINTS –

Research into more sensible file-naming regimen and better data management – Research.

Outcomes –

[GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
[PER1] To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects

(Outcomes – GR1, PER1]

“Customer feedback is so important because it provides marketers and business owners with insight that they can use to improve their business, products and/or overall customer experience.” – (clientheartbeat.com)

An audio production company like the one we’re simulating for the purpose of this project is a business, and customer feedback is similarly useful in this field as it is in many others.

Firstly, soliciting the perception of your client about the service you provide is a great way of gaining insight into how satisfied they are, how you can improve your service and how best to approach the client for repeat business. This is a critical feedback loop for strengthening relationships with existing clients and for garnering return business.

Secondly, they can be used to generate social proof, which is `…a powerful psychological phenomenon where people will behave similarly to the actions of others in an attempt to reflect correct behavior for a given situation…In today’s crowded world, where companies are vying for consumer attention, social proof plays an important part in the ability to reach new customers.’ (unbounce.com). In layman’s terms, this means that potential customers are more likely to choose you if they see other people are happy with your work and these are usually called testimonials.

As such, I thought it would be interesting to research the best method of soliciting this kind of feedback to some extent. [GR1]

I would envision this feedback process to be of most use when dealing with clients in corporate sectors such as advertising rather than with independent film-makers, for example. For the purpose of this project feedback is very useful however so I’ve developed a standard feedback document for OG Productions to be sent to all of our directors as we complete our projects, from which we can hopefully draw testimonials and derive client feedback for use in the academic marking process which can be found here –

http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/8LKHK/

I researched a number of customer feedback documents on websites such as Questionpro.com to garner some insight into the kind of questions we might ask, and altered a standard Client Evaluation of Project template at SurveySmart.co.uk to better reflect our needs. The questions are a mix of multiple choice statements for qualitative feedback and open-ended text-box questions designed to garner feedback which will hopefully be useful as testimonials. It is a reasonably short survey because a complex document with a large number of questions will almost certainly get put to one side in the busy world of media industries, so simplicity and accessibility are key. This was also the reason I opted for the online option so the survey can simply be emailed to the production team at the appropriate time. [PER1]

In reality, I would likely split the feedback up into a survey concentrating more on the artistic side of the projects outcomes which would be best filled in by the director, and another concentrating more on the nuts and bolts of the production and services for the producers attention, but for the purpose of this project dealing with a number of small productions I feel it’s adequate enough to deal with both of these aspects in one document. The survey I’m presenting is also very corporate in tone which can sometimes be a disadvantage, and would likely not be deployed as a matter of course but more likely on a case by case basis taking into account the size of the production, any pre-existing relationship with the client and the way that relationship is conducted, and whether the client are themselves putting on a similarly corporate front.

————— 600 words

KEY POINTS –

Research into client feedback, methods and the logic thereof – Research

[GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
[PER1] To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.

Construction of standard OG Audio client survey – Process Management

[GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
[PER1] To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.

Reflection on potential real world uses – Individual reflection on learning and team role.

Category: Research – Company

RESEARCH – Sessions: Structuring Saves

RESEARCH – Client Feedback Survey