Storynomics: How corporate communication can benefit from the lessons of a film master

Hi Julian, thanks for the article.
All very salient points.
There’s only one thing I humbly disagree with:
The voice over thing.
Okay I get the purist, film, visual-language idea that applies to screenwriting (a rule which Stanley Kubrick amongst others regularly breaks, by the way and, hey, if it’s good enough for Stanley…)
But when it comes to a 30 second medium, it’s just another animal. The time factor is brutal and because of that I think you have an excuse to use all the tools at your disposal.
I could name hundreds of amazing ads which back this up.
Guinness ‘Surfer’ for one.

Hi Greg, thanks for your comment.
Hey, I don’t disagree with you…I came from Advertising too and I know the uncompromising imperatives. 3 points:

1.There’s always characters and dialogue to carry the message. V/O always works better as a counterpoint or conclusion to action, rather than as a leading narrative.

2.Purists like McKee will always take the purist view. But in one way or another, such views always inform our own craft. Non-advertising people often have a very simple view of Advertising and we should listen to them all. The world’s foremost motivational speaker, Anthony Robbins, for example, says Advertising is easy: make people feel good, then show ’em your product. Many marketers do. I guess it comes down to how much info has to be imparted – I deal with this, in part, on my website, under No. 3 in the Top 5 tab – “Input versus Out-take”.

3.Earlier this year, as a personal challenge (with McKee’s dictum in mind and a very understanding client) I set out to make a corporate film with no V/O, just quotes and mood music. The result surprised even me in its power. Unfortunately my client won’t let me post this short film on my website!

The great ad agencies are the ones who learnt how to trigger emotion in the people of their time. Same as the great film makers. The film makers are better at it but they have more time in which to do it. Doing it in 30 seconds- has always been the art of the tvc.

Voice overs do generally suck because it’s like somone reading a book to you in the cinema. “Just show me and let me come to my conclusion” – is the true magic of the film medium. But, used sparinging and with great writing and voices – see the opening of The Hudsucker Proxy – voiceovers can work a treat. Rom coms also rely heavily on them to set a cutsie tone up front and power through back story.

I read Mckee’s book ‘Story’ years ago and its analytical approach was a revelation.

I think the biggest thing for agencies to take out of it is…CLICHES KILL EMOTION.

Clients love cliches – because they look like other sucessful ads of the past. Copywriters like cliches because they set up a story fast. Sucked in both!

The great agencies are the ones who learn how to trigger emotion in the people of their time.

True, advertising has huge constraints compared to movies.

But common to both is the first step in eliciting an emotional response: engagement, usually (as McKee says) by surprising the audience. Few ads do.

The most common (and cheapest) default mechanisms for advertising are the voice-over and the presenter. Movies do find ways to make voice-over narration interesting and satisfying, just as some ads do, by surprising the audience with the form or content of the voice-over or presenter. But as always, mastering the rule is the key to breaking it effectively. Agencies and clients are expert at kidding themselves that they are being brave when they’re really not.

I have always thought that the truly great agencies are the ones that successfully and routinely persuade their clients to take the risks that avoid creative cliches, by green-lighting strong creative concepts – even though those concepts may be polarising. And then preserving the integrity of those creative concepts by investing in their proper realisation.

Trying to appeal to 100% of people 100% of the time is and always has been the greatest diluter of advertising effectiveness. And never more so than in this era of audience fragmentation.

A look at the Work page of Droga5’s website suggests to me that they are deservedly recognised as world’s best practice at consistently and effectively surprising their audiences.

More confused and deliberately refashioned claptrap.

I defy anyone to improve Haneke’s White Ribbon by getting rid of the narration.
For a story teller to advocate the removal of vocal story telling is insulting above and amongst other things. [quote] “he sees even dialogue as action” [unquote] Looks like Mime should be the pure form of story telling, perhaps even Ballet?

Respect your audience: Yes but making good movies is, or should be, good story telling. When ever the audience is ahead of the story, it can be the fault of the story telling, which has become oversimplified, or it may be telegraphed by poor direction/acting. Sometimes it is desirable to allow the audience to get ahead of the story, as a trap to spring them back to eager participation, it’s called the “red herring”
remember that one?

He reminds us again that film is a visual medium, Mack Sennett and others thought this to be the case, until Jolson sang Mammy.
Sound destroyed a massive industry and I haven’t seen any indication of a return.
The language of film is a great art form, but so is set dressing, vocal technique and sound recording.

Story telling has been with us since well before film, film techniques can utilise and even heighten story telling, but it may be a very long way from overtaking it.

You can paint by numbers but it looks corny, story telling by numbers is no more appealing.

Well Richard, your comment is not entirely inconsistent with a strident and often derisory minority view of Robert McKee; like all absolutists (including yourself, probably) he is after all a polarising figure. And I admit that the limitations of my 700 word piece excludes a lot of context supporting McKee’s philosophies – you need to read his book or attend his seminar for that.

If you did attend McKee’s 3 day Story seminar I am sure that, overall, you’d find it stimulating and informative to your craft as an actor, writer and voice-over artist. And McKee is all about craft in service of storytelling. Accolades by film industry notables can’t be ignored. John Cleese, for example, has done McKee’s Story seminar 3 times.

As previously stated, understanding the rules is the first requisite to mastering the technique of breaking them effectively. To suggest that narration be banished from film is patently absurd; where would documentaries, for example, be without it? I speak from direct experience: like you, I have done voice-overs for 25 years and in 2011 I wrote and narrated a documentary series for Discovery Channel… a writing gig I won because the draft of the narration for episode 1 ignored the rhythm and flow for spoken word so badly, I had to totally rewrite it. Which is how I won the writing gig.

But my piece was about Storynomics, a new McKee offering for the corporate world in which he expounds on how his story principles can improve corporate communication. Haven’t been to that seminar yet, but I look forward to what I can learn from it when I do go.

May I gently suggest Richard that a willingness to learn from every experience (even those which on face value we disagree with) is what makes us grow as creative people.

Thanks Julian. I actually agree with McKee on most points and that film is primarily a visual medium and the visual will usually ‘win’ over words. I basically also agree with what you when you talk about the Vo concluding the ad idea rather than leading it. Sounds about right.
But then I look at Apple’ Think different’ (the one featuring John Lennon, Gandhi, etc) and all that goes out the window. Why would you avoid making that ad?
And equally that very same technique (in those ads) would be useless for a whole film (short or long form). That’s my point – different animals. So why hold one hand behind your back? I’m not saying it shouldn’t be your last resort perhaps but to negate it entirely? I honestly just think McGee hasn’t actually ever spent much time solving the unique form that is writing an ad.

is there nothing voice over people don’t know?

Thanks Greg.

I’m sure McKee has never written an ad – one that he’s been paid for, anyway – and I know he has never written a screenplay that’s been made into a film, either! Yet he’s a world class authority on story.

I think with all opinions and think-pieces, including McKee’s, we should just be open to all points of view, then take what works in any given situation and apply it to try for a better result. What works in some instances may not work in others… as you say, different animals.

I am closer to the McKee story process because I’ve written several screenplays (none made into movies yet, but I’m working on it!), thus I was keen to share his teachings since he has applied them to corporate communication.

Julian Smith, thank you for the reply.

I am probably more of a “hair triggerist” than an absolutist, and I am certain that outside the small and restricted frame of comments and opinions, we would agree upon many more points than appears to be the case here.

Too many Australian films with poor story lines, poor dialogue, and insufficient attention to theatricality have left me slightly gun shy.

As the Americans say, I feel you Richard.

Coming from Advertising, and as a former Ad Agency founder/principal, I am often left with a kind of bewildered feeling that the Australian film industry considers mainstream commercial success a bit… unseemly. Or something.

As a writer of screenplays, it’s all fairly demotivating. One of my scripts, a low budget work of broad appeal, has been placed as a finalist in US and UK competitions, yet I struggle to get it off the ground in this country. But you have to keep writing because that’s the only thing that makes you better.