Norman Hollyn wrote a post recently on Film Industry Bloggers titled Editing With TONS of People in the Room. If you are an editor who works with ad agencies or corporate clients then you can probably instantly relate to this post. If you are more of a solitary freelance kind of editor or you are employed by a company who predominately does only a single type of job then you have probably never been faced with this kind of scenario. It’s really an exciting and frustrating experience all rolled into one.

To look at who wants to come and sit in on an edit you often have to look no further than where the client sits during the day. You can bet that if the client is coming from a 9 to 5 corporate office situation then they will want to be in on the edit as much as they can. It’s always funny to watch how as the lunch hour approaches a few extra people inevitably show up to take a look at the cut. If you were to do an analysis of a large number of edits, their cost and the amount of people who sat in the edit suite, and for how long, then you would most likely notice a correlation between the amount of people in the edit and the time and cost it took to get the job done. As the amount of people went up, so did the time renting the suite and the editor. And then as the time goes up, so does the cost. It is worth noting that good directors know to stay away from the edit suite and give the editor time to do their best work. But as is often the case with corporate or agency work, the director is often not involved in much of the post production process. Or worse there is no director at all and the job was directed by a committee. If that’s the case then the edit is usually by committee as well. With an ad agency it often seems that as the size of the agency grows, so does the number of people who have to weigh-in on an edit. And you can be assured that if people’s opinions are asked then they feel obligated to provide one. I was once working on a narrative short and the director brought in two producers, the director of photography, the production designer and a friend. The director literally went around the room on nearly every aspect of the film and had each person provide a comment on the various elements. It took a really long time. This was that director’s first film and I do believe his last.

So what is an editor to do if he/she is faced with a room full of clients all trying to put their thumbprint on an edit? First and foremost is to remain diplomatic amongst the various opinions that flow around the room. As Norman’s article states, editing in the future will see more long distance collaboration with even more opinions flowing into the room. The more opinions that come in the harder it can be to actually be diplomatic. Usually an editor is hired as a creative artist meant to bring something to the table. But I think there can come a time in an edit by committee situation where an editor simply becomes a button pusher; a technician more than an artist who’s responsibility has changed to only getting what they (the client) want on the screen the way they want it. I’ve often treated these kinds of experiences as a way to brush up on my client relation skills as well as my technical abilities to execute a post-production task as quickly and efficiently and good as possible.

I asked some of my fellow Twitter users, editors and members of the Twitter editing and post production group about this very topic and they offered a lot of good advice. It’s always helpful to know who is ultimately responsible for the cost of the edit. The editor can lean toward them as a barometer of the pressure in the room itself as well as someone to talk to when it looks like the job isn’t going to meet the deadline and maybe go over budget. It’s amazing to see a rowdy room reigned in when you are approaching overtime! An editor also has to be able to ignore and listen at the same time. A large group in an edit suite will inevitably get on the phone or get on You Tube while the editor is executing a task. You have to tune all the noise out while keeping an ear to the opinions behind you all at the same time. The fact that the clients are often sitting behind the editor is worth mentioning as well. Edit suites are often designed in such a way that clients sit behind the editor and look at the back of his or her head. This is one of the worst designs! One Twitter user is designing a suite that has the editor sitting behind the clients. I once saw a really cool edit suite that had the clients sitting a level below, with the editor above … kind of like a king. That was a great edit suite. Another great piece of advice via Twitter is to find out who the people are with the final creative control. It usually becomes pretty clear who that is, especially in an ad agency edit. If you can keep an eye toward what they are wanting you might be able to shave a few versions off of your edit. But a good point was also made that with QuickTimes being a very common way of approving an edit these days the room often has outside influences. It’s just as Norman said, “Long distance collaboration is increasing, which means that the number of people “talking” to you about  your edit is going to increase.”

Most importantly remember to stay cool and be calm. The editor has to be the pilot that can guide the unruly job to a safe landing. As one Twitter use said, “nobody likes a grumpy editor.”

Thanks to Norman Hollyn for inspiring this discussion and all the Twitter users/editors for contributing their experiences, ideas and comments.