We write the strategies the industry runs on.

From the archive · May 8, 2023 · Mark Turner

Virtual production, ready for takeoff

Tune in tomorrow at 9am for the release of Entertainment Technologists new Virtual Production Whitepaper. With exclusive access to NEP Virtual Studios team of experts, the new paper and associated resources are packed with tips, tricks and tools to assist producers and studio executives make the most out of Virtual Production Technologies.

HINT - It's a lot more than LED volumes!

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · March 10, 2022 · Mark Turner

From Models to Movies, Data Sharing Across Industries Can Create Common Toolsets

Architecture and moviemaking have a lot in common—and data sharing across industries can help creative fields evolve to meet changing demands.

Read more at the Autodesk Redshift magazine: Data Sharing Across Industries Can Lead to Common Toolsets (autodesk.com)

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · March 8, 2022 · Mark Turner

A vision through the clouds of Palm Springs at the HPA Tech Retreat 2022

Check out the full article on Post Perspectives... HPA Tech Retreat: Update on MovieLabs’ ‘2030 Vision’ for the Cloud - (postperspective.com)

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · August 3, 2019 · Mark Turner

The Goldilocks deal

A wise man (I forget which one now) once said to me “there’s no such thing as a bad first business development meeting”. By that he meant any two companies, with a reasonable amount of alignment, in a similar industry, can find some sort of overlap or potential opportunity for an initial conversation. The true test of whether there is commitment and momentum however, is if there is ever the second, third and fourth meetings required to actually seal a deal.

Over the years I have worked on literally hundreds of deals – sales, business development, funding, corporate development - many of which have succeeded but many more have not. And it’s those “not” ones which have intrigued me. They’re the ones which need to be avoided as they’re a potential waste of corporate time, energy and money. In analyzing what goes into the perfect deal, and what was missing from failed deals, I have narrowed the elements down to what makes up the “Goldilocks Deal” – not too hot, not too cold, but just right.

There are 5 elements here, and I think you should assess all of your potential deals by these metrics to see if you’re truly progressing or just wasting everyone’s time:

1) Size

There is a perfect ‘size’ for a deal. Some may think that the bigger is always better but that is just not the case.

Some deals suffer from being too big to close – they become burdensome, with too much complexity and politics attached. The opposite is also true – a deal which is too small can lack the momentum and rationale for anyone to care enough to get it finished.

A deal with the correct size will feel just right – it needs to be moving with its own momentum and not too encumbered. If you think it’s getting too big don’t be afraid to take elements out and put them on a future road map for another time. If it’s too small, find something else to augment it, to make it more strategic for both sides.

2) Timing to start

They say timing is everything and while that may be true for golf there is also something to be said for ideal deal structure. Companies have windows where they just get shit done and certain windows where they are heads down in budgeting, planning, acquisitions or year-end close and there’s just no point trying to get them to focus on anything else.

To not waste time, it’s important to lay some expectations out at the beginning and be honest – ask do we both have the time and attention to get this going right now? Or is there a better time when we agree we’ll come back to it? If you’re badly aligned at the beginning, there’s a high likelihood one party will be frustrated later.

3) Timing to finish

In addition to when you start, there is also an optimal time in getting a deal closed. Deals that linger too long lose their momentum and whither on the vine. Deals that are rushed too fast can get people nervous and send the wrong signal that one side is desperate, which can put them at a negotiating disadvantage.

You have to feel this and adjust for the size of the companies involved. Unfortunately, big companies move like treacle because they have so many people and departments to weigh in and you need to factor that into your expectations. Small companies can rush to a deal because they don’t have the people or the time to correctly vet it (it’s often then not well executed which is sometimes OK if both companies acknowledge this and build in enough flexibility to change later). But ensure you factor size in before you conclude that the other party is not moving at the same speed as you.

The key here is to be realistic and look for ‘critical events’ which can be used to set timing goals to close. If you don’t have one, then maybe you should create one because any deal that has not progressed for more than 3 months is probably just a Zombie and you should just call it dead and put it out of its misery.

If neither party has an identified time to close then make one up - sometimes these can be arbitrary like “we’ll announce this in September”, sometimes a major trade show or timed around a corporate earnings call. Regardless, you need to establish when both sides agree this deal should be done and work back from that to establish milestones to make sure you’re on track.

4) People

Companies do not do deals, people do. It’s unbelievable to have to say it but there are no AI bots at Google that sign deals on their behalf – you have to engage with real people there just like anywhere else. All deals, beyond the simplest transactions, require human interaction and people are just unpredictable, quirky, driven by ego and wonderful. But no two are alike, so it’s important to make sure you are dealing with someone with whom you can have mutual respect and an honest conversation. I didn’t say you have to like each other, but you can’t get a deal done if you just can’t stand each other.

You should validate early on that your counterpart from the “other side” is similarly leveled to you and has the authority to actually close a deal. And then look past the title and see the actual person. You can guarantee that they have good days and bad, they have politics at work and balance issues at home, they probably want to move up and be viewed positively within their company. Never forget that you’re dealing with another person and check that you’ll both come out of this looking good, otherwise it’s probably the last deal you’ll do with them.

Also, life is too short to deal with assholes. We all know who they are, so just avoid working with them. If we all do it those people will eventually be fired. Don’t give assholes the satisfaction that you think they’re important.

5) Exposure

Sometimes you want a deal exposed to the most senior level of an organization – especially if speed is important. Sometimes exposure is the last thing you need because you want to massage a deal through internal politics before it gets too exposed. Managing the exposure of the existence of a deal, the terms of the deal and the likely time frame to close, should be strictly managed on all sides. I’m not arguing that your keep your management in the dark but just recognize that sometimes you need exposure, and sometimes you absolutely do not. While you don’t want to blind side your boss and rush in for approval of something for which she/he has no context, likewise you also don’t want them breathing down your neck constantly for updates, especially if you have not yet correctly vetted items 1 through 4 on this list.

Again, it’s also important here to be at parity. Both sides should acknowledge and be aligned about how much exposure a deal is getting, so one CEO is not going to call the other to discuss the deal and find their counterpart hasn’t even heard about it.

An agreed plan for which gates you need to get through before you both escalate up the chain is the best way to ensure both parties are aligned.

Conclusion

There are no entries in Salesforce deal-tracking for these 5 factors (although maybe there should be) – you just need to be honest with yourself and ‘feel’ what status you are in. The good news is most of these can be adjusted mid-deal, if you’re paying attention.

Enjoy the porridge, Goldilocks!

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · January 5, 2019 · Mark Turner

Eagerly awaiting Apple’s AR Glasses? You already have most of the technology in your pocket...

Mark Turner is Chair of the AR/VR Working Group for the Consumer Technology Association but has no access or prior knowledge regarding Apple’s plans with regard to AR Hardware.

At CES 2018 I argued that the battle over AR and VR technologies was not a skirmish over which company can build the best headset in the short term but part of a much wider war between the technology giants (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Samsung) to stake a claim into a new world of pervasive computing devices. Those new devices represent the next wave in personal computing and will be always-on wearables with cameras and sensors to understand our environment, displays to augment our vision and use voice as their primary interface with us.

So, at CES 2019 next week and Mobile World Congress in February, look for more weapons to be deployed in this multi-year war. However, one company to watch will be silent during these shows - Apple. Even though they’ve not announced or displayed any AR headsets, ironically Apple could be furthest ahead in developing an entire AR ecosystem, and you may already own most of the technology required. Apple CEO Tim Cook has been uncharacteristically vocal about Apple’s interest in AR but let’s look further at the clues they have laid out about what exactly their “Apple Glasses” may look like:

1) ARKit. Updated to version 2.0 in 2018, ARKit is Apple’s most obvious offering here. Even though some see ARKit as 'weird experimentation' and it’s currently limited to moving a phone handset around as a ‘window’ into an immersive world, ARKit should be viewed as a teaser for Apple Glasses and a way to get developers trained in building immersive 3D apps and 3D interfaces. There were two vital Apple Glasses features announced with ARKit version 2 – persistence and multi-user support. Effectively, these features will allow two or more people wearing Apple Glasses to see and engage with the same virtual objects and to leave those virtual objects in place and see them when they return to a space. These are vital features for a world which Charlie Fink describes as “painted with data” and it’s another battleground for the tech companies – if Apple can seed some of these virtual objects, sign posts and advertisements in 2019 there will be more to experience for those early adopters of Apple Glasses. And if those digital objects are exclusive to the Apple ecosystem they create a similar world of ‘sticky’ content which works to lock in consumers, like the App Store and iTunes did before them.

2) Apple Watch demonstrates multiple Glasses technologies are already mature and deployed and also the Watch as a slave device to an iPhone. Obviously Apple Watch shows Apple’s amazing ability to shrink technology and batteries into tiny proportions, which will be vital for Glasses, but it also demonstrates other key technologies such as wireless charging, making and receiving calls, moving those calls between Apple devices, accessing Siri for voice commands and sharing data and experiences between Mini Apps (Complications as Apple calls them) and their big brother Apps on iPhone. You can see direct correlation here with future Glasses which could feature audio (for music and calls) on the temples (the arms of glasses that wrap around the ears), wireless charging on AirPower (so Glasses could be topping up charge whenever removed), a custom but familiar user interface, a mini App Store for Glasses enhanced apps and microphones for Siri voice commands.

3) Cameras and Depth Sensors – AR devices require a thorough understanding of what’s around them so they place digital objects correctly within and not on top of their surroundings. Apple leads the world in small but very high-quality cameras, lenses and the advanced software to interpret those images. The InfraRed camera used for FaceID is another foundational technology which Apple has deployed already that will be useful to enable Glasses to scan the environment around them and detect surfaces, walls and other opportunities to insert digital content.

4) Ecosystem of devices working together. As Watch and Air Pods demonstrate, Apple has built foundational technologies in their devices to seamlessly communicate with each other via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi but they can also move media and user experiences between different devices. This is vital to enable some other key Glasses features and to make Glasses smaller and lighter:

a. Moving Images & Video between devices. Apple Watch has an interesting feature to allow Watch to control and take photos on your iPhone. This requires the link between Apple devices to be able to stream camera inputs between devices and that opens up an interesting solution to a problem that has plagued current AR headsets. Standalone AR headsets like Hololens and Magic Leap One house all the compute (CPU and GPU) on the device. Those chips work hard, they get hot and they are heavy. If Apple can use its streaming services to move data from Glasses back to an iPhone or iPad and offload the compute on those beefier CPUs and GPUs - they can then very smartly get much smaller and lighter Glasses with batteries that will last longer.

b. AI on iPhone. Now iPhones are shipping with AI chips, Apple can play the same efficiency trick with computer vision – using small cameras on glasses and streaming that data back to an iPhone for processing and interpreting. The stream of video data does not need to be huge - 10 frames per second would probably be sufficient for an AI chip on your Phone to be able to identify faces of people you are looking at through Glasses, to interpret or translate street signs for you or identify or distinguish objects you're looking at. It’s this smart use of complimentary devices and edge computing that will make AR devices less like diving masks and more like fashion items. Speaking of which...

5) Fashion & Partnerships. Under Jony Ives Apple has become an iconic design company but with Apple Watch they also sensibly made the design extensible for consumers to express their uniqueness and partnered with other fashion brands (Hermes, Nike). With Glasses you can expect a similar extensible design to allow a range of unique customizations but also support for prescription lenses and shades.

So, with all these core technologies already deployed, what else is left for Apple to do? Why aren't they launching Apple Glasses already? Well the hardest part remains and that is the display technology that can project digital text, objects and interfaces into your eyes in a way that accurately adapts to your depth of field and does not create eye strain. Even for Apple this is no mean feat. And of course, they still need to achieve the balance between cost and performance such that Glasses can be made with Apple’s suitably high margins. As Apple stock valuations have been recently hit because of flattening iPhones sales they may be well advised to view their consumer market as this ecosystem of interconnected devices instead of individual sales (and maybe measure performance like service companies in ARPU – Average Revenue Per User).

Apple have never been first to a market, in this case they have left Google Glass, Microsoft Hololens, Snap and Magic Leap to do the early work feeling out AR, but you can be assured that when they do release their Glasses they will have learned from others and avoided making heavy, dorky looking devices. Apple Glasses version 1 will likely have limited battery life, perhaps only indoor AR visuals and limited vision cameras but as they move through version 2 and 3 those teething problems will be resolved so we can genuinely expect mass market, fashionable 5G computers attached to our heads.

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · September 2, 2018 · Mark Turner

Why Video Post-Production and VFX will inevitably move to the cloud

The video post production and visual FX industries are massive users of compute and digital storage and they are therefore massive targets for Amazon, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud. The prospect of exabytes of storage, hundreds of thousands of render hours and huge file transfers has all the public cloud providers collectively drooling, and for good reason - the professional video creation industries are some of the last to move to the cloud and come with the enormous marketing cache of "use the same cloud that XXX movie was made on" -Example.

The usual reasons you will hear for companies moving to the cloud - lower capital expenditure (CapEx), flexibility to spin up extra resources quickly and matching customer demand with compute resources are valid in post production and visual FX but I don't believe will be the key to cloud migration for the biggest video production users. I'm not going to argue that these economic factors are not important, they will be for some - especially smaller post/VFX houses that typically only handle 1 or 2 productions at a time and when not working need to 'hibernate' the company until the next big gig comes along. But for large production houses, those that can afford the equipment capex, can amortize those costs over many years and that have multiple projects running at a time - these purely economic calculations have proven insufficient to make the switch to the cloud thus far.

Instead I believe there are four factors, that are not commonly considered in this migration, but will actually will be the crucial ones to finally drive the video creation industry to the cloud:

1. Staff Flexibility, not Infrastructure Fexibility

The largest cost at major post production/VFX houses is not the cost of the equipment but the cost of recruiting, training and retaining quality digital artists. Really good artists are hard to find in what is now a global market and they can command high salaries. Paying these salaries, especially if the company does not have a full book of projects, can be prohibitive and can lead to low-balling projects to ensure that there is some work coming in to keep talent occupied during the slow periods. This short termism to keep staff working lowers pricing and margins across the industry.

The opportunity to scale the technology when projects come and go but also to scale the staff to match those projects is the true nirvana of the video creation industries. So where does the cloud come in? Once the content is in the cloud the workforce accessing that content can be global. The cloud also allows second by second secure access to content so a virtual pool of artists can be quickly spun up, assigned to a creative project and then removed from the project as soon as their specific task is done. It will be the true 'gig economy' but for high-end production talent where every artist is a freelancer and can be easily found and assigned to tasks. That dynamic talent model is only possible when the all the media required for a production is available in the cloud.

2. Security

Some would say the cloud is insecure - it is after all the internet that we're trying to secure from this unreleased media. However, I would argue that the cloud is only as secure (or insecure) as any specific implementation of it. Put another way - the cloud is extremely secure as long as it's configured correctly. What is insecure is the current system of point to point transfers, multiple copies of files floating around between vendors, unencrypted hard drives in the back of a truck and relying on partners to delete files when they're supposed to.

A secure cloud implementation where files don't need to be moved to get from one production office to another, with accurate asset tracking, no duplicates, individualized logins and thorough audit trails is a compelling reason why productions should insist on the cloud - for their own protection.

3. Publishing

We live in a world where all episodes of a show need to be delivered at once, where the premium delivery system is the internet itself and yet delivery of final assets often still requires multiple hard drives and a kid on a motorbike or point to point transfers using adaptations of IP protocols.

If all production occurred in the cloud, where all mezzanine files were assembled on secure cloud storage, then publishing those assets to distributors becomes as simple as pressing a big red "PUBLISH" button. The files need not move. The distributor is notified the finished content is ready for them, the access rights are changed and "delivery" just occurred instantaneously. When time is precious at the end of a production this can save hours or even days of copying files between drives and locations. Increasingly we'll need all those days to be able to continue to refine the quality of the production.

4. GPUs

High end VFX are traditionally rendered on huge CPU based render farms - and the good thing about all that CPU power is you can apply the same processors for all sorts of other intensive compute tasks. Now that we're seeing true ray tracing on GPUs this game is going to change but it will not be economical for every major post house to create a new dedicated GPU farm, just for ray tracing.

Enter the big cloud providers who have the capital and scale to be able to offer the latest GPUs, when they are released at massive scale and in multiple regions. This will allow the VFX and post-houses to grow into GPU computation and use that power for specific tasks. With the speed of innovation in ray tracing specific silicon only likely to accelerate, it will be best to leave the cloud companies to keep making those investments as this #Turin based refresh cycle is only just beginning.

Look for the cloud migration to pick up speed in 2019 - and the reasons listed above will tip the economics so that this move will be a fast one. Those left behind will suffer with increasingly inefficient workflows, the inability to compete on all projects and from 2020 they'll start to see productions require cloud production systems from all vendors…

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · September 13, 2016 · Mark Turner

Why it’s up to Generation X to save the planet…

I'm a child of Generation X. The latter part I might add (!) but I'm in there nonetheless. And for the sake of this discussion, as there seems to be some debate online, let’s define Generation X (or GenXers) as those people born between 1961 and 1981.

I suspect I’m very similar to many GenXers at this point in my life; things are fairly stable - married, career, 2 kids, saving diligently for college, big mortgage and a good 20+ years of working life ahead of me. I also recently plumped down $1,000 for a new Tesla Model 3 electric car on the night of its announcement based purely on a few snapshots, some high level specifications, an approximate launch date and some promise that this is doing your part to save the planet. I was not alone however, some 400,000 other people have done the same thing and I would guess the majority of those are also GenXers.

Which got me to thinking about the environment, the stage in life that most GenXers have got to and about what sort of world my kids, and their kids, will inherit. So, why do you ask, do I believe the enormous burden of saving the planet fall on Generation X? Well, to start let’s look at the legacy we have been handed by the Baby Boomer generation that preceded us…

Baby Boomers started entering the workforce in 1964 and by 2016 they now range in ages from 55 to 70. The baby boomers have enjoyed the most unprecedented explosion of economic growth the world has ever seen, and probably ever will. In 1965 when those first Baby Boomers were starting in the mailroom at aged 19, struggling with the modernity of the recently invented felt tipped pen, the GDP of the 10 largest economies in the world was $1.26 trillion. By 2015 when those first boomers are heading for a sun soaked retirement, the top 10 largest economies had a combined GDP of $49.66 trillion (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP). That’s a pretty massive 3,841% increase – not a bad result and they should be applauded for stuffing their pockets so expertly. But the question is –what was the cost for all this wealth generation?

In 1965 the world was pumping out 11.4m kilotons of CO2, by 2011 that number had increased to 34.6m kilotons of CO2 (source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?end=2011&start=1960&view=chart) and the world surface temperatures have increased by over 1°F in that time period (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/our-changing-climate). The predictions are that this warming trend is expected to accelerate. Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas production today. That’s a scary thought.

Of course the Baby Boomers can’t be (entirely) blamed for global warming, for a start most of them didn’t even know about the phenomenon or heard the phrase until the 1980’s. But it’s also true that while boomers had the reins of power at major global corporations, governments and organizations, the relentless growth of capitalist industry has wounded, potentially fatally, our planet.

So, which generation is taking over the reins of power in those same governments, organizations and global corporations now? It is of course my comrades in Generation X who are heading into board rooms worldwide, newly appointed Presidents, CEOs and Chairpeople with big dreams of making a difference. What they should be wondering is whether to continue the short-termist decisions of their forebears - to ensure that quarterly profits are maximized or do what it takes so they can get reelected in the next cycle. Or, should they make the bold decision and redefine their role as to protect their companies, employees, customers or constituents for the long term, and not just this fiscal year or next. It’s been shown that every business sector is impacted if the global climate continues to deteriorate, so it’s really imperative for organizational leadership to say “I am willing to forego short term gains, if required, to ensure the long term viability of my organization”. We really need to find a better way of rewarding senior management to ensure they are motivated to do the right thing for the long term stability of the global environment, which ultimately will benefit their own organization, and not penalize them if short term sacrifices need to be made.

It’s not just GenXers in positions of power that need to step up and make changes however, it’s all of us, in our everyday lives. Most of us should now been in a place in our lives (I hope you are) where careers and income are mostly stable and where you can make decisions like adding solar power to the house, getting rid of the gas guzzling cars, telecommuting some days and paying the green energy generation surcharge on the electric bill. It’s those small individual contributions, across an entire generation, that really add up and sets an example for those that come behind us.

“But what of the Millennials/Generation Y – they’re the tree hugging ‘green generation’ aren’t they?” you might ask. It’s a fair question and true that Millennials grew up hearing about climate change, global warming and other perils, so they are very in tune to the problem. However, with the exception of a few unique examples (like Mark Zuckerberg) most Generation Y college graduates hit the labor market at just about the worst time in the last 50 years. They were trying to climb the corporate ladder during The Great Recession and many are still struggling to get a good financial foothold now – it’s hard to ask them to pay more for hybrid or electric cars, or invest in solar when they’re struggling to pay down student debt, save for a mortgage and even put something away for retirement.

So ultimately the burden falls on Generation X. We are the ones who have to be the super heroes and save the planet here. We have 10-20 years to make a stand and make a difference before we head into retirement and the Millennials take over. And what happens in the next few decades could decide whether our kids have a planet that’s slowly repairing itself, or is accelerating towards it’s downfall.

What will YOU do GenXer?

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.

From the archive · January 18, 2015 · Mark Turner

The Importance of an Opinion

In more than one conversation with colleagues last week I was challenged to think what makes the difference between those that go on to senior management and those that do not? Why do similar people, with similar work experiences and intelligence levels somehow become differentiated? Why do some rise up the management chain and others languish in the same position for years on end? There are of course many reasons but the one that sprang to mind is one that I don’t think is well explored and should be. Because in modern business, especially in America, those that succeed tend to have a very vocal opinion. Even if it’s wrong.

Think about senior management of any organization (businesses, government, nonprofits) – they are constantly being asked to make decisions and have an opinion on very varied subjects, often with imperfect knowledge of a situation. Those that can form an opinion very quickly, and be prepared to defend it, tend to naturally rise to the top. That is not to say that those opinions are always correct nor that they can’t be swayed with a rational argument to change that opinion. But the inverse is not inspiring – no one would like to see a leader who seems to take everyone else’s opinions as their own, that changes their opinion whenever a colleague argues against it or worse still, seems incapable of forming their own opinion, in the time required.

This may seem elementary but I think it is a skill which is often overlooked and certainly under appreciated. Any leader will tell you that there’s nothing worse than running a meeting when no one steps up to offer an opinion and the room is in stony silence. Because without opinions it’s hard to have innovation. We’re often told in the modern business world we need to ensure that we’re collaborating as a team, always appreciative of everyone else’s voice and not being confrontational. There is a danger however that it becomes too easy for team members to rely on others to form an opinion or, in fear of upsetting someone or exposing themselves, not be prepared to form and defend their own opinion.

I believe having opinion and being prepared to defend it shows confidence in your own abilities and a certain level of intelligence - after all to process data and information, then consider what is my emotional and intelligent reaction to this information and then form an articulate way of conveying that opinion to others, often in real time, is a complex series of brain functions. In fact those that are ‘opinionated’ are also often those that are not willing to accept the status quo, that have the ability to think on their feet and can form complex arguments when defending a point of view. People with opposing opinions have an opportunity to debate with the team, see things from someone else’s point of view and ultimately may generate new and more original ideas by working through their arguments rather than avoiding them.

Conversely those that don’t have something to say on a subject, even if they are intelligent people, or simply like to take their time to consider things will tend to come across as quiet, reserved or slow to process information. There is always a place for quiet and considerate people who like to fully digest before coming back with a considered opinion. Unfortunately in this fast moving world those people are not likely to make it to senior management and if you take too long to form an opinion the data may have changed anyway. Those people will remain the “do-ers” who are running analysis - for the more senior to form opinions about.

This debate about opinions does not need to be work related either. In years gone by when people actually read newspapers cover-to-cover there was always the Opinion piece - where the editorial staff would take great pains to consider the ‘official’ point of view of the paper on any number of subjects. Nowadays we can all get the news digest from a myriad of sources, not all of which are trustworthy or well researched and are often condensed in to 140 characters or less. Rather than take the time to think something through, talk to friends and acquaintances and develop one’s own opinion on a subject, it’s often easiest and quickest to just adopt the last thing you heard as your own opinion. I have an 11-year old and I try to challenge him to not just follow what’s going on in the world but also take some time (which is a challenge with these kids) to think about his reaction and opinion about it. When challenged for an opinion It’s often met with a shrug and a “dunno” but the process is an important one to go through and one I will continue to push.

So if we return to the working world and I were to offer some advice on how to become more opinionated and to stand out from the crowd, I would say - don’t accept everything “as read”. Don’t just read or hear things but stop and think – what is my opinion on this? Why do I care? What does this mean to me? How would I defend this opinion? And be well read, challenge yourself to form opinions and defend them on any matter of subjects, especially those that you don’t know a lot about, because you never know when they will come in useful in your work or social life. Don’t assume any author or other human being is always right or knows more than you do. Challenge them - why do they have that opinion? What is their situation and how would that influence their opinions? Do I believe it? If not, why not? And when your “gut” comes back with an embryonic opinion, use your brain to analyze whether it’s sensible and where did it come from? Does it hold water? Is it just emotional or a bias? Would it stand up to criticism? These are all critical thinking skills that everyone should take the time to develop.

And one last word of caution – let’s not confuse having an opinion with arrogance. You can have an opinion and be prepared to defend it without sounding all-knowing, pretentious or confrontational. In fact those people that resign themselves to arrogance or who take offence at those that challenge their opinions are most likely inflexible, insecure or fear that someone will see through their lack of knowledge. An intelligent person should always be prepared to change their opinion if they are shown to be in the wrong. And of course the other big risk with being opinionated or just leaping to an opinion with limited knowledge on a subject, is that you run the risk of just looking ill-informed and reckless. You do that too many times and you’ll seriously damage your reputation. So take controlled risks with your opinions but don’t get too far out ahead of your skis!

So, let’s embrace opinions and opinionated people – afterall they’re running our companies and our countries. And let’s take the time to indulge in good creative debate with well-reasoned and informed thoughts.

Well, that’s my opinion anyway.

First published on entertainmentconsultancy.com. Kept as written.