What's in a Name?

What’s in a Name?

Your responses to our survey — but first, an apology!

No doubt when you read our article about in October last year inviting comment on the notion of changing the Guild’s name, you expected your responses to be published soon after… Our sincere apologies for the delay. How that happened follows…

For once(!) it wasn’t your editor who raised the topic at the 2009 Auckland AGM. But a vigorous discussion did ensue that night, resulting in the Chair proposing a(nother) survey of member opinion through the magazine. But after your responses came in, it was decided that it would be more sensible to hold any campaign of information and suchlike till (a) the office was less overloaded, and (b) closer to the 2010 AGM, the earliest any action might be possible — should the members want any such action, of course. Thus I was asked to postpone any significant efforts over the issue in the mag; so I kept myself to the brief editorial comments that you may recall — an overall result of 70% in favour of a change, with half of those in favour wanting “Screen Crew Association of NZ”, a third liking “Screen Crew Guild of NZ”, and the remainder proposing other possibilities.

Now the 2010 AGM is only the requested “few months away.” But I also feel a certain obligation to honour your efforts, as it were, by giving you the promised publication of your thoughts before I hand over the editorial reins to my successor… Unsurprisingly there is not space now to publish every word submitted, and to do so could be tedious for you all; so I’ve attempted to distill the essence of the responses, quoting the most (to me) interesting comments, and not including ones that echo others closely. The result of this is that (by my perception) the split between pro- and anti- might appear more like 50/50 than 70/30! But that’s certainly preferable to not including as many different comments as feasible.

I did consider trying to group responses into “for” and “against” – but re-reading them all carefully, it was clear that it was worth preserving the thread that ran through many, especially after National Executive people cc’d their thoughts to the rest of the Exec as well. So it seems fair to leave them in order of arrival

Please: if you feel that my editing has meant that your view is not

adequately or accurately represented, then let the new editor

know. And once again, our sincere thanks to all who took the time

to contribute.

From: Richard Clark

Just got home from coffee with friends in Greytown, checked the mail (in Greytown they tend to check the male), in the box was NZTecho, the rag I hate to love, or vice versa, depending on my mood.

I am not a joiner, was once Presidente of FEGA (Film Editors Guild of Australia), now I can’t get accreditation to save myself, bugger. So now I label myself as Film Editor A.R.S.E. the R is for rejected :)

Life is not meant to be totally serious. Turn on the computer, crank up Final Cut Pro, look at the schedule, that’s when I get serious — the rest of the time is Richard Time, RT. It belongs to me. I just enjoyed the privilege of a civic red carpet guest of honour moment in Timaru. Her Honour the Mayor invites ARSE to a celebration of the film No Petrol | No Diesel. YEEHA!

So, what’s the point of my blathering. I am not retired, let’s get that straight; sure I am in Aotearoa after 43 years away from New Zealand. I am working in film, no matter that it’s digital. Film has cache. Video, aaargh, doesn’t sit well and so I will be happy as a retrobate and be a Film Man, screw the term film person. A Man or a Woman? Your choice. I am Me, not a Personage. A Male of the Species.

So to the meat of the message. TECHOSGUILD, NZTECHOS, take a look at those words, let them swirl around your mouth and mind like a good pinot, preferably one of mine!

“Anachronism, attribution of thing to period of which it does not belong.”

So reading the Mag I thought, “Okay, Dickie, grab pen and paper and do what you love to do.” Thus what follows is where my mind went today.

SWA

Screen Workers Aotearoa, Aotearoa Screen Techos

Aotearoa Production Technicians

Aotearoa Guild Society

Teams, Crews, Freelancers, Workers, Artisans

Screw

Screen Crews

Screen Screws of Aotearoa

Aotearoa Screen Screws

Aotearoa Screws … just added that for a giggle :)

A Member of Screws

A Member of Screws Aotearoa

Member of Screws Aotearoa

AMSA, AMOSAA, MoSA, AMoSA, MoSCA

There you have it, 15 minutes thinking while my computer turns on so I can get serious.

Oh, and while you guys are at it, what’s with the logo?

Are we techos, or are we creative entities stuck in the basin of the film toilet?

Cheers,

Richard.

ps, oh, you asking me what I would like? Okay, how about MoSA, or MoSCA, both remind me of MoMA, Museum of Modern Art.

Richard Clark

film editor a.r.s.e.

aotearoa new zealand

​

From: ANON

I would like to vote for Screen Crew Association of NZ, or even Screen Crew Association NZ. (Do we need the word “of”?)

I have been around a long time also and feel it is time for a name change. Film & Video is outdated. Techos came about much more recently. I will miss the short (“Techos”) but think it is worth the change. There has been plenty of time to educate people and it still hasn’t worked.

… it doesn’t matter if someone else has the acronym SCANZ, as long as they are not associated with our industry.

… What would the magazine be called??? Screen Crew Mag?

I agree with most of what Tony says. I don’t like the word Craft and in that part I agree with Annie (also Oct 09).

From: Dianne Moffatt

Screen Crew Association of NZ is my pick.

From: Richard Parsonson

Just letting you know — I totally agree with a name change, and I vote for... the Screen Crews Guild of NZ.

Good luck with that!

From: ANON

Thanks for your excellent article regarding the name change issue. Personally I support a name change. When I received my renewal membership card with its film strip design it seemed to reinforce the need for a change. (These days we work with film, tape, files, DVD, data cards... so a film strip seems a bit archaic now). I think Techos or Technicians does have a restrictive implication too – as if we’re all electricians or something!

I like SCANZ as a proposed name but part of me does feel that acronyms are a bit 90’s and still require explanation — SPADA and WIFT mean little to someone outside our industry. Maybe we should choose a word or two that expresses what we do? I like ‘NZ Crews’ but unfortunately that’s already taken!

From: Brian Nelson

Kia ora, I’m in favour of coming into the 21st Century with a new name. I prefer Screen Crew Association of New Zealand — It SCANZ better!

From: Murray Milne

I totally agree with your Ed’s Blurb in the last magazine... We know we’ve had these discussions before, with my old favourite of FILMCANZ — Film Crew Association of NZ.

I looked at making some lists of words to see if inspiration came from tossing them around, but also had some questions.

Are we an Association, an Organisation, a Group, an Alliance, a Society, a Federation, or a Guild? I know we’re not a Union.

If we don’t like referring to ourselves as Techos — what about Creatives, or Artists, or Workers, or Crew, or Crafts?

I know we try to be politically correct by referring to both Film & TV, but whenever we talk about ourselves we are always a Filmcrew. The only other non-specific name is Screen Production. Anyway, I thought this was worth writing down to see if it gives you any idea about how to get members thinking of alternative names that properly describe us.

From: Ken Saville

I agree that we could benefit from a name change. Like you, I deal with film students and they often are of the belief that the Techos Guild looks after technicians only.

So my vote is for Screen Crew Association of NZ. We need to retain the NZ to distinguish us from the rest of the world crew guilds/unions, etc.

From: Steve King

I’m in favour of Screen Crews Guild — only because I prefer Guild to Association because it has connotations of craft (Wikipedia describes the earliest guilds as “confraternities of workers.” Although it then goes on to say “They were organized in a manner something between a trade union, a cartel and a secret society”…)

However I’d be happy with SCANZ too, as long as it moves us from the current name.

It would be great if we could put the top 3 faves up for a binding email vote?

From: George Wilson

My vote says “New Zealand Film & Video Crew Guild”. NZFVCG abbreviates to FVCG. Makes the specific point of being for all Film & Video crew, which is who we are? Also makes the point that we are a guild, not a union, and that we are NZ crew.

From: Jennifer Butcher

My preference would be for “NZ Screen Crews Guild”.

I think the word video is now almost irrelevant if not obsolete. The word screen covers Film, Video, and Digital production.

From: Sioux Macdonald

…I agree; however I think the word “Crews” should be Crew (as “Crew” is for plural people anyway). Therefore “NZ Screen Crew Guild” or even “The Guild of NZ Screen Crew.”

From: David Madigan

The NZTECHO Editor’s crusade to change the name of the Techos’ Guild is fundamentally flawed — a panacea that ignores the problem that Guild has lost an industry-recognised sense of purpose.

I’m in favour of the one option that is not presented in the article in the October 2009 issue — retain our current name.

A change of the Guild name would be a superficial facelift, which by itself is a sign of dysfunction and decay. It is the underlying aims and objectives of the organisation along with the lack of member participation that should be examined. A successful organisation should be able to attract members on its merits, not on the basis of its name.

An organisational rebrand without a viable strategic direction is a waste of time and money and has a high risk of failure. Ask anyone in marketing or branding and they will tell you exactly that.

Here’s a given: if the Guild changes its name, it will still be known as the Techos’ Guild in 10 years’ time.

David Madigan

(Who also thinks that the constitution should require board members to retire after 8 years.)

From: Paul Richards

8 years... well... must be time to move along then...

For the record... I prefer the current name.

From: Nick Treacy

I have to admit I fall onto the side of the debate that David proposes. I think a change of name when there are other matters to be attended to is moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

Whilst on the face of it there appears to be a case for the wider industry not understanding what, and who we represent, I don’t think that situation is solely down to our name. It is down to the promotion of the organisation/ name (brand) and what it/we represent.

Techo / The Guild / Technicians Guild / NZF&VTG and all the other nicknames we have are a badge of honour we and those who have served before us have built up over the years, and this should continue to be built upon, not cast aside without some serious reason.

I don’t think that makeup artists and production managers not knowing they can join is reason enough. You don’t see the RSA changing its name just because most of its members now aren’t returned servicemen.

From: Dean Thomas

Wouldn’t it be better to build NZTecho as a brand and educate those whose only research has extended to reading our title?

From: Murray Milne

I was totally with finding a new name that better described who we are — but that hasn’t been easy. I don’t love any of the new name options. So if it is easier to leave the name as it has always been, then so be it. Tradition wins.

And if all those that have been there over 8 years left, then I don’t think we’d have much of a committee left — and no, I don’t think the younger ones would come along to take our place. Us old fellas could all resign and see what happens!!!!!!!

I know what David’s getting at, but I also think a few old wise heads are valuable too.

From: Zara Hayden

Must admit, I’m in favour of keeping the current name. I agree with Nick, that the name itself is largely irrelevant. I think that we could be called anything, if we had a more visible presence.

“Techos’ Guild” is catchy, and we haven’t yet come up with a suggested moniker that has any more real appeal to the group. Nothing that grabs us, particularly.

I don’t want our name to be the reason people don’t join the Guild is because they’re lazy and don’t care. I doubt a name change will alter this. I think we need to work on creating a fresher, more visible, interesting image, and that this will stimulate interest in joining us.

And God, could you experienced people PLEASE not leave!! The Guild would totally fall apart. I would love to have more fresh blood but as a complement to existing members, not as a replacement.

From: Annie Frear

I agree with the “No Change the Name” for all the reasons people have mentioned...

From: Brett Mills

Me too.

From: George Wilson

Leave it be is fine by me.

From: Liz Tan

I vote for Screen Workers of NZ, but I like SCANZ too.

And I agree — it’s time for a change!

From: Richard

I think changing the name would be a positive move, helping the less tech members to feel at home, and reflecting better the high-end work we do here in NZ!

**From: Carey Johnson **

I do have an opinion... Whilst I like that we are always called the ‘Techos’ (and always in a certain tone!), the industry has changed immensely, especially here in Wellington where we have a huge Post/Digital crew. Screen Crew of NZ feels more inclusive of this group, and other off-set people who sometimes don’t feel they are ‘Technicians’ (even though they are).

From: (no name)

NZ Screen Crew Guild / Association

Don’t worry about the acronym! (DGA is just 3 random letters.)

Are there legal issues between association and guild?

Or what about NZ Screen Guild, NZSC?

From: Tony F

I was originally going to reply specifically to David’s letter when he first sent it around the Executive, but having been asked to hold off the campaign for a while, I did…

A correction first though — the “no change” option was indeed offered in the invitation to vote in October ’09. To quote:

Please: Do let us know what you think. Tell us whether you agree with the idea of changing our name. Then tell us…

(Perhaps for super-duper clarification, I could have phrased it “whether or not,” or perhaps “whether you agree or disagree with the idea of...” It seemed clear enough to me when I wrote it, but one can always do better!)

David makes some extremely pertinent and valuable (and uncomfortable) points. And yes, a name change, on its own, would not solve the problems he raises regarding the future direction and energy focus of the Guild. But that’s not the issue I’m raising. Educating crew as to what we do and why they should be part of us requires that they are “inside the gate,” as it were, and looking.

The problem is that many non-members do not even bother to try to enter our gate because they believe that as “non-techos” it’s closed to them.

As said by others, and as Ken in Wellington and the 3 or 4 of us in Auckland who visit film schools on the Guild’s behalf find every time, thus far education has failed. Besides, who would be available to undertake any future education? No-one that I can see… SCOP update and suchlike do seem more urgent!

A name-change is instant education in itself, an opportunity!

As noted earlier, all but one vote for keeping the present name came from the so-called “technical” craft areas — camera, electrics, grips, sound, FX. Does that tell us something…?

PS: I was asked if it was possible to analyse our present membership in terms of numbers per craft area — “technical” versus “non-technical.” A quick count reveals a 60/40 split.