I am in pre-production on a new set of spots for my client which will feature a well-known Academy Award winning actor.
Almost invariably people ask me what it's like working with this actor and how much he gets paid. When they hear his price, their response is usually, "He gets that much for eight-hours work?"
I've taken to answering this way. "It's not eight-hours work. It's 40-years of work that's earned him his money."
This, I think, is an important distinction.
We often excoriate corporations for thinking, not long-term, but quarter to quarter. But, of course, in our own lives and workplaces, we do the same.
We often choose to hire the team with five-years experience over the team with 25-years because they are less expensive. We fail to consider, I think, the depth of experience, insight, pragmatism and moderation that experienced hands can bring.
This is not to say, of course, that people with fewer years under their belt can't deliver the goods as well or even, sometimes, better than the oldsters. Just as a hot young director can on occasion out Pytka Pytka.
This is not meant to be a comparison between youth and age.
What it is meant to do is remind people that there are many ways to measure success. And there's value, at times, in having eyes on a project that have seen much of the world.