Joe OviedoThere’s a moment I find interesting when an expert starts working with an editorial team. The team sends a shorter script with a clearer title and a stronger opening. The expert reads it and says, “It’s easier to understand. The problem is, I wouldn’t say that.”
Sometimes they’re defending a word out of habit. But before deciding who’s right, I like putting the versions side by side: did we change how we said it, or what we’re saying? It’s easy to confuse the two when everyone wants to get the video out.
An edit that looks small
Imagine we’re making a series with a consultant who helps family businesses divide responsibilities. She says, “Before asking someone to own a decision, check whether they have permission to make it.” The team proposes opening with, “Your team won’t make decisions because you don’t trust them.”
That’s easy to grasp. It names a tension many people recognize, and I’d want to hear what comes next. But it also decides the cause: the owner doesn’t trust the team. The consultant meant something else. The owner might trust them, but nobody agreed on who can approve a discount. When the team asks, they’re not showing insecurity. They’re respecting a boundary that was never made clear.
If I simply ask her to fix the script, she may put back the original explanation and the team may feel we’re back where we started. I’d rather ask how she’d tell those situations apart in an actual business. Maybe she asks to see the last message requesting approval. Now we have another opening: “If your team asks you the same thing every week, pull up the last message. Are they asking for permission, or for information?”
That didn’t come from stripping nuance out of the explanation. It came from asking the expert to show us what she looks at. The team still had to turn it into a scene worth watching.
What I need from each side before filming
I don’t need a finished script from the expert. I’d rather have a case, what stood out to them, and a situation where they wouldn’t give the same advice. That last part matters. If we don’t know when a recommendation stops applying, it’s easy to turn it into a promise that works on a thumbnail and falls apart in someone’s life.
I expect more from the team than organizing notes. I want them to say, “You’re answering two questions here: why the team asks for permission, and how to agree on what they can decide. Which one should the viewer come away able to answer?” That’s an editorial decision. The team should be able to propose an order, cut repetition, or suggest another episode. If every cut goes back to the expert, we spend their time approving things the team can handle.
The review I care about comes before filming. I’d show the expert a working title, the first minute, and a plain sentence about what we want the viewer to take away. If they say, “That’s not what I’d recommend,” we can still change direction without losing an afternoon of production. If they say, “That’s what I mean, but not how I’d say it,” we can discuss voice without reopening the whole idea.
What the team learns over time
At first we may have that conversation on every script. After a few episodes, I’d like the team to anticipate some corrections. Not just to learn which words the expert likes, but to recognize why certain claims don’t hold. Once we understand that not every approval request is about trust, we can catch that leap before sending the script.
I’d like the reverse to happen too: the expert starts trusting the team to find an opening they wouldn’t have chosen and can say, “Yes, that makes it clearer.” They don’t need to think alike. They need to discuss an edit without confusing a style preference with a substantive objection.
When that works, the expert doesn’t have to write every script to recognize themselves in it. And the team doesn’t have to guess how far it can move an idea. That’s what makes a series sustainable for me: every episode benefits from what the expert knows and what the team has learned to notice.
← Back to the Journal