Saturday, December 15, 2012

When does online video work?

Tim at Mumbrella asks whether online vide is journalism’s final frontier? He claims there is no definite rulebook as to what works.

The key question - in fact the only question - that needs to be asked is WHY would someone want to watch a video rather than read a transcript or short article with photo(s)?

1. Is it incredibly funny or astoundingly cute visually for at least several seconds?
2. Is it someone so famous/beautiful/sexy that people want to watch them rather than just read their words?
3. Is there an interaction/reaction that cannot easily or as satisfactorily be transcribed?
4. Is it an astounding, amazing, spectacular moving sight?
5. Is it a beautifully crafted and edited piece of moving, and/or musical, visual art?
6. Is it a phenomenal piece of history?

Another way to look at it is "no one needs to hear a policeman speak". Unless he has no clothes, green skin or matinée idol looks, I don’t wish to watch his verbal statement to media, I’m quite happy to read it.

If photos can convey what your video can convey, then use photos (try a slideshow).

Video is never worth it just for the sake of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment