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.