What’s the difference between online and broadcast video?
Plenty, I’d say, but judging by some of the online video published by even the biggest news companies, I’d hazard a criticism that no-one quite knows what should be in a good online video.
Before we look at what we can change, let’s consider what we can’t:
1. Size: For TV journalists, size is determined by the size of the viewers’ telly. No problem there then. For online, the YouTube size has become somewhat of a standard, although some other video providers are now giving us a slightly bigger window. Also, as connections get even quicker, it’s safe to assume web video will get bigger too… but for the forseeable future at least, web video is a helluva lot smaller. Important to keep that in mind, always.
2. Quality: On a TV, you don’t have to worry about filesizes, bandwidth or pixellation. It’s irrelevant. But for web, the quality is, in the present day, not up there. So this leaves out some typical production techniques. Captions, for example, sometimes don’t work so well.
3. Length: The web wins on this account — a story can go on for as long as it’s deemed important, be it thirty seconds or thirty minutes. But, like a news article that is written and then edited, do we run the risk of losing ‘tight’ video journalism? I say it’s a danger – sometimes the harsh realities of having a one minute slot on the News at Ten would be enough to force reporters to cut out all but the most relevant segments.
There will be more, but I think those three are most important. Feel free to add your own.
But what I want to ask the blogosphere is what reporting techniques should be dropped when making video for online, and which should be adopted?
My two pence for to kick things off:
Drop: The piece-to-camera. Needless moments of a story that advance the story no further than if it were a simple voice over with more effective footage being shown instead.
Adopt: Extended content. Who says a video story has to be just one video? Produce one clip that edits everything into bitesize chunks, but the provide the raw material for consumption as well, should the reader want to see it. Full interviews, for example, are interesting if you take an added interest in one particular story.
I’m interested it hear what you all think. Inspired by Gnooze and the work of David Dunkley Gyimah, I feel myself leaning towards the art of VideoJournalism — this is the first stage in collecting my thoughts as to whether I’d make a good one.
Video Journalism will save newspapers in 2009
January 15th, 2009In the past twelve months we’ve seen the amount of people watching online video go through the roof. But, unlike the YouTube boom that potentially signalled the end for professional journalism (citizen this, citizen that!), this new round of video habits has one crucial factor: length.
The success of the BBC iPlayer has shown that people are prepared to watch video online for a long time. Half an hour or more. And, in the same way the blogs took off once people were used to writing and conversing on the web, I believe that long-form online video will have a similar such boom, where masses consider half an hour spent watching something on their PC a good use of their time.
What’s more, sites such as the brilliant Vimeo show the eagerness of viewers to lap up some full-screen, HD-quality stuff. There’s no sitting around for big downloads, or trying to keep your eyes strained on an awful, grainy clip so tiny you could put a stamp over it.
Video journalism has finally come of age.
As I write this, the Guardian has no less than three pieces of video on its homepage. The NYTimes led with video earlier today — and has a HUGE video section. So too does the Telegraph. Soon, I’ll predict we’ll see video blossoming into the primary content on newspaper sites. Lead headlines always complimented with a video.
Why? Because for the reader, it’s easily digestible, engaging and interesting.
But more importantly, for the publisher, it could prove to be the money-maker they have long been searching for
Many have written about David Carr’s ludicrious statements suggesting an ‘iTunes for news’. Most are saying it’ll never work — and I agree. Why pay to read news on NYTimes, when I can read the same news in the LA Times? Or the Chicago Tribune? Or ANYWHERE?
But wait a second. What if there was a way to make your news better than everyone else? What if there was a way you could cover the same stories, but cover them so well and in such a way that people come flocking to your site; not because they can’t read it in other places, but because they really want to get your coverage.
Video journalism offers this chance. It doesn’t allow for lifted quotes, for recycled copy or for blind churnalism. It promotes good, inventive journalism.
And the reward? Advertising. Loads of it. Think of it like this: When I was in New Zealand, I regularly logged on to the BBC website to catch up. Of course, being abroad, I got BBC.com, the international, advertising-laden edition. When clicking to watch a short (<30 seconds) clip, I was presented with an advert.
I clicked away. The advert was almost as long as the clip.
But on the other hand, when I’m at home, I watch a lot of 4-on-demand, Channel 4’s catch-up service. Before and during the show, there’ll be adverts a plenty. Do I turn away? No! Because in a half an hour show, two minutes of adverts is more than acceptable. Just like in traditional media, it’s all about ratio. 30 min programme = 1 break. 1 hour programme = 3 breaks. A film = 30 minutes of trailers. Or more if you go to Cineworld.
Video journalism finally solves all the problems:
- How to stay unique — no-one has your pictures
- How to save money — no big production projects here, folks. One man, a camera and a laptop
- How to make money — people don’t mind watching adverts when it comes to long content
In time I’ll be posting my plans for how I aim to get stuck in to video journalism. I drawing inspiration from the likes of David Dunkley Gyimah, and hopefully by utilising my job at the BBC as a means for getting training an experience.
Over the next year, me and a friend will be testing the water. Baby steps, if you will, with the aim of selling two pieces of video journalism to the world’s press. Two isn’t a big number, but it idoesn’t make it any less of a task. All in good time.
9 comments »
Posted in Blogs, Comment, Multimedia, My Work, New Zealand, Newspapers, Social Networking, TV, The BBC, The Future, The Web, video journalism
Tags: 4od BBC iPlayer david dunkley gyimah guardian NYTimes video journalism