Comments on: Cornering the video market http://alaskaphoto.net/beyond/2008/08/02/cornering-the-video-market/ Multimedia journalism in the Last Frontier Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:07:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Stephen http://alaskaphoto.net/beyond/2008/08/02/cornering-the-video-market/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Stephen Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:08:35 +0000 http://alaskaphoto.net/beyond/?p=126#comment-116 There's a fine line between quality video and video-for-the-sake-of-doing-video and we're frequently on the wrong side of it. Last week was a perfect example: the bear video went up Wednesday and on Friday morning I was shooting an editor-demanded video of a woman's 100th birthday party (NOT compelling). But we need to know how to use the tools. I learn something about the medium every time I shoot a video, whether the end product is interesting or not. If we (the newspaper) are proficient with the cameras and software, we'll be able to use video when the opportunity presents itself (like a bear attack). I'm also becoming less comfortable with predicting which of our videos will be successful. Sure, a bear attacking a moose calf is a sure bet but a video tour of the Target store? It's received over <strike>5000</strike> 6300 views so far, numbers I never would have guessed. Multimedia, including video, is not the miracle tonic that will save newspapers -- though it will be an ingredient -- but that's another topic. There’s a fine line between quality video and video-for-the-sake-of-doing-video and we’re frequently on the wrong side of it. Last week was a perfect example: the bear video went up Wednesday and on Friday morning I was shooting an editor-demanded video of a woman’s 100th birthday party (NOT compelling).

But we need to know how to use the tools. I learn something about the medium every time I shoot a video, whether the end product is interesting or not. If we (the newspaper) are proficient with the cameras and software, we’ll be able to use video when the opportunity presents itself (like a bear attack).

I’m also becoming less comfortable with predicting which of our videos will be successful. Sure, a bear attacking a moose calf is a sure bet but a video tour of the Target store? It’s received over 5000 6300 views so far, numbers I never would have guessed.

Multimedia, including video, is not the miracle tonic that will save newspapers — though it will be an ingredient — but that’s another topic.

]]> By: Marc http://alaskaphoto.net/beyond/2008/08/02/cornering-the-video-market/comment-page-1/#comment-115 Marc Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:49:08 +0000 http://alaskaphoto.net/beyond/?p=126#comment-115 As one of those pesky photographers that questions whether the view stats justify the effort, I feel it necessary to point out just a couple things: 1. Some stories are clearly more appropriate for video and some are not. A bear dragging off a moose calf is compelling video. 2. Your production of the video was good and worth every bit of effort you put into it. It made it a much better, professional product. But let's be real, it got 30k hits because a bear was dragging off a moose calf. It had "holy shit" factor. 3. ADN got that video because a reader saw us as an outlet for video. That's great and your point is well taken. It would follow that the price we've paid to get to that level is many days spent by many people making shoulder-shrug quality videos that get, what, less than a few hundred views. Intelligent people could disagree about whether the ends justify the means. It certainly hasn't been the cure of industry money woes. 4. The initial question is less about stats and more about how we can do the story best, not whether we should do multimedia at all. When I look at a story that calls for multimedia, I ask myself which one services the story best. Audio slideshows do well. For me they've stirred more reader feedback than anything else I've done. So my objection is not doing video at all, it's doing video JUST because it's video. That perpetuates what seems like the biggest false assumption of all, that readers do not appreciate or are not affected by good still photographs. If anything, the stats tells us that's not true everyday. 5. AND FURTHERMORE, I redesigned by blog. Check it. http://scrumtralescent.squarespace.com/ As one of those pesky photographers that questions whether the view stats justify the effort, I feel it necessary to point out just a couple things:

1. Some stories are clearly more appropriate for video and some are not. A bear dragging off a moose calf is compelling video.

2. Your production of the video was good and worth every bit of effort you put into it. It made it a much better, professional product. But let’s be real, it got 30k hits because a bear was dragging off a moose calf. It had “holy shit” factor.

3. ADN got that video because a reader saw us as an outlet for video. That’s great and your point is well taken. It would follow that the price we’ve paid to get to that level is many days spent by many people making shoulder-shrug quality videos that get, what, less than a few hundred views. Intelligent people could disagree about whether the ends justify the means. It certainly hasn’t been the cure of industry money woes.

4. The initial question is less about stats and more about how we can do the story best, not whether we should do multimedia at all. When I look at a story that calls for multimedia, I ask myself which one services the story best. Audio slideshows do well. For me they’ve stirred more reader feedback than anything else I’ve done. So my objection is not doing video at all, it’s doing video JUST because it’s video. That perpetuates what seems like the biggest false assumption of all, that readers do not appreciate or are not affected by good still photographs. If anything, the stats tells us that’s not true everyday.

5. AND FURTHERMORE, I redesigned by blog. Check it.
http://scrumtralescent.squarespace.com/

]]>