Micah Gelman , the former TV producer who runs AP's global video efforts, offered his thoughts this morning in a presentation for the CNPA on the good, bad and the ugly of video. (His "bad" examples were ugly, indeed.)
One of his key points was something that Debbi Baker, one of my newsbreakers, was making yesterday: The only way to get proficient at shooting and editing video is to do it a lot, that it's not something one can pick up without regular practice.
Better still, he said, "You really want someone focused on video, ... that's their day job."
Some of his other points were well-taken, but probably things this audience already knows: That the five-person local broadcast news crew is history. That bad lighting or bad audio can ruin good video. That it's not a mature business and requires a lot of "under-the-hood" work.
He spoke of how AP had recognized and deployed VJs in major cities around the country, and showed some of the creative work by overseas correspondents, including one China staffer subjecting his palate to fried scorpions and starfish at a sidewalk stand in Beijing; another narrating how China's efforts to clean up the city for the Olympics did away with a lot of the chaos and clutter that makes Beijing a great city.
He said one key to success is recognizing the people you already have on staff who would make for good characters online, people who are clever, creative and fun to watch on video. (Not everyone has those on-camera skills.)
What makes for good online video? Breaking news (yes!). Live streaming. Unique content. Different story angles. Digging deeper (not just duplicating the print story.)
"Breaking news is an incredible traffic driver. If you can be quick, you're going to establish that connection with your viewers and they're going to come back," Gelman said.
What doesn't work? Bad quality (lighting, audio, camera movements.) Talking heads going blah blah blah at a desk. Wallpaper video (non-specific images playing as a background but adding nothing to the story.) Raw video that is not compelling. Video that doesn't tell a story (with a beginning, a middle and an end.) Newscasts (That's what TV is for, not the Web.)
What does he recommend? Find an on-screen character, someone interesting to look at and listen to, either a staffer or a source. Tell a narrowly focused story. Use compelling pictures. Watch motion and emotion. Capture and use natural sounds. Tell a story.
He also mentioned some tools for live streaming of audio that I need to look into.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Great to hear that you're contemplating this. I keep reading about the importance of video advertising and having great video content is essential. We have a good start with the depth of our Sports coverage, but what about some softer stories? Perhaps something related to Smart Living. We already have a great example of this called Walk-in Closet: http://interactives.signonsandiego.com/walkincloset/
ReplyDeleteI think people, mainly women, would really enjoy this content, but right now it is kind of tough to find (like so many things on our site).
Also, why not have a regularly scheduled news update in the morning and afternoon - say, during our peak traffic hours? Just a nice 3-5 minute headline recap and put it right on the Homepage. Ideas, ideas, ideas...
Thanks, Matt -
ReplyDeleteThe regularly scheduled news reports just don't draw traffic. People already have a way to get their appointment news, on TV. And we don't need to reinvent that.
What really works is breaking news and unique content. And things with good shelf life, such as how-to videos or evergreen topics.
Cheers,
tom