You know, you don’t have to do video
Apparently every newspaper that has a bad Web site got some sort of memo that said, “if you just put video on your Web site, you’ll get tons of traffic and be a modern newspaper. It’ll be totally bitchin’.”
But here is the thing: Doing video poorly will only hurt your newspaper. It will cost you money, waste your staff resources and cause viewers to find other, better Web sites. Look at this video from The Morning Call of Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) announcing he is endorsing Hillary Clinton (I know, riveting).
It was shot on a cheap camera with an internal mic and without a tripod. The video doesn’t sound good, doesn’t look that good and — this is rich — someone walks in front of the camera at some point.
Real professional.
Plus the video is just plain boring. This event was not something made for Internet video, especially a clip that is almost two minutes of just press conference footage. It’s not a remotely important or exciting press conference.
I only watched the clip because a reader tipped me off to the bad video and how he felt it hurt the Morning Call’s image. The Morning Call, by the way, is the third largest paper in Pennsylvania with 100,000+ circulation.
Newspapers, don’t do video that isn’t shot well or by someone who knows how to shoot video. You don’t need the fanciest camera, but you should know when to use a tripod and what is worth shooting. Both of those judgments were clearly lacking in this video.
Long before I’d invest in video, I’d do these things: audio clips to add to print stories, photo essays, photo galleries, audio slideshows, databases, flash infographics, blogs, twitter feeds, social features and microsites.
And, of course, I’d make sure my Web site had a good user interface and that all the content was easily searchable.
With video, you are competing against established content providers, like the local news. And that video The Morning Call posted was worse than most of what is on YouTube. When high school and college kids can provide better quality and content, you should really reconsider what you’re doing.
Honestly, what advertiser is going to want to sign up for poor video? We can’t complain that no one wants to pay for our content when we produce content that is worse than what is on free sites like YouTube.
You could have a totally modern news site without video, and video will not suddenly transform your site into something modern. Be smart with your resources, because the industry doesn’t have a lot of room for error.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thank you for mentioning that a searchable site is more important than video. My local paper just came up with a cool entertainment vodcast, but I can never find what I’m looking for on the site, even if I’ve just read the article a few hours before on their Web site. It’s sad when searching through my email is easier than searching through a news site.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
[...] You know, you don’t have to do video. Stating the obvious but seemingly overlooked based on the number of sites apparently doing video for the sake of video. From Pat Thornton’s post: “When high school and college kids can provide better quality and content, you should really reconsider what you’re doing.” [...]
January 26th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I get what you are saying, but to suggest that if you aren’t instantly good at something you should just give it up is off-base. My first videos were not great, and I shot some things that probably weren’t interesting Web video. But those experiences taught me valuable lessons that led to better quality, more interesting stories and higher production value. Yes, some video being generated by news Web sites is not great, and you have to know when to tell the reporter, ‘Hey, this just isn’t good enough to go on the Web site. Let me give you some tips for next time …’. But if the journalists are diligent, increase their skills and learn from their mistakes, it will get better. Many newspaper staffs are filled with journalists who were in the business before Web video was practical, so it’s just not realistic to expect they will instantly pick up a camera and shoot great Web video. But they are (for the most part) smart people who can learn to do good, and hopefully great, work. I do agree with you that video is no magic bullet. If you have a professional photo staff and aren’t building photo galleries and audio slideshows, you are way behind the curve. Reporters need to ask what tools are right for the story they are trying to tell - words, sounds, sights, interaction, etc. - rather than trying to tack an audio or video component onto everything, whether it fits or not.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
There are two major problems with video and newspapers.
1. Many slap on anything just to say they have video.
2. Too many videos mimic TV News. Video on the net is not TV. Its a new medium that should treated differently.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am
[...] other reporting techniques - something that will soothe new media journalist Pat Thornton, whose latest blog post urges newspaper sites to only use video when the quality is [...]
January 29th, 2008 at 12:43 am
[...] posts becoming popular simultaneously, “Innovation is the path to salvation” and “You know, you don’t have to do video.” Plus, I’m still seeing a post-Poynter [...]
January 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I think you do need to do video. There is no reason not to. Forget ROI, forget the business case.Forget the kit or the who. Do it just because you can
The really key thing is how you do it. But make no mistake you have to do it.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Search is more important.
Video is still important.
Searchable video is killer.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the content and everything to do with the domination of local search terms. People must first be able to discover your stuff. Then they must be able to use your stuff. Then, and only then, must they actually like it.
This is how you gain and control market share.
Too many MSM sites are working backwards and this is exactly why they’re getting clobbered and the money is flowing out of their cities.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:11 am
[...] The Journalism Iconoclast » You know, you don’t have to do video [...]
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
It seems a little bit like you’re contradicting your statements about innovation with this post. At least the Morning Call is trying. I’d say they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out better video strategies, but it’s not enough to say “you don’t have to do video.”